What happened to my film from my holiday...?

[Richard G]

This is a roll of Ektar loaded in a previously completely reliable IIIf with collapsible Elmar which was not removed the whole time the film was in the camera. The roll came out of its box into the camera, and out of the camera, indoors, and into a dark bag and remained there till passed over the desk at the lab.

Some pictures on the roll are fine, but very few. Some are severely degraded by extraneous light. In some the sprocket holes shadows are nearer the edge and they are not always parallel to the edge of the frame. in many there is a darker bar, sometimes oblique, of better exposure and this varies as to which part of the 35mm frame it affects.


Is this the camera, something I've done, a fault of the film canister or is it a lab error?

Thanks for your help. This was a batch of photographs, mostly 120 film, with this the only 35mm. All the 120 was sort of OK, all Ektar so far, but only one roll had good colour scanning.


Help. What went wrong with this roll of Ektar in my usually reliable IIIf??? by Richard, on Flickr



000042.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



This one taken in the evening early in the roll:


000030.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



Later in the roll, different to others:


000033.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



Different still:



000038.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



One of the last few frames:


000054.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



The last frame, at least as scanned. It is actually half of the last frame and the unexposed film beyond that in fact. Note the drooping of the sprocket holes down to the right, suggesting to me a possible in camera problem but the variability of the changes makes me think it is not the camera.


000060.jpg by Richard, on Flickr

But here are the two preceding frames:


000059.jpg by Richard, on Flickr



000058.jpg by Richard, on Flickr

 

[shimokita]

Who did the scanning (you or the lab) and do the negatives look the same as these digital files? Are there any broken pieces of film in the camera (or in the lab's development equipment / process - if so there might be claims from other customers)?

 

[Richard G]

The lab did the scanning and the development. The uncut negative roll looks like the scans. It is easier to see from the roll itself the variability of how the frames are affected. There was no broken film in the camera. At the very very least they did not actually scan the whole of the last frame, but neither was there any comment from them about this roll. Surely it must have been noticed.

 

[jarski]

My uneducated guess: film dev tank loading error.

 

[ian_watts]

I'm not sure how it is possible to get "images" of your own sprocket holes on your film so my (also uneducated) guess is that your film somehow has got messed up with another film in development. What sort of lab was it: dip and dunk or a minilab?

 

[Rayt]

I doubt this happened in the camera because the interposed piece of film is processed so it must have been entangled with yours during processing.

 

[Richard G]

Thanks guys. I hadn't even considered that a neighbouring film is putting those sprocket holes onto mine.

 

[grouchos_tash]

If the sprocket holes are worse at the end of the roll, then that film was on the outside of the roll and the unaffected film was on the inside, like it would be inside the canister when you dropped it off. That would suggest to me that the film was exposed to some light soon after the canister was popped open, but before it was totally unraveled???

 

[sepiareverb]

Certainly lab error.

 

[oftheherd]

I am uncertain as well. Your film and the offending film were somehow in close proximity to each other. You wouldn't likely get that effect if it were during development. If they somehow touched, without being exposed to light, you wouldn't be able to see the sprocket holes nor the frame separations. I have had film touch itself during processing. You can get some really funky spot looking blemishes, but not sprocket holes and frame separation.

In the photo of the girl running along the wave, the frame marks and sprocket holes are not clearly defined, so they couldn't have been touching when whatever happened did happen.

Is the roll of film returned to you cut or rolled up?

If done during the scanning, then the returned film shouldn't be effected that way. The most you should be able to see would be the occasional scratch if they rubbed against each other.

It couldn't be film loose in your camera. The effect would have been much stronger I think. And again, no frame separation marks although you could get sprocket marks. Film touching in the camera? Not likely, undeveloped film is usually too dark due to anti-halation backing, and like I said, no development, no frame separation marks.

EDIT: It would be interesting to know if they tank developed or used a flatbed scanner, or a scanner where they must insert cut film strips. I would not leave the film with them at this point, but if they are close, you might ask them if they have any idea. Hopefully they would try to BS you.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Lab error. Film exposed to light while loosely rolled. In the camera, film couldn't be that loose.

 

[Richard G]

Thanks for all the input. I have the whole roll and it looks like all these scans, except the last frame which wasn’t properly scanned and so includes a bit of the film before the canister. Some of the firsts shots on the roll are the worst affected (not posted here) and have no sprocket ghost holes. It’s interesting that it is through the holes that the image is better not the other way round. Perhaps light reflecting off celluloid was the source of the overexposure. The sudden bars of satisfactory exposure puzzle me, oblique and not at the same position from one frame to another but seemingly always the same width.

 

[julio1fer]

Lab disaster.

 

[farlymac]

I'll go with it being a lab fault. You see the bars where the film is perfectly exposed, and then the ghosting either side of them, it has to be an exposure fault while in the developing machine, like someone took the lid off while it was running (the perfectly exposed bars would be the areas where the rollers in the machine protected the film from the additional exposure).

Go back and raise bloody hell!

And never, ever leave before checking out what they give you.

PF

 

[Richard G]

I'll go with it being a lab fault. You see the bars where the film is perfectly exposed, and then the ghosting either side of them, it has to be an exposure fault while in the developing machine, like someone took the lid off while it was running (the perfectly exposed bars would be the areas where the rollers in the machine protected the film from the additional exposure).

Go back and raise bloody hell!

And never, ever leave before checking out what they give you.

PF

I suspect you are spot on here. Your description of the rollers shielding the film from light seems to fit. I'm still puzzled about the sprocket holes seeing better exposure.

And yes, I should inspect the rolls in the shop before leaving and will in future.

 

[sebastel]

was the film exposed to any x-ray?

 

[Richard G]

No X-ray since purchase. Bought along with other ISO 100 and 400 films with no problems.

 

[teddy]

Get your money back from the Lab or a new roll.

 

[Richard G]

Yes, that much is assured I think. Didn’t miss the kiss at a wedding but it’s a pity to miss any.

 

[retinax]

Wouldn't exposure to light affect the film more through the sprocket holes? Your film has something going on that leaves an image of sprocket holes unaffected. It's got to be during development.