Ever seen anything like this?

[Bart D]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm still looking for a place in my area that I can trust with developing and scanning of the occasional film I use.

I've had some bad luck already: a place that processed a Ilford XP2 Super wrong so that it came out extremely grainy, a place that scratched some of the negatives - after having done a good job until that time and now something weird again.

The film is portra 160 and a lot of the negatives - and hence the scans - have a strange substance stuck to them. Shows up as in the screenshot (shown a 100% of the scan).
I picked the worst one.

Now I wonder if this could be something that I did wrong or just an error in the development.

I do miss the times when I would just drop off some rolls of slides or films and everything came back alright.

I do have one other worry: the 3rd negative from the end (#34) is scratched beyond believe. This one wasn't scanned.
This is my first time using a film leica. All other cameras I used have the SLR system of film loading/rewinding.
Could this be something I did wrong? Rewinding didn't sound that complicated, especially after I succeeded to load the film in one go 🙂 
I just flipped the R button, pulled out the rod and rewound, without any haste.
If it would seem this wasn't on me, then it's another error on the part of the lab.

 

PS  I know all the arguments for doing the development oneself and no, I'm not going there. I haven't in all the years I used nothing but slides and film and I'm not starting now 🙂 
I will look into doing my own scans when I have more time on my hands, when I'm retired.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 27, 2020 by Bart D

[jankap]

White marks, could be dust. But with a shadow? What camera + lenses did you use? Negatives 33, 35 and 36 were ok? Ask your newspaper (or a professional), where they let develop; more $$$.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[105012]

Could be old chemicals? But if a professional lab unlikely? I do it all myself, so I don’t have much recent lab experience 😀

[Bart D]

18 hours ago, jankap said:

White marks, could be dust. But with a shadow? What camera + lenses did you use? Negatives 33, 35 and 36 were ok? Ask your newspaper (or a professional), where they let develop; more $$$.

No, Negative #34 is scratched, as only one. The kind of stuff I illustrated with the screenshot is over multiple negatives. Some next to each other, some not.
I used a number of lenses. What would be the impact of the lens? I use them on digital as well without any "special effect".

Finding a professional photographer that uses film in my area would be rather a difficult assignment 🙂 

 

4 hours ago, 105012 said:

Could be old chemicals? But if a professional lab unlikely? I do it all myself, so I don’t have much recent lab experience 😀

If old chemicals could do this, this might be the reason. I don't think this shop caters for a lot of film shooters.

Thanks for the reactions, both!

[jankap]

During the WW2 my father sent his Kodachrome films to Sweden for development. The Netherlands were occupied by Germany. The films did not contain spyware, family only.

Do you see (or feel) chemical residues on the negatives? 

[adan]

M9 sensor corrosion? Just kidding.

More seriously - no, this does not look like something you caused, especially if you also did not do the scanning.

If I were guessing (with insufficent data), I might think this was crystalline contamination off dirty machine rollers. I.E. dried chemical residue that "embossed" itself onto/into the film, either physically or chemically.

Or perhaps a final rinse contaminated with some chemicals, which then dried on the film as crystals.

Either might explain the "3D" appearance.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Old stabiliser, the chemical that comes at the end of the colour process (it's not washed in the conventional sense) can turn scummy and form white blobs, my guess would be that, probably off the rollers as Andy says. Use another lab, if the chemicals are the fault most likely the scratches are theirs as well.

[Bart D]

9 hours ago, adan said:

M9 sensor corrosion? Just kidding.

More seriously - no, this does not look like something you caused, especially if you also did not do the scanning.

If I were guessing (with insufficent data), I might think this was crystalline contamination off dirty machine rollers. I.E. dried chemical residue that "embossed" itself onto/into the film, either physically or chemically.

Or perhaps a final rinse contaminated with some chemicals, which then dried on the film as crystals.

Either might explain the "3D" appearance.

 

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Old stabiliser, the chemical that comes at the end of the colour process (it's not washed in the conventional sense) can turn scummy and form white blobs, my guess would be that, probably off the rollers as Andy says. Use another lab, if the chemicals are the fault most likely the scratches are theirs as well.

Thank you both!

Already decided to scratch this one from my list, supported by your advise.
I dropped off a next roll in a store that does the process and scanning themselves. They also have a respectable stock of various films.
They have a discount for students. Sounds as a dedicated team.

Just a bit further away from my place but if they deliver good work, well worth it!

 

[Bart D]

19 hours ago, jankap said:

During the WW2 my father sent his Kodachrome films to Sweden for development. The Netherlands were occupied by Germany. The films did not contain spyware, family only.

Do you see (or feel) chemical residues on the negatives? 

Yes, definitely visible on the affected negatives.