'Something' scratching my film

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello.  I have just (lab) developed 19 rolls of film.  Of these 700 ish frames, 12 (or 2%) of them have a visible scratch, all in the upper part of the frame.     Across 4 or 5 difference rolls.  

Annoyingly, the % of scratches that fell on frames I actually liked was much higher than 2%. 

Lining up and marking the affected frames I don't see an exact line up in the location. I've also ran a test roll through the camera (2018 MP) twice and the film is now fine on those 2 rolls at least.  Both of these things would suggest the camera is probably not at fault - although they are all in the upper half of the image (most of them in top 1/3), which is nagging me a little .

Probably of note is that I was travelling with lots of film through airport scanners so all rolls had been removed from the dust canister and carried together in bulk, presumably leaving the film more prone to picking up debris versus being taken out fresh from the dust canister and loaded..    

I realise it's very hard to isolate where this has happened, but in these circumstances would you be worried about anything in-camera ?  Also where would our more experienced members hunch that this 'probably' occurred?   

 

 

Edited January 18 by grahamc

[grahamc]

All side by side examples are from different rolls of film 

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 January 18 by grahamc

[grahamc]

None line up exactly but this one (from different rolls) is close

Odd how they are all in the upper half of the frame.   If debris had gotten into these rolls then it should be more random. 

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!

[Aryel]

If your test roll came up clean, my guess would be the lab. Is it the same lab that you usually go too? if so, I’d ask them at first. 

Whilst not ideal, you should be able to photoshop it away easily in most cases (when on the face then it is a bit of work). 

Hope you can narrow it down quickly. 

[250swb]

It would be unusual for a normally reliable camera to start scratching film, especially as the scratches aren't in exactly the same position, so I would first think maybe it's the lab processing, or the scanner. How many times does the film go through the light trap, do you leave the leader in or out. Dust and grit can get caught in the velvet but I'd have expected all the frames to be scratched if that was the case.

[earleygallery]

24 minutes ago, DOJ said:

This wouldn’t bother me. Film is going to be not perfect.

What do you mean by this? Why shouldn't film be perfect?

Before digital all photographic images were made with film. I'm not sure we all lived with 'imperfect' still and motion pictures all those years.

It seems to be a side effect of the digital 'film style' apps and Lomo 'lo-fi' cameras that make people who mostly know digital imaging to think that all film shots should be grainy/colour cast or have light leaks and scratches etc.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It sounds most likely a problem with the lab (assuming you used the same lab for all films). 

[Mikep996]

I don't know where this idea that film should have scratches/imperfections came from.  It was NOT acceptable when we all shot film.  If someone wants the current, internet-wisdom view of what film images look like, shoot digital and add the fake-film effect in post.  By today's "standards," actual film/darkroom printing won't give you the "film" look.  

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Fotoklaus]

vor 29 Minuten schrieb Mikep996:

I don't know where this idea that film should have scratches/imperfections came from.  It was NOT acceptable when we all shot film.  If someone wants the current, internet-wisdom view of what film images look like, shoot digital and add the fake-film effect in post.  By today's "standards," actual film/darkroom printing won't give you the "film" look.  

 

Knew a guy who wanted pictures looking "old" and bought a Kodak Retina (as I remeber) and was totally disappointed by the results.

Sharp, bright and correct coloured pictures. I told him that the "old" look comes from aging colours and paper, and has nothing to do with

film in general.

Also a funny question to me was if my camera (used a Rolleiflex that day) just produces B&W pictures, as it is quite old...

 

[Crem]

My best guess is the lab. Do you see a pattern in the frame numbers that are getting scratched? Or is it random? Is it always the same number of scratched frames per roll?  Thankfully it looks like you should be able to clone the scratches out. My best guess as to what’s scratching it is their film retriever, squeegee, or when they sleeve it. I used to get more scratches and lint when I used a lab. I switched to home development and noticed less of both. 

 

 

[earleygallery]

15 minutes ago, Fotoklaus said:

Knew a guy who wanted pictures looking "old" and bought a Kodak Retina (as I remeber) and was totally disappointed by the results.

Sharp, bright and correct coloured pictures. I told him that the "old" look comes from aging colours and paper, and has nothing to do with

film in general.

Also a funny question to me was if my camera (used a Rolleiflex that day) just produces B&W pictures, as it is quite old...

 

Exactly! It seems to be a 'digital' mindset that film images will naturally look crappy (or arty if you will).

I had a similar experience recently when I played some records when I had visitors - one was really surprised that a record could sound so clear (having probably only listened to old junk shop finds on a toy record player).

[Huss]

5 hours ago, grahamc said:

.. I've also ran a test roll through the camera (2018 MP) twice and the film is now fine on those 2 rolls at least...

 

 

It's the lab.

[grahamc]

6 hours ago, DOJ said:

This wouldn’t bother me. Film is going to be not perfect. It’s such a small defect it’s like a spec of dust on the sensor. Just clone it out. This is a line that goes the whole way across some negs, inc portrait subjects eyes, etc. Very different to a spec of dust. 

Sure, a small scratch that falls on sky or similar could be cloned.  But this is far from an expected or desired outcome of film - and much different to a dust spec on sensor  

 

Edited January 18 by grahamc

[grahamc]

6 hours ago, Aryel said:

If your test roll came up clean, my guess would be the lab. Is it the same lab that you usually go too? if so, I’d ask them at first. 

Whilst not ideal, you should be able to photoshop it away easily in most cases (when on the face then it is a bit of work). 

Hope you can narrow it down quickly. 

Thanks - actually new ish lab to me so yep good point ! 

[grahamc]

5 hours ago, earleygallery said:

What do you mean by this? Why shouldn't film be perfect?

Before digital all photographic images were made with film. I'm not sure we all lived with 'imperfect' still and motion pictures all those years.

It seems to be a side effect of the digital 'film style' apps and Lomo 'lo-fi' cameras that make people who mostly know digital imaging to think that all film shots should be grainy/colour cast or have light leaks and scratches etc.

Completely agree . 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[grahamc]

3 hours ago, earleygallery said:

Exactly! It seems to be a 'digital' mindset that film images will naturally look crappy (or arty if you will).

I had a similar experience recently when I played some records when I had visitors - one was really surprised that a record could sound so clear (having probably only listened to old junk shop finds on a toy record player).

Just buy a craft knife, apply it to said records, and all your negs - instant cool !

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[grahamc]

4 hours ago, Crem said:

My best guess is the lab. Do you see a pattern in the frame numbers that are getting scratched? Or is it random? Is it always the same number of scratched frames per roll?  Thankfully it looks like you should be able to clone the scratches out. My best guess as to what’s scratching it is their film retriever, squeegee, or when they sleeve it. I used to get more scratches and lint when I used a lab. I switched to home development and noticed less of both. 

 

 

Thanks. It does seem that way doesn’t it. I didn’t get chance to look for patterns on frame numbers etc yet.  But seems then this is probably the lab.  That’s disappointing.  
 

in the last year I’ve had some important negs lost and also now this one, I’ll switch to home dev as I already do B&W at home 

[Crem]

27 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks. It does seem that way doesn’t it. I didn’t get chance to look for patterns on frame numbers etc yet.  But seems then this is probably the lab.  That’s disappointing.  
 

in the last year I’ve had some important negs lost and also now this one, I’ll switch to home dev as I already do B&W at home 

eek sorry to hear about lost negs! I've been super lucky I guess. I've always been able to repair (usually Lightroom, sometimes photoshop) scratches. I mirrorless camera scan (24mp Sony) so I've always had to deal with scratches/lint myself. Usually I have plenty of pixels to work with and nobody can tell. Happy to try repairing one of yours if you want (just need a high res jpg or tiff).

Regarding home c41 dev... I recently picked up the Cinestill TCS-1000 and that has helped make it less work to get the temps right. Previously I was doing it manually.

[Huss]

15 minutes ago, DOJ said:

I mean I have a buddy who shoots film. He says his film is scratched all the time. It happens. Film is imperfect. If you need perfection then shoot digital. 

Nope.  It's your buddy who shoots film who has issues.

 

[grahamc]

22 minutes ago, DOJ said:

I don’t think little scratches on film is something uncommon is what i mean. I can’t even see a scratch in the sample files. 

they aren’t little scratches, they are deep scores that sometimes span the width of an image.   Granted they are probably harder to see on these small samples but no one would want this on their photographs. If you can’t see or understand this then sorry but I’m getting troll vibes. 

Edited January 18 by grahamc