Scratches on negs

[marcr1230]

I have been getting back into film lately and am working on my techniques. I noticed some fine scratches or defects in my negs

My process is pretty basic, and I have seen this on rolls from more than one camera. The image attached is a section of a FP4+ negative. developed at home, with DD-X, dried after using photo-flo in distilled water , with no squeegee , just hang'em to dry.


I'm thinking that a scratch would show up as black in the photo, this is more line a hair or the neg, but thinner than a hair. nothing is visible on the neg by inspection. I've tried cleaning lightly with a anti-static brush before scanning and also without.

I'm thinking either the scanner (new coolscan 5000) or perhaps some aspect of processing. this particular photo was taken on a new Leica. I doubt this happens when I load the reel, as other images show multiple lines, all very faint. I have also seem a line or two that are not horizontally running with the film.

Anyway - any thoughts you all have are appreciated.

This is the enlargement, notice the fine white line across the lens:
As a side note, I love that the resolution is so high I can read the serial number of the lens

This is the whole image:

 

[dfoo]

I don't see any scratches... that being said, are the scratches length wise on the negative? I've found several of those on mine, and I'm pretty sure its caused by the negative sleeves. A small piece of dirt is on either the neg, or the sleeve and then putting the neg in the sleeves leaves a long scratch on the neg and the dirt is dragged along the length of the neg.

 

[marcr1230]

I thought about this too. I will try to scan before putting into sleeves, then again after
It seems ironic that archival sleeve would hurt the negs
The scratch is thru the lens a bit below the middle

 

[ChrisN]

A very slight scratch! I get fewer scratches by practicing patience - leave the strip of negs to dry for 24 hours before handling it allows the film to harden, with fewer scratches.

 

[David William White]

Great images.

I don't want to rain on anyones parade, and I'm not picking on the original poster, but something has been on my mind for a while, but take it only as providing some perspective on expectations:

After a couple thousand rolls of film, over half of that hand-processed, I'm still tickled pink that there is some image recorded and it bears some vague resemblance to whatever was parked in front of my lens. With roll film in a beaten up 20 year old camera, you wrench the film frame by frame out of the canister, and then you wind it back in, pulling it across a pressure plate and through felt cushions in both directions. Then you manhandle it into a reel and dunk it into some alkalai and acidic baths, and then wait till it dries in stale and dusty air, etc. etc. That, of course, on top of a high-speed manufacturing process that coats, cuts, perforates, and packages the film into canisters.

There's going to be pits and scratches and so forth. A professional portrait photographer I know, who makes exceptional 20x24 prints by hand, spends upwards of an hour on each print touching up. More on that in a bit.

I suspect that some people come over from digital, itching for that 'film quality' and are often surprised by how many flaws reveal themselves once they have a high-res scan. If they had a dead pixel on their camera sensor, they'd raise bloody hell with their dealer and get a replacement. And so they should.

I'd like to suggest that if one doesn't scan imperfect negatives, and one does projection or contact printing instead, then many of these flaws simply do not present themselves, at least not to the naked eye examining a print at comfortable viewing distance. Projection lenses are not pinpoint sources of light, but have definite apertures that allow light from different paths to converge to the same point on a print. The paper development process also helps attenuate imperfections like hairline scratches. In addition, darkroom printers sometimes use a little diffusion to 'soften' unwanted details in their prints. Then, we bleach and spot. We know what to do, and we don't agonize over it, because we see it every day. And I didn't even mention the negatives that we tossed.

Digital technologies like high resolution scanners are very, very, very good, and along with digital cameras, have obviously have taken photography to a whole new level in detail, perfection, and exactness. We can now view our negatives or images at unprecedented levels of enlargement and scrutiny. The darkroom printer would inspect a slide or negative on a light table with a ridiculously feeble 10x loupe. But that was good enough. Scanners find all the damnable flaws.

There are a lot of threads on this and other boards that indicate digital state-of-the-art expectations being applied to what is essentially a 100 year old technology.

I'm not saying we have to settle for crap when we shoot film, and good practice and process (big three films, CLA's, proper handling and washing) helps us secure a greater number of printable negatives, just please don't apply the same set of expectations to film as you do to digital. Some 'allowances' must be made when using film.

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to be so long and pedantic, but hopefully it contains some measure of perspective that some readers of this thread will take into consideration.

D.

 

[David William White]

Sorry, I didn't mean to kill this thread.

 

[marcr1230]

No problem David, you pointed out an important fact, my expectations may be unreasonable, there is a lot of labor that goes into creating a fine and clean wet print. I'm just working on my skills, and trying to get the best/cleanest negs possible. I got some ideas from this thread and will report back tomorrow after allowing this mornings rolls to dry for 24 hrs and then scan a couple in before putting them in sleeves.

 

[bkrystad]

I agree that there are many places in the process where scratches can happen, I just try my best to do no harm ... and yet I often do.

Here's an odd one, though: a month or so back I spooled a roll of HP5 out of its canister onto a reel and developed it, only to find a perfectly straight scratch 1/3 the way up the frame the whole length of my film. I assumed that it was due to debris caught in the felt seal on the canister during shooting, rewinding, or loading the reel.

Later on a whim, I popped the top off the canister and took out the spool with the clipped off tail end taped to it inside. I found the same scratch continued across the tail of film that had never been out of the canister! So, manufacturing defect? Sheesh. I don't need someone else's help damaging my film.

Anyway, stuff happens. I don't get too fussed about it.

 

[marcr1230]

Well , I let the latest rolls dry for 24 hours, then scanned one before inserting it in the sleeve. No scratch. Then put in in the sleeve. A day later I took it out and scanned again and Voila, a scratch. Either the sleeve or the eject from the scanner is scratching them. I use the common archival 5 frames by 7 rows plastic binder sheets. If this is causing the issue, what can I use instead ?

Pre-Sleeve, first scan, without scratch



Post-Sleeve, second scan, with scratch (mid-ear and to the right:

 

[David William White]

I do not believe this scratch would not be apparent in an exhibition darkroom print.

 

[StanSmith]

You can't avoid scratches and dust. It is much easier to clone them out on PS now. Remember the days when we need to buy the right spotting ink with the right tone and then dilute it and apply in layers until just right?