Uniform white lines on negatives

<p>Hi all. Ive developed my first 5 rolls of 120 film. I followed the Ilford developing guide to the letter and whilst the first 2 rolls came out great, the last 3 all have the same stange pattern:<br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14236317545/sizes/c/in/photostream/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14236317545/sizes/c/in/photostream/</a><br>

The pattern appears as white/clear lines on negatives. They span the entire width of the roll at regular intervals appearing mostly between frames and on the bottom half of the images (as above).<br>

As i understand it, a light leak in the camera would show up as a dark area/line on the negative, not white as in this case. It would seem strange that this is a repeated developing mistake especially given the neat uniform lines its producing. What could this be?<br>

Its almost as though the top of the image (above the lines) is over exposed, whilst the bottom half (below the line) is "normal".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One thought: measure the amount of soup you had for the last rolls. Could it be the tire of the car in the linked image was above remaining developer level in a standing, occasionally shaken tank?<br /> When I used developers I had a transparent kitchen gauge marked with electric tape for the minimum demands of my tanks just to make sure I read "ml of fluid" and not "g of sugar" + why should I burden my mind with remembering the right numbers?<br>

A pitfall on the side: I believe Jobo tanks have 2 volume requirements imprinted. The lower one is for using them rotated by processing machinery and the higher for use standing & shaken...</p>

<p>Good thought Jochen. The fluid levels were at the required 500ml for the 120 reel to be covered. The orientation of the lines on the negative are actually at a 90 degree angle to the level of the soup because the reels are on their flat side during development.</p>

<p>What kind of camera? This doesn't look like processing to me. If it is a focal plane shutter, it may be misbehaving.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew. Its a Rolleiflex Model T. I had a similar thought but a leaf shutter wouldnt produce that kind of pattern, would it?</p>

<p>You're right, a leaf shutter wouldn't produce that kind of pattern. From your description it can't be the amount of chemistry, and in any case when I see this with my students it shows as a fuzzy line where some chemistry gets to the film during agitation. I've just had a look at my Rollei 3.5E and 2.8 D and I can't see anything that could come loose and somehow block the light to create the lines that you're getting. Could you show us some negatives, including the edges? Maybe there will be something there that might tell us what the problem is. </p>

<p>To my mind this is not a processing problem - it's too sharply defined. This, I think, is some sort of optical effect, maybe an internal reflection(?).</p>

<p>I will see if i can get some pictures / negative scan tonight to show more. Is it possible that this is x-ray damage? Im not familiar with what x-rays woud/can do to film. I ask because some of the rolls would have been purchased from different places and some have also been through hand luggage scanning (Though ASA400 film should remain relatively untouched from what ive read)</p>

<p>Particles of a contaminant?</p>

<p>Looks to me like a camera problem, not developing problem. Top part of the photo appears to be fogged, maybe from a light leak. The lines are the big mystery. X-ray seems unlikely.</p>

<p>Thomas,<br /> Set the camera to infinity focus, lens wide open, and shutter to 1 second.<br /> Open the camera back and point it toward a light source so that you can see the shutter blades clearly.<br /> Set and release the shutter while watching the shutter blades. The shutter blades should snap to full open then snap closed in a uniform fashion at the end of 1 second. Repeat 3 or 4 times. Does the shutter respond the same each time or does it get smother with each operation cycle?</p>

<p>Changing the shutter speed one speed at a time, set and release the shutter 3 or 4 times at each speed. Does the shutter operate smoothly or is it erratic?</p>

<p>Are the problem rolls the first ones exposed at the event or exposed at different points in time?</p>

<p>Hi, I don't see any way that a Rolleiflex could produce such artifacts, nor any way that manual processing in a tank could do so. This doesn't mean that it is impossible, just that, at this moment, I don't see any plausible explanation as to how.</p>

<p>So I would start my troubleshooting by looking into other possibilities. I would rule out a film defect, such as coating streaks, because these would typically run the length of the film, whereas my understanding is that these go from side to side.</p>

<p>My initial impression is that the streaks are lighter on the negative, meaning that light was blocked from the negative (or development was inhibited, etc.). So I would not expect them to show up on the unexposed parts of the film, meaning along the edges or between frames. However, you DID say that they also appear between frames. So you might inspect the negs carefully to determine if they ARE lighter, or not. Anything that causes fog, such as x-rays, would cause the neg to become darker. So verifying if the artifact is lighter vs darker is an important point.</p>

<p>About the only other thing I can suggest is to see if the pattern has a predictable interval (you said "They span the entire width of the roll at regular intervals..."). If there was damage done while rolled up, you would expect the spacing to change slightly as you go through, and the repeat interval would be roughly in the range of 1.5 to 3 inches. I hope something conclusive shows up; it's an interesting problem.</p>

<p>ps: on your next roll, it may be worth shooting one photo with the camera upside down, or perhaps turned sideways. If the problem reoccurs, you can see if it changes orientation with the camera.</p>

<p><em>...The pattern appears as white/clear lines on negatives. They span the entire width of the roll at regular intervals appearing mostly between frames and on the bottom half of the images (as above)...</em><br /> <em>...Its almost as though the top of the image (above the lines) is over exposed, whilst the bottom half (below the line) is "normal".</em><br /> <br /> Maybe you didn't wind the film tight enough after removing it from the camera. Then you can get a fogging pattern like the one you describe. If so, the defective part of the film is the lighter area in the positive, not the darker.<em><br /></em></p>

You have those sharp straight white lines of underexposure but above them you have a less sharp wider line of underexposure. The area of the photo above the top straight white line seems to be underexposed but the area of the photo below it seems to be well exposed. The broad line of underexposure could have been caused by pressure rubbing on the roll of film but the narrow lines below that are too sharply defined to have been caused by that.

 

It would be nice to see two or three frames of the negative.<div></div>

<p>It's difficult to say, but it looks as part of accidental double exposure.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>It's difficult to say, but it looks as part of accidental double exposure.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>First of all, thank you for all the responses! As promised, here are some pictures (sorry i took them on a camera phone late last night) of the negatives. I can take more if required.<br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14056872947/sizes/l/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14056872947/sizes/l/in/set-72157644360931249/</a><br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14241226572/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14241226572/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/</a><br>

We can clearly see the lines spanning across the negative in both the frame and between frames. The lines repeat throughout the entire role.</p>

<p>Eager to get more information for you guys i went ahead an developed film that was still sitting in the camera taking extra care to make sure the reel was tight, and not exposed when removing it from the camera. In this shot, it backs up some peoples theories of a light leak:<br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14216739286/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14216739286/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/</a></p>

<p>I have some Ilford film turning up today hopefull so i can shoot a few frames and develop that to rule out the film. Whilst im at it i can check for light leaks. The linear nature of the lines suggests that its coming through the back of the camera where the door meet the body somewhere. I understand how one would test light leaks coming in from the front, but how would you test for light leaks coming in from the rear?</p>

<p>It looks like a light leak, probably when you wind the film. Check to make sure the back is fully closed and locked. Be sure, on the bottom of the camera, the swinging metal tab's hole is fully engaged on the little pin before rotating the lock. </p>

This is definitely a light leak since the areas beyond the frame are exposed. If it's a light leak in the camera, it will likely

either be at the very top or very bottom of the film door, probably from either bad seals or the door not being closed all the

way. The only way I can think of checking for a light leak inside the camera would be to place a small battery powered

light inside the camera, close it up, and take into a dark room and look all over the camera for light leaking out. The only

thing is, since 120 film has a paper backing, it would be hard for there to be even streaks across the film. I don't have a

Rollei, but my Yashica Mat is similar, and after looking at it, I'm not sure now. I could see this possibly happening with

220 where there is no paper backing, but with 120, this is odd. Is it possible the tank has a light leak?

<p>Hi, as David and Nathan indicate, it now seems clear that the film has somehow been fogged. (Note that your last image link doesn't allow me permission to view; I CAN see the first two.)</p>

<p>I still don't have any plausible explanation of how it could occur in camera, and am still skeptical about this. Still, if it were me, I'd probably test by laying a short strip of unexposed film, 4 to 5 inches long, inside the camera. The point of doing this is that it doesn't change position; it stays where you put it. So if any fog occcurs it will be obvious where the light is getting to. (If you make a camera exposure, there will be no doubt as to exactly where the film was placed.)</p>

<p>If you do this test and find fog, but cannot find a light leak, it may be worth processing the rest of the roll (the one you clipped several inches from) without going through the camera. This will verify if the roll was already fogged.</p>

<p>Best of luck with the testing.</p>

<p>Can you look inside the camera? It almost looks like baffles are some how be reflected on to the film. The effect is more of double exposure as opposed to a light leak or development issue. I wonder if the film is advancing properly. I would look to your camera.</p>

If it was a light leak the lines would be black on the negative not clear or white. You have those lines also in what should be the clear space between frames, and they follow the same pattern of being wide then getting closer and closer together. Really strange. The fact that the unexposed lines extend into what should be the clear sides of the film indicate that this is not something that is happening through the front of the camera. What should also be clear sides in the negative of the autos are dark above the white lines and clear (as they should be) below the lines indicating the film has been fogged above the lines. Has this film ever gone through some x-ray machine?

<p>Ok ive fixed the permissions (hopefully) on the last link i posted.<br>

The general concensus here is a light leak but we still have some divided opinions here.<br>

@James - yes it has been through an xray machine. In my head im hoping this is the cause rather than the camera.<br>

So this weekend i will start testing by doing the following:<br>

1. Exposure with the lens covered and a bright light facing the front.<br>

2. Exposure with the lens covered and a bright light facing the back.<br>

3. Exposure with the lens racked all the way in.<br>

4. Exposure with the lens racked all the way out.<br>

5. Leave some blank film on the end of the roll to compare.<br>

6. Visual inspection of inside the camera with lamp attached to the lens/camera body.<br>

7. Placing lamp inside the camera and inpecting in a dark room.<br>

8. Repeat tests using new film from a different batch.</p>

<p>I had something 'a little similar' occur when putting some 120 film thru a 620 Box Brownie. However without looking at the negs (at work at the moment) I can't remember if it was dark or light lines. The prints where the opposite :) When I do this I file down the edges of the 120 spool so it fits in the camera but on this occassion I didn't take enough off and it was hard to wind through the camera. Most frames had lins across the frames like these however they were not so close and numerous. The tension on the film going around the film path caused the film to be distressed which shows up. I'll have a look tonight to see if it was added density or not.</p>