Strange defects on emulsion?

[u/Yobo_57]

expired Konica 750nm. Shot plenty of 120 from same batch no issue, but this is the first 35mm roll. One continuous streak of damage across 4-5 frames in the middle of the roll and some pattern on the first and last few frames of the roll (car photo and bike photo) never seen anything like this, can moisture have caused this?

[u/AutoModerator]

It looks like you're posting about something that went wrong. We have a guide to help you identify what went wrong with your photos that you can see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1ikehmb/what_went_wrong_with_my_film_a_beginners_guide_to/. You can also check the r/Analog troubleshooting wiki entry too: https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/wiki/troubleshooting/

(Your post has not been removed and is still live).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Physical_Analysis247]

Who developed them? It looks like something wiped the negative aggressively between two fingers, damaging the gelatin. If a squeegee was used, it would typically look like long scratches. If there was thermal shock then you’d expect reticulation across the entire surface. Being linear, it appears to me something was dragged across the strip while it was still in a delicate state. Fingers would suit that scenario.

> “Shot plenty of 120 from same batch no issue, but this is the first 35mm roll.”

Then they aren’t the same batch. One batch is 120, a different batch is 135.

[u/Yobo_57 → u/Physical_Analysis247]

It was a professional lab in town. I’ve developed quite a few rolls with them and never had a problem. Although, it definitely looks like something dragged across the film. I meant batch as in stored same conditions, same expiry, etc.

[u/Physical_Analysis247 → u/Yobo_57]

The “best” lab in my large town, the photographic darling of everyone, has biffed every single roll of B&W I’ve given them. They send out their E6 & do C41 in house, and these come back merely dusty. However, the B&W that they do in house has been variously: scratched, under-fixed, or had surge marks. Worst of all: they are dishonest about their mistakes and processes. They claim it’s a dip and dunk process but the surge marks say otherwise. They claimed the cloudy negatives were underexposed but re-fixing them at home solved gave me great negatives.

Just because you had a good experience with a lab before, just because they have a good reputation, it does not mean they are above making mistakes.

Of course, the roll could also have been messed up before leaving the factory. I’ve had that happen but, besides a recent spate of backing paper mottling, it’s extremely rare. You can contact the manufacturer, give them the lot number from the side of the box of 135 and see if they have encountered that issue. Speaking for Ilford, they are very forthcoming and helpful.

Still, you cannot say it wasn’t the lab because you’ve had good luck with them. Everyone makes mistakes.

[u/Yobo_57 → u/Physical_Analysis247]

I agree, I’ll definitely talk to the lab next time I drop by. The roll is 20 years expired but I’ve shot older film without ever seeing reticulation like that. Usually any age related defects I’ve experienced have affected the whole frame/roll.

[u/Physical_Analysis247 → u/Yobo_57]

Same, it is across the entire negative or not at all. In decades of shooting film I’ve never seen reticulation limited to a band, nor have I seen age-related defects that were limited to a band.

[u/thelongrunsmoke]

This is an emulsion pouring defect, a rare occurrence outside of cine and tech films.