Advice on developed Photograph

Emeness

Emeness

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All, I'm a new member and would like some advise please on the attached photograph. I am just getting into colour processing and not sure of what is causing the problem. The Pic was shot on Kodak Ektar 100 with a Bronco ETRS. My question is can anyone tell me what is causing the mottling effect in the sky and also can just make out the number 14 in the upper right hand corner, although this was the 10th exposure out of 15, should not be seeing this. I used Rollei Database C41 to process the negatives as follow:- Prewash 3 mins, Developer 3.30 mins, Bleach 3.30 mins, Fixer 5 mins, Stabilizer 1.15 mins Wash 2 mins all chemicals were at 37 c. Negatives were then scanned using an Epson scanner to PC. Would be very grateful for any advisehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/150770855@N08/shares/3y4Wa5
 
It's from the backing paper, it's either old film, light (low level) fogging, or ink transferrance from the backing paper.
 
I'm no expert and so far have had all my film developed and scanned by a photo lab but could the mottled sky just be a result of the scanning process? Viewing on my tablet it doesn't look too bad, maybe just a little grainy.

It's a nice shot btw [emoji5]
 
Thanks for your replies, checked use by date of film (June 2017). I shot the roll right after loading it so its not as though its been hanging around in the camera. Could be something to do with the scanning process which I did at 2400 dpi or maybe something in the developing process, but not sure what.I have processed and scanned 3 films all from the same batch, one has been fine and two have had the mottling effect. Also during developing made sure chemicals were kept at 37c.
 
It still looks like light through the backing paper to me, how and when is a different matter.
 
I scanned at 2400 dpi and saved the image as a TIFF file to Pc the mottling was there then so I would assume its got something to do with the developing or scanning but can't think what.
 
Last edited:
I have just scanned a negative I had processed last year by a Lab. This scanned with no problems so the scanner can be taken out of the equation. So I assume the problem is something to do with the film backing paper as has been suggested or the developing process.
 
Definitely backing paper, the mottling is light coming through the fibers within and what makes up the backing paper, the numbers are printed ink on the paper that have actually blocked light.

:)
 
So has anybody any idea how light would come through the backing paper to cause this problem.
 
It's not uncommon to have dots and numbers transfer to the film when using Chinese film stock like Shanghai GP3, also the mottling is sometimes present with far eastern film stock. It is unusual I think with Kodak film however. Also given the backing paper is light tight it is possibly some other process, chemical or otherwise that has caused the transfer. Was the film in date, has it been frozen in the past, all long shots i know, but just thinking out loud!
 
Kodak did have problems with certain batches of film. I just checked back and as the problems seemed to surface about 2 years ago it probably isn't connected to this case (if the film expires this month it's likely to predate the problem). Ektar and Portra were singled out.

You can read up on it here.

Quite a number of different forums had posts on it at the time, as a Google search reveals.
 
Thank you StephenM for posting the link, made very interesting reading. It appears to be the same problem that I have encountered with my film, so I will email Kodak and see what they have to say. I will post their response.
 
By the way Mike, 2400 ppi is quite a high resolution to scan 120 film as a starter scan. Even at half that resolution, 1200 ppi gets you a 10mp file from a 6*4.5 cm image, if I've worked it out correctly. 2400 ppi would be 40 mp, and correspondingly slow. Maybe 1800 ppi?

Obviously if you've got a competition winner in there you'll want to go to 2400 ppi or even higher maybe!
 
Thanks Chris for your post, due to the problems I was having with this film I scanned at a high resolution in order to get the best quality photograph but still had problems, so I initially thought that this issue was maybe caused by my scanner or developing process. I am grateful to the very helpful members who replied to my post with advice and suggesting the problem was due to light coming through the backing paper. It now appears that this was the case, I have emailed Kodak awaiting their response
 
I have received a very nice reply from Kodak's Film Capture Business Manager who said he was very sorry to hear I was having difficulties with their 120 Ektar 100 film.

He stated that Kodak have had a limited number of inquiries for problems with frame numbers appearing as a latent image on film negatives. This appears to have been shipping/handling/storage related. As a result in December 2015 Kodak modified the 120 format backing paper.

Ektar 100 produced with the new paper starts with emulsion 1232. The film I have had problems with had an emulsion number 1221 with an expiry date of 06/2017.

Kodak are happy to replace my film with a fresh pack of Ektar 100 spooled with the new paper backing. So I'm grateful to Kodak for their prompt attention in dealing with matter which is very much appreciated.

Also I would like to thank members of TP for responding to this thread and pointing me in the right direction, particularly to StephenM for posting the link with regard to Kodak having problems with backing paper.
 
There's always someone who knows something or at least knows someone else who knows the thing on this forum. Wise, thats what we are. :confused::D
 
I'm glad that there's a semi-happy ending; a new film with new opportunities, but no easy way back on the photos one the first one. I am surprised though that some of the defective film is still around, a couple of years after the problem surfaced. I now wonder how many people have some of these batches in their freezers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top