Kodak T-Max 3200 problems

Does anybody has an explanation for this?

 

http://www.berlinHENNIG.de/sapmle.jpg

 

This happened on the last used T-Max 3200 film with my Voigtländer Bessa. It starts with the first picture (#357

at all) what in my opinion shows a problem solely by the film, not by the camera. But were is the source?

 

a) Production

 

b) Storage (before/after exp.)

 

c) Loading the film

 

d) Retaining the film

 

e) Processing the film

 

 

 

More information:

The film was into using date, stored in a fridge both dealer and photographer before and after. Developing is a

proffesionell lab working for TBWA and other majors of the business. So when and why does this appear and how can

I be protect me of this?

 

Thx in advance to they may help solve this problem.

 

D.O. Hennig<div></div>

Looks like it's coming from the sprocket holes during development.

 

Usually from too vigorous agitation.

 

How was it processed exactly?

What does that mean regarding the film - vigorous agitation??? When and where?

 

I exposed the film as 3200 but I am aware that it is only a 800-1000 film. The lab does know these films very

well and they had the necessary informations to process what does not mean that they couldn't have done a mistake

or bad work.

Usually the process by hand into 2-3 hours. You will find details about the lab here:

http://www.pixelgrain.com/index.php?id=65&L=2

If it was processed by hand in small tanks, vigorous agitation means it either was shaken too hard during development.

 

I don't know how pixelgrain processes their b&w so I can't speculate further but it does look like an agitation issue and you

might want to point it out to the lab and see what they say if it's possible to visit the lab.

Hi Bruce,

 

I definitively will. This is a pro lab and as I mentioned earlier they handle films for large agencies in Berlin. So I espect good work since it is also not cheep there. Thank you very much for sharing your know-how and experience so far and giving me an first idea what might have had the problem.

 

If there anybody else supporting Bruce consideration, or having an oppisite opinion please let me know before I am sending out the lions?

No problem,

 

I could easily be wrong so maybe someone else can offer an opinion.

 

The best thing to do is approach the lab diplomatically of course and simply point out the problem. If they are indeed a "pro

lab" they need to be aware of this as it sure looks like it was caused by the sprocket holes during of processing.

 

Dont sic the lions too quickly.

 

Good luck D.O.

I'm not going to speculate about the lab. I have no knowledge of their procedures. But this accusation of overly vigorous agitation is ridiculous. More often it's the other way around - insufficient agitation. If agitation is overly gentle, you get good flow around the sprocket holes, but not enough exchange of fluid around the remainder of the film. A good vigorous agitation makes sure that there is an even exchange of fluid around all the film in the tank. The only way you can over do it is if you shake the tank hard enough to dislodge the film from the reel.

well Frank, if it is indeed ridiculous that is why I asked for other opinions which you obviously have and I thank you for that.

 

This is why in my second post I merely said an agitation "issue".

 

Thanks for your input though.

No, no. But it is really a huge problem. I am very often at the countryside and I was glad to find an nearly old fashioned photo store that was connected to a handcrafted lab near to Hamburg which is one of the biggest German cities.

But I had to learn very fast that they used a stapler at the beginning and the end of the film, that there was blue ink on some parts of the negativ and scratches all around. At least I gave them an old Kodak 200 color (play a little bit around) film from my wife and I got a negative with black dust parts on it back.

To check my criticize the store owners wife finally grabbed with her fingers on the negatives. After 3 (35 & 120) + 1 Films I took the emergency brake and from now I gave all films collected to the Berlin lab. And now this.

By the way, the "no, no" belongs to the lions ;-)

 

So far the relation between me and the lab will be touched by any of your opinions - either if it was too vigorous or insuufficient. Anyway the finally conclusion is of high interest for me, but it already confirms my fear of self deloping anything over a 100 or 200 film.

D.O.

 

I found a BUNCH of posts from users here on photonet with similar symptoms as yours by searching for " problems near

sprocket holes".

 

Seems to be a debate whether it is from too vigorous or not vigorous enough. Here is only one example

 

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/003naV

 

the second example is closer to your problem.

 

Draw your own conclusion about agitation but neither argument would be considered a ridiculous accusation no matter what

Frank may believe.

 

Luckily I've never experienced this firsthand because I do my own b&w processing due to the general consensus that

commercial b&w processing sucks. I'm sure there are commercial labs that do a good job with b&w but I've drawn the

conclusion that these labs are rare.

 

I would definitely question the lab and see what they say.

Here is what the lab told me nearly an hour ago:

 

The processing is made by a hanging maschine (what ever that means) and there are no reports of other problems

that day or any day after so far. May be it was wrong stored (def. NOT!) or a production problem. They just took

a T-Max and shot them and proceded them as a proof but without any of my problems.

 

So for me you and the other guy on the earlier discussion seem to me very close with your conclusion of slopy work.

And this lab is one of two of the capital of GERMANY!

 

So either I will do it by my self (but a 3200?) or I will go to the other lab, which is very close to Seinfeld's

well known episode with the "Suppen Nazi".

Yea I really wasn't expecting them to admit any "mistake" on their part. Here in the States it's known that you hand your films

over at your own risk and the lab in question is not responsible for any negligence/problems that may occur etc.

 

If you are already doing your own b&w there is no difference in processing other than time etc. with 3200 speed so don't let

that keep you from processing it yourself.

Here it is the same: at your own risk too.

But it is one thing to make a mistake (not to forgive) and another to stand for it (to forgive). I am shure that

they immediately shot a whole 36 T-Max to check their maschine, but I don't believe that they must have heard

other complaints if there was a problem by their work. How many people work with a 135/36 3200 on the same day

with the same lab? This girl simply muck up the film without saying "hey ok, my fault" That would be more

acceptable than a "No! We never...". The first question of the lab was about if it is only on one side or on both.

 

After all a case for the lions and the next way will be either doing it by my own or going to the other lab with

people of the flower-power generation but a better hand for developing.

 

The really good thing at all is that my beloved Voigtländer is still fine!

 

But by the way, during writing these text I remeber that I have the same problems with 120 Ilford 3200 films but

there the problem is (logical) not at any wholes, it came in waves (no better way to discribe) and it does not

effect the photo.

I will give my opinion as well since I have experienced this problem before myself. This looks to me, as others have said, to be a problem occurring during the processing of the film. Don't know if it's too much or too little agitation, but definitely a processing problem.

The image is underexposed several stops in the shadows. Its uneven agitation that makes uneven development; not the amount of agitation. Developing the film yourself can gain more control of the process.

Notice how "notices" the developing "defect" more in the deep toe region; ie the shadows; that than the more exposed areas

Some 15 year old HS student developed it! LOL! I teach HS, and although not too common, my kids end up with rolls with the streaks from the sprocket holes. Because they don't pay attention to what they are doing, it is hard to pinpoint EXACTLY what they did wrong (if I am standing there, or one of my class helpers, we immediately correct any potential irregularities) so irregular, overagitation (or constant) usually results in the streaking. Quizzing the students after the fact gives us an idea what the problem was.

 

My guess is it also has to do with the film's sensitivity and the B/W machine might not have been set exactly where it should have been. I know NIL about any commercial processing or the machinery, so I can't help you much.

I had a similar problem with extra exposure coming from the sprocket holes. The difference was I bulk loaded the film and accidentally exposed some of the roll when I unwisely peeled off the tape from the can.

 

Too many factors to pinpoint down but my guess is accidental exposure when the reels were loaded.

This is the first time I'm posting so I hope I help. Your lab processes your film using a "dip and dunk" machine. It is a very clean and the

most professional way of processing film. Those marks do look like over agitation marks. Dip and Dunk machines agitate film using a

nitrogen burst. If the nitrogen burst was overdone, then you could also end up with those agitation marks. Did you get this on all film

processed at the same time or was this just one roll? If it was just one roll than the other thing that your marks reminded me of was

markings you would get if the film is rewinded backwards, Generally though, I would see lines(density changes) throughout the entire

frame.

Hope this helps

As everyone stated, its definitely a processing issue. The only time I've ever gotten marks like this was when

developing in Diafine and I didn't agitate enough (only once in the 5 minute B bath). It happened in areas of uniform

tone.

 

 

I think its called bromide drag in the case of under agitation and bright areas. Something to do with bromide being built

up in areas of high development and then sinking down in the developer. As it sinks, it reduces development in the

areas it passes. Or something like that.

 

You can also get surge marks from the sprocket holes if you agitate to much. I don't really know what this looks like.

Here's a link to an image I found on flickr that claims to have surge marks. I defer to his knowledge: