Ben johns
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- No
Speckled Film
- Thread starter Ben johns
- Start date
OP
Ben johns
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- No
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
First thing I noticed on the display image were dust-mots in scanning..... so what is actually on the neg, not the digi-file?
What else I see is in the lighter areas, and the speckling is lighter than the light back-ground... so invert the Digi-File.. that's what the neg looked like to the scanner.
Inverted the Speckling would be darker than the neg, not lighter, so 'something' added to the image, not taken away... and first instinct is simple drying marks, though they are a bit small... how did you dry?
What else I see is in the lighter areas, and the speckling is lighter than the light back-ground... so invert the Digi-File.. that's what the neg looked like to the scanner.
Inverted the Speckling would be darker than the neg, not lighter, so 'something' added to the image, not taken away... and first instinct is simple drying marks, though they are a bit small... how did you dry?
OP
Ben johns
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- No
I invert for first 10sec of every minute then bang the container
OP
Ben johns
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s not dust, I scanned an older negative straight after and it was clean apart from the odd spec. Those white marks pepper the entire roll on every image, I would think it’s somethinf to do with the development but I’ve no idea what.
I'd expect the negs to look cloudy if it was exhausted. That said, fixer that's well gone has a powdery or granular white precipitate - pour some into a container and have a look at it. If there are bits floating about, it's knackered. Whether those bits would stick to the film, I'm not so sure.
I think I'd want to have a look at the negs through a loupe with light reflecting off the surface - I agree with Mike that it looks like something that's added (like very fine particles of something that the film has maybe been exposed to while it was still damp).
steveo_mcg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,319
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've had this a few times on a few different films from different batches and with different developers, I'll be dammed if I know what it is mind...
It's always been on ilford films though and tbh it's kind of put me off them and I have shot a lot of fp4 over the years.
Edit, I never did speak to illford
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/speckling-in-negatives.655534/#post-7846534
It's always been on ilford films though and tbh it's kind of put me off them and I have shot a lot of fp4 over the years.
Edit, I never did speak to illford
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/speckling-in-negatives.655534/#post-7846534
Last edited:
OP
Ben johns
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s strange, maybe just a dodgy roll. Got a roll of fp4 to develop today and it’s made me a bit apprehensive until I’ve replaced all the chemicals. I think I have either some stopper or fixer left
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
QFT
and
and
I had a few failures and then the fixer crystallized over time and left my negs covered in stuck on particles...
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When trying to ascertain faults on the neg, look at the neg! Not a reproduction.
In repro, whether widgetal or on paper, you have layered potential repro faults to back-track through or mislead.
Quick grab of your sectional; inverted to show what the scanner saw of the negative.
In Red-Circle, is classic dust-mot; completely black 'blocking' light through the film.
In yellow circle... not quite completely white, passing all light through the transparency, something has removed almost all the emulsion. If it was a streak it would more likely be a scratch, small dot like that? not quite completely white, if more common, could be a process error, but its probably not very relevant to the bigger issue. but, on neg, black is added, white taken away, remember. There are other white speckles, that in widgetal could just be the software trying to decide on the colour between it's thresholds! They may not be on the actual negative.
The dark 'speckling' is darker than back-ground, in negative; so is added to, not taken away from; either during dev, as in over dev, or after, as contamination.
Look at Langford's Dark-Room Hand-Book; he provides illustration of lots of common process errors. And the actual neg.
In repro, whether widgetal or on paper, you have layered potential repro faults to back-track through or mislead.
Quick grab of your sectional; inverted to show what the scanner saw of the negative.
In Red-Circle, is classic dust-mot; completely black 'blocking' light through the film.
In yellow circle... not quite completely white, passing all light through the transparency, something has removed almost all the emulsion. If it was a streak it would more likely be a scratch, small dot like that? not quite completely white, if more common, could be a process error, but its probably not very relevant to the bigger issue. but, on neg, black is added, white taken away, remember. There are other white speckles, that in widgetal could just be the software trying to decide on the colour between it's thresholds! They may not be on the actual negative.
The dark 'speckling' is darker than back-ground, in negative; so is added to, not taken away from; either during dev, as in over dev, or after, as contamination.
Look at Langford's Dark-Room Hand-Book; he provides illustration of lots of common process errors. And the actual neg.
I keep wondering if the film has been exposed to a cloud of talcum powder.
Assuming it's a 645 neg, the larger particles are about 60-70um, and the smallest that are being resolved reasonably clearly are about 25um.This is at the large end for talcum powder particles (about 18% by mass are 25um or larger, smallest going down to 4-5um, and about 50% of mass 12um or smaller). Its translucency can vary as well, which would be consistent with the particles not being as opaque as the bits of dust. Could be something else, of course - I just thought of talc because it's quite common in bathrooms.
Reference for talcum powder particle size...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Particle-size-distribution-of-the-talcum-powder_fig5_241471282
Assuming it's a 645 neg, the larger particles are about 60-70um, and the smallest that are being resolved reasonably clearly are about 25um.This is at the large end for talcum powder particles (about 18% by mass are 25um or larger, smallest going down to 4-5um, and about 50% of mass 12um or smaller). Its translucency can vary as well, which would be consistent with the particles not being as opaque as the bits of dust. Could be something else, of course - I just thought of talc because it's quite common in bathrooms.
Reference for talcum powder particle size...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Particle-size-distribution-of-the-talcum-powder_fig5_241471282