Any thoughts on why my film looks so bad?

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm trying to get back into developing my own film. I recently had a roll developed locally because I wanted to make sure I didn't mess it up. The film came out really bad. I'm not sure if it was me taking bad photos, or a problem with processing.... Any advice/comments would be much appreciated.<img src="http://500px.com/photo/74744865/tony-by-tony-schermetzler?from=user_library" alt="" /></p>

<p>http://500px.com/photo/74744865/tony-by-tony-schermetzler?from=user_library</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

-Tony</p><div></div>

<p>Oh I forgot... It's Ilford 3200</p>

<p>I'll start by saying you've scanned at a resolution (4000dpi?) that is going to pick up every bit of grain of what is fundamentally a grainy film. I'm guessing that it also wasn't processed to suit (unsuitable developer??, for not long enough??). Not used much of the stuff, but it's really anISO1250 or thereabouts film that needs extra development to give enough contrast if exposed @ 3200. Shadow detail will be minimal.</p>

<p>Where did you have the film developed, a consumer store drop off such as CVS , Walgreens or a pro lab?<br>

Ilford 3200 is a silver based film that requires standard B&W chemistry. 1 hour photo labs only process with C41 color chemistry. There was a similar post a few weeks ago that looked similar, it was standard B&W silver based film processed in C41 color chemistry.</p>

<p>The developing is really vile. Never in my life have I buggered up a roll of film as badly as this, even the first roll I developed.<br>

(i) The 'grain' is so egregious that I wonder if it's reticulation of the emulsion. <br>

(ii) There are wicked surge marks through the sprocket holes on the edges. <br>

(iii) There is nearly complete lack of image definition. I don't know how they managed to do this, and maybe one of the experts (which I'm not) will have an opinion. I wonder if it was old or exhausted developer, or improperly mixed developer, or, like Nige says, maybe a completely wrong developer. </p>

 

<p>Addendum: like Nige and Charles said, maybe a completely wrong developer. (Hit 'submit' before seeing Charles's reply.) </p>

<p>I`t seems to me that could have been some leak to the film, too. Maybe the back door has been opened before rewinding.</p>

<p>Looks like crappy developing to me. <br>

If you took it to a happy snappy high street developer they are usually clueless about black and white film, let alone Delta 3200.</p>

<p>Almost looks like it was processed in C-41 process with dead bleach that failed to fully remove the silver. Normally, if you run B&W film through C-41, you get a strip of blank acetate.<br>

B&W film is really best processed at home, with the optimal developer for the job you're doing.</p>

Thanks for all the info. I took it to a local place that had great reviews.

(http://www.yelp.com/biz/rocket-photo-lab-studio-city). I started to get worried when they said they were

sending it out.

 

Is there anything I can do to fix it?<div></div>

<p>There are perforation streaks which indicates a lack of agitation. My guess is that it was not processed properly in any respect -- the lack of agitation should be a major clue to indicate that the person doing the processing did not know what they were doing.</p>

<p>If they sent it out, find out where they sent it so you don't use them again. And maybe let us know so we don't either. That's just wicked bad developing. <br>

B&W is fairly easy to develop and it's likely worth your time to look into it.</p>

<p>Two other things come to mind:<br>

- how old was the film? Fast film tends to develop base fog with age. T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 are among the worst offenders in this regard. It's not a defect in the film; it's the accumulation of damage from cosmic rays. No joke.<br>

- was the film heat-abused? Film hates heat and can degrade quickly if it gets hot. An afternoon inside a car in the hot summer sun can do noticeable damage.</p>

<p>I don't think either of these fully explains your issues, but they might have contributed. (I don't know how experienced a film shooter you are so don't know if these issues occurred to you.)</p>

<p>The film was a bit old... past it's expiration date for sure. I would guess I bought it about five years ago.<br>

I'll look into what lab they used so I (& we) can avoid it in the future.<br>

I guess this is the motivation I need to reconvert the bathroom in my new apartment into a darkroom.<br>

Thanks again for everyone's insights!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The film was a bit old... past it's expiration date for sure. I would guess I bought it about five years ago.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've used expired Delta 3200 before and the results were terrible. The negs looked vastly underexposed. Take away the perforation streaks on your scans and my negs looked the same. My advice would be to use fresh film if you're going to shoot high ISO stuff. </p>

I'm confused. Ilford 3200 is b&w. This image is all color cast.

<p>I agree with Jon Shriver's answer - it could have been developed in C-41 chemistry by mistake, although it is odd that it didn't come back completely blank in that case. You really should talk to the people at Rocket and see if they can help resolve what happened. Do you have any receipt/paperwork which indicates what kind of processing was done? If they DID send it off to the marked "C-41 process" then that was their mistake, but it is also possible that mistake occurred at the actual processor. Either way, if it was mis-processed you should ask for your money back.</p>

<p>Before this talk about color processing, I was thinking that the heavy grain and overall faint and washed out image looked a lot like a case of severe under-exposure. For very thin (underexposed) film I wouldn't be surprised to see streaking like this - the scanning and processing required to get a usable image out of the film tends to accentuate even the slightest unevenness in development. The fact that it is a color scan doesn't necessarily detract from the idea of simple underexposure either, as it may be the lab's default to always scan in color, in which case you can easily have some color cast like this. So maybe underexposure is still a possibility. </p>

<p>As for the age of the film, I would say that it is not likely at issue at all - a couple years past expiration usually doesn't result in much if any degradation. Certainly not like what you are seeing here, anyway.</p>

<p>But you have it right about learning to develop yourself. You will come up to speed a lot more quickly and less expensively this way. Good luck!</p>

<p>It looks like something processed from the 1800's .... or maybe older... LOL to put a positive spin on it, it may actually be found appealing to someone looking for that look/feel. I wonder exactly what were all the contributing error factors that produced this result. ?</p>

<p> </p>