Need help - (film camera) - negatives scuffed, scans

[MinAZ]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:






Scuffing can be seen on the lower right in the background area.



This was done by a local small shop in Glendale, AZ. I normally send out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

 

[MinAZ]

ne1?

 

[christom]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:


Scuffing can be seen on the lower right in the background area.

This was done by a local small shop in Glendale, AZ. I normally send out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

Hard to tell for sure with the low resolution sample, but it looks more like some kind of moisture damage, and maybe even fungus. Is the damage similar in size and location on each frame? That's some of the worse kind of damage to try and correct whether in a scanner, like mine with infrared dust removal, or in software. A real shame. I've never had such damage from a lab in all the years I shot film. Have you shown the lab the results of their work?

It's too late to do anything about it now but you could try and use some 99% isopropyl alcohol and gently wipe the affected area, just in case it isn't a scuff or what I described. Be very gentle because if the emulsion is damaged by fungus wiping it too hard could remove the affected area of the emulsion. If that doesn't do anything then your are stuck trying to fix it in software. That sample image would be very easy to fix since it isn't affecting much detail.

--

My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:


Scuffing can be seen on the lower right in the background area.

This was done by a local small shop in Glendale, AZ. I normally send out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

First of all talk to your lab, let them explain.

To me it looks like watermarks of some kind; is the marking at the same place on every frame?

You could take an unimportant frame and soak it for 10-15min in 500ml distilled water and 2 drops of washing up liquid; then hang the film with small clips at an angle so the solution drips off.

If the marks are in the same place it is damaged if the marks change or hopefully disappear it is the final rinse that had debris in it and I'd take it back for them to wash (they'll have the correct stabiliser)

This can be due to worn exit rollers (act like a squeegee before drying) or dirty last bath or both

Take them back to the lab.

 

[christom]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:


Scuffing can be seen on the lower right in the background area.

This was done by a local small shop in Glendale, AZ. I normally send out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

Hard to tell for sure with the low resolution sample, but it looks more like some kind of moisture damage, and maybe even fungus. Is the damage similar in size and location on each frame? That's some of the worse kind of damage to try and correct whether in a scanner, like mine with infrared dust removal, or in software. A real shame. I've never had such damage from a lab in all the years I shot film. Have you shown the lab the results of their work?

It's too late to do anything about it now but you could try and use some 99% isopropyl alcohol and gently wipe the affected area, just in case it isn't a scuff or what I described. Be very gentle because if the emulsion is damaged by fungus wiping it too hard could remove the affected area of the emulsion. If that doesn't do anything then your are stuck trying to fix it in software. That sample image would be very easy to fix since it isn't affecting much detail.

Forgot to add, try wiping a frame that is least valuable to you first.

--
My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

 

[christom]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:


Scuffing can be seen on the lower right in the background area.

This was done by a local small shop in Glendale, AZ. I normally send out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

First of all talk to your lab, let them explain.

To me it looks like watermarks of some kind; is the marking at the same place on every frame?

You could take an unimportant frame and soak it for 10-15min in 500ml distilled water and 2 drops of washing up liquid; then hang the film with small clips at an angle so the solution drips off.

If the marks are in the same place it is damaged if the marks change or hopefully disappear it is the final rinse that had debris in it and I'd take it back for them to wash (they'll have the correct stabiliser)

This can be due to worn exit rollers (act like a squeegee before drying) or dirty last bath or both

Take them back to the lab.

As much as I don't ever want to go back to film, it feels good talking about it.

--
My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

 

[hotdog321]

Are you sure the felt on the film cassette was clean? How about the felt and interior film transport of the camera? Scratches and scuffs were common on film and much of it did not come from processing.

When scanning, Digital ICE software can help a lot with reasonable flaws.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:

out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

First of all talk to your lab, let them explain.

To me it looks like watermarks of some kind; is the marking at the same place on every frame?

You could take an unimportant frame and soak it for 10-15min in 500ml distilled water and 2 drops of washing up liquid; then hang the film with small clips at an angle so the solution drips off.

If the marks are in the same place it is damaged if the marks change or hopefully disappear it is the final rinse that had debris in it and I'd take it back for them to wash (they'll have the correct stabiliser)

This can be due to worn exit rollers (act like a squeegee before drying) or dirty last bath or both

Take them back to the lab.

As much as I don't ever want to go back to film, it feels good talking about it.

Well I still shoot it and develop colour myself–I find it relaxing

I have seen these watermarks before as I had my own lab and minilab (one of the first in the UK)

Every Friday (more often in Summer) we would take out the stabiliser rack, drain the stab and replace those top rollers to keep the film mirror finished.

Here is a slide of my 1982 Pako-Copal film processor undergoing the Friday clean up, sharp eyed people will see a 'clean-up' film in the rack.

Image from 1983-4 I think...

A Pako film processor note the Noritsu disc attachment which used overflow from the mother (C41a)

 

[christom]

I just got back a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 from developing, and the underside (emulsion) side of the film is scuffed on almost every frame. Since I ordered scans along with the developing, you can clearly see the effect of the scuffing on the photos. Here is an example:

out to a big shop by mail order but thought I'd support local. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

First of all talk to your lab, let them explain.

To me it looks like watermarks of some kind; is the marking at the same place on every frame?

You could take an unimportant frame and soak it for 10-15min in 500ml distilled water and 2 drops of washing up liquid; then hang the film with small clips at an angle so the solution drips off.

If the marks are in the same place it is damaged if the marks change or hopefully disappear it is the final rinse that had debris in it and I'd take it back for them to wash (they'll have the correct stabiliser)

This can be due to worn exit rollers (act like a squeegee before drying) or dirty last bath or both

Take them back to the lab.

As much as I don't ever want to go back to film, it feels good talking about it.

Well I still shoot it and develop colour myself–I find it relaxing

I never developed my own film, since it was so cheap to have a lab do it, but I did have my own darkroom, which I did find very relaxing, meditative, and enjoyable. I now get much of that feeling working in Lighhtroom on my big iMac. I did give up on the whole inkjet thing, except for big b/w, which I print to an Epson 1400 with aftermarket inks. For my other b/w and color prints I went back to traditional paper and now get my prints done by mail through Adorama to Kodak Endura paper. Much cheaper, much less delicate to handling, and true continuous tone.

I have seen these watermarks before as I had my own lab and minilab (one of the first in the UK)

Yeah, it definitely looked at least like moisture stains but with the low resolution sample it also looks a bit like fungus. Hopefully its just some moisture stains that can be wiped or rinsed away.

Every Friday (more often in Summer) we would take out the stabiliser rack, drain the stab and replace those top rollers to keep the film mirror finished.

Here is a slide of my 1982 Pako-Copal film processor undergoing the Friday clean up, sharp eyed people will see a 'clean-up' film in the rack.

Image from 1983-4 I think...

A Pako film processor note the Noritsu disc attachment which used overflow from the mother (C41a)

Nice. I would bet most people posting to this site weren't even born yet.

--
My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

 

[March Of The Tripods]

Your first mistake was not shooting digital. Your second mistake was not get the raspberry in focus. But lets not cry over spilt milk, we can all learn from our mistakes...

 

[christom]

Your first mistake was not shooting digital. Your second mistake was not get the raspberry in focus. But lets not cry over spilt milk, we can all learn from our mistakes...

I'm very pro-digital myself, but him shooting film and getting proper focus are other topics.

 

[March Of The Tripods]

Your first mistake was not shooting digital. Your second mistake was not get the raspberry in focus. But lets not cry over spilt milk, we can all learn from our mistakes...

I'm very pro-digital myself, but him shooting film and getting proper focus are other topics.

Hey hey, calm down. Im just reporting what I see, nothing wrong with the truth.

 

[christom]

Your first mistake was not shooting digital. Your second mistake was not get the raspberry in focus. But lets not cry over spilt milk, we can all learn from our mistakes...

I'm very pro-digital myself, but him shooting film and getting proper focus are other topics.

Hey hey, calm down. Im just reporting what I see, nothing wrong with the truth.

I'm not in a state of mind that requires me to calm down just because I said those are other topics.

 

[Henry Falkner]

Hard to tell for sure with the low resolution sample, but it looks more like some kind of moisture damage, and maybe even fungus. Is the damage similar in size and location on each frame? That's some of the worse kind of damage to try and correct whether in a scanner, like mine with infrared dust removal, or in software. A real shame. I've never had such damage from a lab in all the years I shot film. Have you shown the lab the results of their work?

It's too late to do anything about it now but you could try and use some 99% isopropyl alcohol and gently wipe the affected area, just in case it isn't a scuff or what I described. Be very gentle because if the emulsion is damaged by fungus wiping it too hard could remove the affected area of the emulsion. If that doesn't do anything then your are stuck trying to fix it in software. That sample image would be very easy to fix since it isn't affecting much detail.

--

My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

MinAZ is not responding to the answers I note.

I was a film technician in one of my previous lives, particularly with transparency sheet film (camera and duplicate). As already stated, it is a bit ambiguous judging from the scan. In my film processing days, the first problem was too low a concentration of the first stop bath. This caused insufficient black saturation due to fogging (the first developer kept working in the stop bath). I also increased the concentration of the second stop bath after the colour developer. This helped the following bleach solution. A good flowing rinse following the bleach ensured the fixer would work properly.

To salvage the existing Ektar films, I would take them again through the process from the bleach onwards. This should also reform the emulsion. I would NOT use isopropyl alcohol on the emulsion side.

After that, the scanner ideally should have diffused illumination, which would disguise any remaining scuffing. Scanners that allow scanning of 3-D objects might have that quality.

I do appreciate that new small film labs often have to re-invent the wheel.

Henry

 

[christom]

Hard to tell for sure with the low resolution sample, but it looks more like some kind of moisture damage, and maybe even fungus. Is the damage similar in size and location on each frame? That's some of the worse kind of damage to try and correct whether in a scanner, like mine with infrared dust removal, or in software. A real shame. I've never had such damage from a lab in all the years I shot film. Have you shown the lab the results of their work?

It's too late to do anything about it now but you could try and use some 99% isopropyl alcohol and gently wipe the affected area, just in case it isn't a scuff or what I described. Be very gentle because if the emulsion is damaged by fungus wiping it too hard could remove the affected area of the emulsion. If that doesn't do anything then your are stuck trying to fix it in software. That sample image would be very easy to fix since it isn't affecting much detail.

--

My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree.If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

MinAZ is not responding to the answers I note.

I was a film technician in one of my previous lives, particularly with transparency sheet film (camera and duplicate). As already stated, it is a bit ambiguous judging from the scan. In my film processing days, the first problem was too low a concentration of the first stop bath. This caused insufficient black saturation due to fogging (the first developer kept working in the stop bath). I also increased the concentration of the second stop bath after the colour developer. This helped the following bleach solution. A good flowing rinse following the bleach ensured the fixer would work properly.

To salvage the existing Ektar films, I would take them again through the process from the bleach onwards. This should also reform the emulsion. I would NOT use isopropyl alcohol on the emulsion side.

Why not? That's a Kodak approved way to clean film without running it through again. I've been doing it for years. It just needs to be 99%. With enough careful soaking and wiping I can take film from having dust that will not brush off to being clean enough to produce a near flawless scan. I've never damaged film in that way. I would avoid doing it with fungus damage, where the emulsion is already damaged to the point where it is ready to come off.

That said, I would let the lab try first.

From http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/cis145/cis145.shtml



--
My response to you ends if you resort to trolling and flaming. Criticizing this signature means you are well on the path to doing just that. Accusing me of being a troll means you are doing just that. Stick to the message, not the messenger. Anyone that truly respects what forums are all about will agree. If you decide to get back to the topic then I may once again respond.

 

[MinAZ]

I just wanted to post a quick update on this.

First I am pretty amazed by the comment stating that I have not responded to the replies. It has been all of, what, 9 hours since I last entered into this thread? I am not able to constantly monitor the thread because my life is quite hectic at this moment, but I will get there.

Second, I do appreciate the replies. However, here is the issue: there is no way for me to really show the condition of the negatives as they not visible in photos. But on the underside of the negative, there is SCUFFING visible to the naked eye. Therefore, it does not appear to be fungus or water. The best I can describe it, is it looks like what plexiglass (i.e. plastic) would look like if you rubbed it against something abrasive. Now this is what it LOOKS like but I am not sure that it is for certain that it is an abrasion. One thing is that in a few adjacent frames, there is some consistency in where the scuff mark is - i.e. it will appear in the same place in a few frames. It is not in ALL the frames, but most of them. After a few frames, it will seem to change location.

Another note on the development process, I think the photo store uses one of those big Fuji developers rather than the traditional darkroom method to develop color. They used to have a darkroom but have since gotten rid of it since the demise of B&W film (I develop my own B&W which thankfully have saved my other negatives).

I returned to the photo store and made a complaint. They are mystified as to what might have caused the problem but have promised to let a tech look at it. I promise to keep everyone posted if I find out the answer.

Thanks again for all the helpful replies.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Second, I do appreciate the replies. However, here is the issue: there is no way for me to really show the condition of the negatives as they not visible in photos. But on the underside of the negative, there is SCUFFING visible to the naked eye. Therefore, it does not appear to be fungus or water. The best I can describe it, is it looks like what plexiglass (i.e. plastic) would look like if you rubbed it against something abrasive.

Have you shown this to them?

Now this is what it LOOKS like but I am not sure that it is for certain that it is an abrasion. One thing is that in a few adjacent frames, there is some consistency in where the scuff mark is - i.e. it will appear in the same place in a few frames. It is not in ALL the frames, but most of them. After a few frames, it will seem to change location.

Then I'd think camera scratching in transport between cassette and spool, even over re-winding the film in the cassette.

Another note on the development process, I think the photo store uses one of those big Fuji developers rather than the traditional darkroom method to develop color.

If they used an enlarger the'd have to charge you $200 per film to print, those minilabs have been the standard for 30+ years in the industry.

The other option is to have the films developed in a Dip and dunk and then printed by machine which is what I do if I don't develop my own.

They used to have a darkroom but have since gotten rid of it since the demise of B&W film (I develop my own B&W which thankfully have saved my other negatives).

They wouldn't have been crazy enough to hand print print 6x4 prints in the darkroom, it was just for B&W which was lower throughput (and more expensive).

I returned to the photo store and made a complaint. They are mystified as to what might have caused the problem but have promised to let a tech look at it. I promise to keep everyone posted if I find out the answer.

Thanks again for all the helpful replies.

I'm sure they will come up with the answer, showing it to them is the right thing, if they admit blame their liability is a replacement film and processing.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

MinAZ is not responding to the answers I note.

I was a film technician in one of my previous lives, particularly with transparency sheet film (camera and duplicate). As already stated, it is a bit ambiguous judging from the scan.

Agreed.

In my film processing days, the first problem was too low a concentration of the first stop bath. This caused insufficient black saturation due to fogging (the first developer kept working in the stop bath).

What second stop bath are you talking about? C41 normally goes from developer straight to the bleach, some older processes had a wash between them but never a stop.

Insufficient black saturation due to fogging? You're not making sense, the saturation is driven by dyes in the developer and is fixed, Luco cyan dye is removed by the bleaching.

Fogging INCREASES density

I also increased the concentration of the second stop bath after the colour developer. This helped the following bleach solution. A good flowing rinse following the bleach ensured the fixer would work properly.

Well the bleach should be acid and must not be washed before fixing in fact you can combine the bleach and fix step.

To salvage the existing Ektar films, I would take them again through the process from the bleach onwards. This should also reform the emulsion.

It won't emulsion damage cant be 'reformed' it swells when wet but when dry...

I would NOT use isopropyl alcohol on the emulsion side.

Agree

 

[christom]

I would NOT use isopropyl alcohol on the emulsion side.

Agree

You're both wrong. It's a Kodak approved method of cleaning film. I've never damaged film cleaning with 99% isopropyl alcohol, and I've been doing it since the film days.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

I would NOT use isopropyl alcohol on the emulsion side.

Agree

You're both wrong. It's a Kodak approved method of cleaning film. I've never damaged film cleaning with 99% isopropyl alcohol, and I've been doing it since the film days.

--

Not wrong just of a different opinion. Most detritus on films is water based so the alcohol is of limited use. We did occasionally use it for tar spots (from developer) but found it leaves residue especially the sort you get from drug stores as it too low purity.

Kodak do approve of it but really only for tar, watermarks and organic material won't shift using it.

PEC was better

Link to PEC 12

and cleaner and what we used in my lab, never use alcohol on older films as it acts as a solvent.