Was this the camera or the lab?

[captainslack]

Attached are two photos taken from the third roll I've ran through my FED 2d. The first since a DIY fix on the shutter dial. NONE of the other rolls before the fix turned out this bad, but shakey. The film used was Ilford XP2 and, due to time constraints, I had to take it to a local drugstore one-hour that I don't normally use. Hence, I'm leaning toward Crickett (the girl running the one-hour) messing things up and not my FED having another problem. However, I'm leaving for San Diego tomorrow and the FED is coming with me, so I'd like to know for sure!

BTW, the majority of the pics turned out like this and rest were REALLY grainy, which isn't like XP2 at all. Also, the striations in the prints run down to the sprocket holes.

 

[FrankS]

Geez, I don't know!

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Sure doesn't look like the usual FED light leaks. In fact, they dont look like light leaks at all.

It looks as though the the film wasn't evenly bathed in developer.

 

[the sloth]

bad development

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Oh wait, I read your post again. Maybe the shutter dial had a light seal? I don't recall seeing one in my FED 2.

Still, I think if there was a light leak from under the shutter dial it would be streaks coming up from the bottom of the frame. Also, if I recall correctly the shutter dial sits inside a nice dark space beneath the top plate.

A mystery to be solved!

 

[FrankS]

I'm sure Crickett has other good points besides developing film properly.

 

[Kin Lau]

Are the neg's kinda milky? It almost looks like what happens if it wasn't fixed properly... perhaps she saw b&w and actually tried to use a b&w dev instead of c41?

 

[captainslack]

Kin: No, she knew it was C-41 B&W because she almost called me back when I was walking out of the store after dropping it off. And, no, the negs aren't milky, but awfully thin.

Frank: I'm sure she does. From looking at her, I'm sure she's popular with local high school boys, but she should avoid a career in darkroom technology. 😀

Bob: There wasn't any film in the camera when I did the fix on the dial.

At this point, I'm about 95% sure this is bad development. From now on I'm sending my film off to professionals. I don't mind waiting awhile if it's done right! Dale Labs here I come!

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I'm betting the developer (person not liquid).

Oh, I definitely didn't think you would repair the camera with film in it. That's something I would do. 😉

 

[tetrisattack]

Looks like nasty bromide drag from a developing-tank light leak combined with over-enthusiastic agitation.

I caused something similar to this once. I thought they were stress marks; I had buckled the film into an accordion when I forced it into the jaws of a leader retriever. The streaks only affected the tail end of the film, the part that was damaged, and nothing was particularly overexposed. The pattern was extremely similar to what you posted, so now I'm left wondering if the buckling was really the cause. I used a Bessa-R, though, it doesn't have a history of light leaks, and only part of the roll was affected, making it unlikely that my tank was improperly sealed or something.

Man, what a conundrum. 🙂

 

[sf]

I would say bad labwork - development of the negative. Or are these scans of prints? If it is prints, it might be light leaked paper, but if it is negatives, the development was bad. It does not look like a camera issue.

 

[jdos2]

Developer. Not the camera, the marks are too even and coincident with the film sprocket holes.

And besides, I got marks a little similar to these with Diafine in a plastic tank- not enough agitation in my case.

 

[back alley]

i'm not a high school boy but maybe a photo of miss crickett....🙂 ?

😉joe

 

[djon]

What kind of minilab uses reels? Hard to do that destruction with a continuous processor, but it appears true that minilabs are starting to give bonuses when Bozo or Cricket comes up with a new way to damage film.

Dog's truth: Literally just before this thread I was over at the B&H site, pondering C41 chemistry.

 

[doubs43]

As I recall, those exact marks are caused by a lack of agitation during the development stage. It would also help explain the lack of contrast.

Walker

 

[captainslack]

i'm not a high school boy but maybe a photo of miss crickett....🙂 ?

😉joe

I'll see what I can do, if it can be accomplished without me landing in jail or the hospital. 😉

 

[titrisol]

That lookks like a bad-development problem.
The marks coincide with the sprockets.

HA HA Mitch's and the Birckyard

Attached are two photos taken from the third roll I've ran through my FED 2d. The first since a DIY fix on the shutter dial. NONE of the other rolls before the fix turned out this bad, but shakey. The film used was Ilford XP2 and, due to time constraints, I had to take it to a local drugstore one-hour that I don't normally use. Hence, I'm leaning toward Crickett (the girl running the one-hour) messing things up and not my FED having another problem. However, I'm leaving for San Diego tomorrow and the FED is coming with me, so I'd like to know for sure!

BTW, the majority of the pics turned out like this and rest were REALLY grainy, which isn't like XP2 at all. Also, the striations in the prints run down to the sprocket holes.

 

[Fred]

I've seen similar things to this when the bleach fix is exhausted, cured it by re bleach fixing. Having said that the thin negs imply more of a developer failure.

Unfortunately a lot of us mortals a dependant on the 'expertise' of the lab operator knowing the freshness of the chemistry.

Crickett sounds good though.

 

[FrankS]

This incident supports my argument that photographers, especially those starting out and learning how they can influence the final results, should either develop and print their own B+W, or use colour slide film.

 

[titrisol]

Frank, that is an excellent point.

Unfortunately in this digital-crazy age wet darkrooms are replaced with mac-rooms