What are these splodges?

[ChrisR]

Yesterday I got a set of black and white 35mm negatives (Acros 100) back from a developer that has a good reputation (I'll not name them yet, in case this is all my fault). When I scanned them I noticed that lots (around 25 out of 38) have got almost-regular dark splodges on them. A couple have the telltale light-coloured circle from drying marks, but these other dark marks are completely different:

I emailed the processor today but I've not heard back from them yet. Has anyone any suggestion what it might be? The camera is a Canonet QL17 (48mm thread) with a 48-49mm step up ring and then a 49mm yellow filter. I did wonder if the filter could be the cause, but while the marks look similar they are not identical between shots. An inspection of the filter does show a small amount of crud on it round the edges, but nothing like this pattern, and even with the additional spacer ring, I think the filter would be too close to show up.

Any ideas?

 

[robhooley167]

Are there any marks on the negatives? have you tried cleaning the negatives and rescanning some?

 

[freecom2]

Look at the negatives - any detective work should always start with the originals.

 

[ChrisR]

Are there any marks on the negatives? have you tried cleaning the negatives and rescanning some?

Thanks for the response. I'm sure there must be marks on the negatives, but so far my eyesight has not been good enough to see them. I'll have a good look tomorrow when (if) it's a bit brighter.

How would I go about cleaning the negatives? I always treat them extremely carefully, and I've never thought of cleaning beyond a rocket blower and sometimes a lens brush on very old dusty slides...

They came in a clear packet in strips of 6; quite hard to get them back in, and I did wonder whether there was something from the packet... I've had some troble with very old negative packaging (40 years or so) leaving marks on negatives, but never newer ones so far.

 

[robhooley167]

Any sort of cleaner for lenses/glasses should be fine to use on them, i use Isopropyl Alcohol to clean mine as it's the main component of negative cleaner, a small dab of cleaner on a microfibre cloth will shift most gunk off them without damaging them

 

[Ambermile]

If the marks were on the filter/lens you would not likely see them as spots - more just a general light (very light) haziness. I'd go for the negs or someone sneezed on the scanner ...

 

[ChrisR]

Right, I've cleaned one strip on both sides with iso-propyl alcohol. I was a bit dubious, as these being dark marks means they would be light on the negative, and it's a bit hard to see what that could be in such a regular pattern. Oh, I did have a good look first with my reading glasses and a magnifying glass, and I could see no significant dust.

I've scanned one frame of the result, and there's no change to the basic splodge pattern. I did succeed in cleaning off a couple of drying marks (light rings), but in the process introduced a dozen or so scratch-like marks. :thumbsdown: Perhaps I was a bit too emphatic, but I was trying to be really light touch!

So I'm still confused.

Back to my secondary hypothesis... given the extra distance from the lens surface from the step-up ring (and the QL17 lens already being quite recessed), could it have been dust on the yellow filter causing the problem (at that scale... I reckon those marks are of the order of a couple of hundredths of an inch)? I can't think of a way of testing that other than another film, partly with the (now cleaned) filter, and partly without...

 

[freecom2]

Put a strip of negatives that you know are good (and that you have scanned in the past) and put it through the scanner, to ensure it isn't the scanner at fault.

 

[menthel]

Probably silly question but how is the scanner? Could be dirt on that.

Otherwise do you have a magnifier to actually look at the negatives?

 

[ChrisR]

Put a strip of negatives that you know are good (and that you have scanned in the past) and put it through the scanner, to ensure it isn't the scanner at fault.

Good thinking. I tried it with a slide, as they are easier to manage (so I'm looking for white splodges on the slide). Absolutely no sign of problem. (Unlike a flatbed of course, the Plustek scanner is internal so less likely to pick up dust and marks... but not impossible with several thousand ancient slides and negatives going through it!).

Otherwise do you have a magnifier to actually look at the negatives?

I bought a magnifying glass this morning at Wilkos, but it's not very strong; nothing showing on the slide surfaces even in good light and with my glasses on.

 

[Joenail]

It looks to me like something has splashed on the negatives while they were drying/dry. Have you tried re-washing them and using a wetting agent?

 

[Ambermile]

Back to my secondary hypothesis... given the extra distance from the lens surface from the step-up ring (and the QL17 lens already being quite recessed), could it have been dust on the yellow filter causing the problem (at that scale... I reckon those marks are of the order of a couple of hundredths of an inch)? I can't think of a way of testing that other than another film, partly with the (now cleaned) filter, and partly without...

For them to be in focus as they are they need to be pretty much on the point of focus. Be that in the scanner or in the camera the fact is that if you get a few mm away from it then they will not show. In both the camera and the scanner the film surface is the point of focus, the lens and any filters do not come even remotely close, no matter where you put them.

 

[ChrisR]

It looks to me like something has splashed on the negatives while they were drying/dry. Have you tried re-washing them and using a wetting agent?

The processor has come back by email: "I am sorry we did not detect the marks you refer to. This would have been evident on printing out the negatives. It is most likely that these are slight drying marks. Please return the negatives using your Freepost Label and we will rewash them.."

So I'm sending them back. Let's hope this does produce results, although visual inspection didn't show anything like this.

For them to be in focus as they are they need to be pretty much on the point of focus. Be that in the scanner or in the camera the fact is that if you get a few mm away from it then they will not show. In both the camera and the scanner the film surface is the point of focus, the lens and any filters do not come even remotely close, no matter where you put them.

Thanks Arthur. This was beginning to worry me as the most likely outcome, which would have been my fault entirely.

If the washing doesn't work and it isn't the filter, the only other alternative I can see is faulty film stock. It's not out of date; I retrieved the box from recycling, and it's dated 2013.10. Oh well, patience! :bang:

 

[freecom2]

Fuji (along with Kodak & Ilford) have very very good QC - it's almost certainly not the film. Drying marks do look like that, so it does make sense, hopefully that will resolve the quandry.

 

[NickT]

Fuji (along with Kodak & Ilford) have very very good QC - it's almost certainly not the film. Drying marks do look like that, so it does make sense, hopefully that will resolve the quandry.

Fuji's film production probably is very good, the same cannot be said for their processing. I've just received some process-paid Sensia back from them. Dirt and drying marks all over the slides, a fingerprint and to top it all what looks like a faint outline of sprocket holes at angle across the sky on one slide. I rang the customer service number on the slip that came with the film, only to hear a recorded message directing me to another number which was never answered.

No wonder they don't do process-paid any more, their lab's workmanship is the worst I've ever seen.

 

[freecom2]

Indeed, I was only talking about QC at the film production stage.

Often, those designated brand labs are often just normal processing places which have been given the contract to deal with all of the process-paid film for that brand in that particular country - often, Fuji has nothing to do with it other than allowing them to use their name and paying them for it.

 

[NickT]

Indeed, I was only talking about QC at the film production stage.

Often, those designated brand labs are often just normal processing places which have been given the contract to deal with all of the process-paid film for that brand in that particular country - often, Fuji has nothing to do with it other than allowing them to use their name and paying them for it.

I guess Fuji don't care much about film users anymore. I must have posted dozens of rolls of Kodachrome off to Hemel Hempstead in the past and they all came back spotless. Those were the days.

 

[Ambermile]

Actually, Fuji is one of the few companies still actively involved in film production - whilst one has to admit that yes, they do drop the odd emulsion, it should also be admitted that they actually make those emulsions in the first place. Kodak, otoh...

 

[Musicman]

Often, those designated brand labs are often just normal processing places which have been given the contract to deal with all of the process-paid film for that brand in that particular country - often, Fuji has nothing to do with it other than allowing them to use their name and paying them for it.

Back at the end of 2008, Fuji moved their processing contract from CeWe in Warwick to CC Imaging in Leeds

http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Product-News/Fujifilm-Announces-new-lab-venture/

 

[NickT]

Back at the end of 2008, Fuji moved their processing contract from CeWe in Warwick to CC Imaging in Leeds

http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Product-News/Fujifilm-Announces-new-lab-venture/

That's interesting to know, it certainly tallies with the return address of 'Leeds' on the packaging. The only company name printed is 'Fuji'. Perhaps whoever did process the slides assumed that any dirt would not attach itself to their name, just to the emulsion surface.

This is a typical example from the original scan:

cropped from this cleaned up and resized image:

 

[Bud]

Fuji's film production probably is very good, the same cannot be said for their processing. I've just received some process-paid Sensia back from them. Dirt and drying marks all over the slides, a fingerprint and to top it all what looks like a faint outline of sprocket holes at angle across the sky on one slide. I rang the customer service number on the slip that came with the film, only to hear a recorded message directing me to another number which was never answered.

No wonder they don't do process-paid any more, their lab's workmanship is the worst I've ever seen.

I experienced much the same on numerous rolls of Sensia a few years back. I was under the impression QC at Fujilab had been improved since then.

Just in case your in need of a E6 processor in future, i find 'Peak Imaging' to offer a superb and consistent quailty E6 service.

 

[ChrisR]

The processor has come back by email: "I am sorry we did not detect the marks you refer to. This would have been evident on printing out the negatives. It is most likely that these are slight drying marks. Please return the negatives using your Freepost Label and we will rewash them.."

So I'm sending them back. Let's hope this does produce results, although visual inspection didn't show anything like this.

Success! I sent back the negatives to the Darkroom as requested, and they arrived back yesterday morning. I've just completed scanning them. The nasty blobs have all gone, so it was definitely some sort of residue. The scans even look a tad crisper, too. Sadly, they've now been in and out of their sleeves 3 or 4 times, and handled much more than usual, so quite a few have acquired other marks. I guess I'll just have to patch up the ones I really want to keep.

It does suggest to me there is a fundamental quality control issue with just processing the negatives; these marks were quite undetectable (by me) on inspection of the negatives themselves. If I'd had them scanned and/or printed, I guess there's a good chance they would have been picked up and re-done by the processor before leaving the premises. But scans are so expensive with most BW processing, and relatively easy to do myself, so I don't want to pay up to an extra £12 for scans! Maybe I should stick with Club 35 who seem to charge only a fiver extra for a medium scan...