Hasselblad Fogged Film

I picked up some transparency film from the lab today only to find one roll completely blank(fogged). There are no visible frame numbers or really anything other than just a clear strip of acetate from beginning to end. I don't think it was a lab problem(unless they somehow fogged it during loading in the processor) as they processed a roll of 35mm for me at the same time and it was fine. This lab DOES use a continuous minilab-type E6 processor that can handle 35mm or 120/220. I have gotten to know the operator well, and she had dumped the chemistry the previous day due to other issues, refilled it, run a test strip, and my two rolls(35mm and 120) were the first of the day.

 

BTW, this was Kodak EPP, 2006 expiration and always cold stored. This back has handled a variety of transparency film, including RVP/RVP50, RVP100, RDPIII, RAP, and E100G. The RVP50 and RDPIII were generally in-date when shot.

 

I'm a bit at a loss as to how this could have happened. The roll was shot in my 500C with a "12" back(one of two backs I have for the camera-the other is an A12). In the time I've had the outfit, I have probably shot 30+ rolls in this particular back. I replaced the seals last summer, but have used it extensively in the time since. I loaded it normally, turning the advance key until I saw a "1" in the peep hole, and turned backwards to start the counter. I know this particular back to occasionally space the first and second frames "tight" so my normal practice with it, after shooting the first frame, is to advance with the crank on the body and then use the winding key to get to the "2" on the back paper-this has never been an issue, and after doing this I always leave the peephole closed until I load the next roll.

 

The back stayed mounted on my 500C the entire time the roll was loaded, which was about two weeks. As is my normal custom, I kept the darkslide in place unless actively photographing. I mostly used the 80mm Planar, but also used the 50mm Distagon a bit. In any case, the dark slide would have been in place for all lens changes. The film advanced normally and nothing when I unloaded indicated a problem(aside from the adhesive tab being stuck to the backing paper, something which I remedied with a piece of scotch tape).

 

All of the shots were taken outside, but the camera sat in my(basement, windowless) office most of the time I wasn't actively using it.

 

I'm going to load a roll of B&W in the back tonight and try it both on my 500c and 500 EL/M, but does anyone have any thoughts in the mean time about what could have possibly happened? In well over 10 years of shooting medium format(2005) in various cameras, I've never had a roll that was completely fogged end-to-end and edge to edge.

 

I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone might be able to offer.

That's got to have happened outside of the camera IMO.

 

A camera light leak would have to be absolutely huge - like a 1/2" gap between camera and magazine - to cause that.

 

More likely a processing or film manufacturing fault to give totally (transparent?) film.

 

Does a 10% caustic soda solution raise any gelatine off the base? Or have you got a blank and uncoated piece of cellulose acetate?

 

Afterthought. The E6 process uses 2 developers and a chemical fogging bath. Faulty, or no, first developer would leave the film blackened. So transparent film would mean no fogging bath or no 2nd developer. Or complete exposure to light somewhere down the line before processing.

Edited March 15, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Thanks Joe.

 

I actually don't tend to keep strong acids/basis home, so I'll snip a piece and check it at work on Monday. With that said, since I had two rolls run one right after another, and after running the control strip, I don't see it being a processing fault.

 

The more I think about this, the more I'm suspecting it is in fact a processing/handling fault. Any "fogging" scenario I can envision would have been sporadic-i.e. if I'd managed to defeat the lock and popped the back off without the dark slide in-would have most likely just affected one frame. There's really no place other than the dark slide seal that light can leak into a Hasselblad back, and that usually shows up as a thin line, not as a totally fogged frame. The secondary shutter(barn doors) leaking would give a horizontal line on the center of the frame. A back that left the amount of gap you specified would not physically be latched onto the camera...

 

Part of me can't see this being anything OTHER than a handling fault at the lab...

Do you know how they load the film when processing in a minilab? Is it done "automatically" in the minilab or do they have to load the film "off line"? From the extent of the blank image and thinking about all the camera-based observations you pointed out, (such as no differentiation between frames) I too would lean toward causes outside of the camera.

...Part of me can't see this being anything OTHER than a handling fault at the lab...

... or a faulty roll of film (but you should see the same thing in other rolls in that batch).

 

When home processing (B&W, Colour, Reversal) a completely clear film usually means you mixed up the Fix with the 1st developer.

 

For E6, the reversal process (chemical exposure agent) if accidentally done 1st will also wipe out the film.

Do you know how they load the film when processing in a minilab? Is it done "automatically" in the minilab or do they have to load the film "off line"? From the extent of the blank image and thinking about all the camera-based observations you pointed out, (such as no differentiation between frames) I too would lean toward causes outside of the camera.

 

To be honest, I've never SEEN them load E-6 and admit to not knowing a huge amount about different minilab designs.

 

I'm pretty sure 35mm is "tape the leader to a plastic card and pull out of the can." I also THINK but don't know that 120 is basically done the same way but with a sort of mini changing tent over the film intake where the backing paper is unrolled, taped by feel, and then the card pulled into the lab.

 

This is the first roll I've shot from this particular lot of film, but I bought several rolls from the same seller on Ebay who seems to have a few thousand of them. They've sold a LOT of EPP that at least has the same expiration date and I don't see any complaints in their feedback about it, so unless it's an oddball roll I doubt it's an issue. EPP was ancient tech by 2006, but at the same time it also had a very specific market(I seem to recall that it stuck around in medium format until ~2010 or so) and I doubt that the sort of photographers using it then would have been too happy about losing a roll of it.

 

I have some Delta 100 loaded in the back and mounted on the camera-I'll shoot and develop it tomorrow, and see what happens.

 

I'm pretty sure 35mm is "tape the leader to a plastic card and pull out of the can." I also THINK but don't know that 120 is basically done the same way but with a sort of mini changing tent over the film intake where the backing paper is unrolled, taped by feel, and then the card pulled into the lab.

.

 

That sounds like a process ripe for human error..

Same back/body/lens, and I'm about 99% sure the back's attachment to the body has not been disturbed since I unloaded the "bad" roll. I loaded this roll on Friday, let it ride around in the car a bit yesterday and shot a few frames, then finished it off today and just finished processing a few minutes ago.

 

I don't see any issues with the camera...

 

 

Here's the fogged roll(please pardon the banding from the fluorescents in my light table).

 

 

I'll test it for emulsion tomorrow as Joe suggested, but I'm almost positive it didn't get fogged in my possession, and I'm reasonably certain there again that it wasn't a chemistry issue since both their test strips and my other film came out fine.

 

I'm going to shoot another roll of EPP from this batch and ask if they'll comp processing on it-I've been a good enough customer that hopefully they'll do that, esp. after I spent the time making sure that it was NOT a camera issue.

 

As an aside, this reminds me of just how much I miss the "real" pro lab that closed 10 years ago. They used a continuous E6 processor, but the processing path was a few feet wide(so they could do sheet film). The "loading end" was in a dark room/closet, the machine built into a wall, and the processed film came out in the light. They ran E6 2x a day, and if you made it in before their 10:00AM run, you could pick it up at 1:00 or 2:00.

 

The lab I'm using now was once the pe-eminent photo finisher in the area and even did Kodachrome in-house(albeit not in this location). They ran several satellite 1 hour labs around town, but their main location was a full blow, honest to goodness pro lab. Now they're mostly relegated to 3 minilabs(one each for C-41, E6, and B&W) in a back corner of another business.

Edited March 17, 2019 by ben_hutcherson

Called the lab and had a conversation with the lady who runs all the film.

 

Her explanation of loading was a bit different than I thought, but not totally offbase. 120 goes into a changing tent, where it gets transferred into what is basically an oversized version of a 35mm cartridge and taped to the card. That then gets put in the front of the machine and fed like 35mm.

 

In any case, she said fogging was very, very unlikely in the process but not impossible. Given the number of rolls of properly exposed films she's processed from me, she was willing to concede that it MIGHT have happened there, plus the fact that I had tested the camera/magazine since.

 

She's willing to run another roll for me at no charge, and I'm happy with that.

Called the lab and had a conversation with the lady who runs all the film.

 

Her explanation of loading was a bit different than I thought, but not totally offbase. 120 goes into a changing tent, where it gets transferred into what is basically an oversized version of a 35mm cartridge and taped to the card. That then gets put in the front of the machine and fed like 35mm.

 

In any case, she said fogging was very, very unlikely in the process but not impossible. Given the number of rolls of properly exposed films she's processed from me, she was willing to concede that it MIGHT have happened there, plus the fact that I had tested the camera/magazine since.

 

She's willing to run another roll for me at no charge, and I'm happy with that.

That sounds fair--even great labs have bad days. One of the best labs I ever used once ran C-41 sheet film through their E6 machine, the only time in a long and happy relationship that anything like that ever happened. They did the best they could to make good on the situation and went on to successfully process a lot more film for me.

Completely clear film like that is almost certainly due to a lab mishap (unless it was somehow never exposed at all: always a possibility with spawn-of-satan Hasselblads and their finicky backs).

 

The same thing happened to me in the late '90s after a once-in-a-lifetime shoot with a fantastic model in Central Park NYC. Brought the film to Duggal Labs, and when I went to pick it up I received clear film and an apology. That was the first and last time I ever had an issue with a pro-level lab (or any lab, really). Sadly fate struck me on the single most incredible shoot of my life: to this day I mourn the loss of those pics. My model agreed to a re-shoot the following week, but the weather had changed, the light had changed, our chemistry had changed, and her vibe had changed (boyfriend troubles). Instead of lightning in a bottle, I came home with mediocre crap images that I tossed in the trash right alongside the mocking clear film.

 

C'est la vie: hope this will be your inoculation against future such occurrences.

Completely clear film like that is almost certainly due to a lab mishap (unless it was somehow never exposed at all: always a possibility with spawn-of-satan Hasselblads and their finicky backs)....

This was E6 colour reversal film, so if unexposed, it should be black, with frame numbers. Which can happen if you load the film backwards/upside-down (BTDT - 2X!!!)

 

Completely clear film is almost always Fixed before Developer - or chemical reversal step done before first developer.

 

Having done these things before.... 8(

The "redo" roll is going to the lab in the morning, so we'll see what happens.

 

Funny enough, I've never managed to load a Hasselblad upside down, and would hope that with the amount of film I've shot I've passed that hurdle. I've had my chance at that mistake on other SLRs :) , and fortunately the others I've used(Bronica S2a, SQ-A, ETRS, Mamiya RB67, Pentax 645) use more or less the same convoluted film path. Since I still keep a "12" back in rotation(120 backs are way too expensive to NOT use it), I'd know pretty quickly if I'd loaded it wrong as proper loading requires physically viewing the backing paper :) . With any MF camera, I just remember that the printed side of the backing paper needs to touch the pressure plate, and the black side needs to face out from it-that has served me well.

 

Orsetto asked me a while back for color photos taken with my Planar, although I forget what he said is different about it vs. later ones(mine was made in ~1961). Hopefully, I can provide with this roll.

Just got a call from the lab, and they reported another completely clear/fogged roll, also this time run side-by-side with someone else's 120 film.

 

Also, to expand a bit on what was explained to me earlier-the processor can take two rolls at a time(either 35mm or 120) and runs them side-by-side. My first "bad" roll was run side-by-side with a roll of 35mm E100 that I brought in at the same time, while this second roll was run with another customer's film.

Just got a call from the lab, and they reported another completely clear/fogged roll, also this time run side-by-side with someone else's 120 film.

 

Hi, I didn't bother to post earlier, as I figure it was most likely some off-the-wall process issue (handling related). But with this new incident, consider the possibility that the EBay seller has a curious young son, who wondered what was inside of the rolls. And resealed, thinking that no one would know that he had been snooping.

 

I don't know how much of that film you have, but you might consider sacrificing a roll to get a small piece of film off (perhaps peel the tape off, cut an inch or two of film off, and retape?), then develop in some b&w developer. Developing in the dark would show if it's been fogged, etc.

 

Best of luck.

 

Ps, I'm really doubtful that it would be a manufacturer's defect. I've seen lots and lots of film defects (on behalf of a large chain outfit); they've always been coating-related: never ever was it fogged. (Accidental fog is something the maker could anticipate, and thus design the facilities to make the probability extraordinarily small; not impossible, just very small.)

I'm still thinking bad film...I found this in the seller's feedback...

 

 

Fortunately I only bought 9 rolls and not 50.

Bummer.:(

 

On the plus side, the lab was really cool about it.

 

On the very plus side, you know your Hasselblad is not at fault: THAT would have been a very expensive bummer indeed! Anything beyond replacing a dark slide seal results in an automatic second mortgage service fee with our Swedish puzzle boxes.

 

Unless you happen to live next door to andyfalsetta :p.

That is rotten news about the eBay seller. It sure sounds like the lab is off the hook and I was wrong.

 

Off Topic: just went round and round with a seller and eBay over a defective laptop battery that didn't work out of the box. eBay clearly has changed their customer service policy and is more protective of the seller than helpful for the customer.It all worked out okay but not after persistent complaining.

eBay clearly has changed their customer service policy and is more protective of the seller than helpful for the customer.It all worked out okay but not after persistent complaining.

 

Not to derail the thread or anything, but this experience is fairly rare today. eBay tilted away from sellers and became vastly more biased toward buyers (actually to a fault) some years back, and the latest round of changes to the "user agreement" that go into effect next month essentially lock sellers down into a hostage situation vs eBay. There is virtually no chance a buyer will get financially screwed unless they do something colossally stupid like falling for ye olde " brand new latest $4000 Canon camera with L lens- must liquidate for $800- send cash directly to seller in Nigeria" listings. Yes, its possible for vendors like this battery dealer to drag their feet and slow the process in hopes you'll give up, but as long as you maintain your complaint eBay inevitably rules in favor of the buyer within 10 days now. Almost always, the foot-draggers are behemoth sellers of commodity Asian products like laptop batteries.

 

Over the next couple months, eBay will finalize its ugly divorce with PayPal, and begin requiring all sellers to accept credit cards as payment, either directly thru their own banks or via a new sleazy fly-by-night PayPal knockoff ebay has invented for themslves in Scandinavia. Once that goes into effect, nearly every buyer will be backed up by their credit card company, resulting in fraudulent seller chargebacks galore (and a potential stampede toward the exits). It will be eBay's worst self-inflicted gunshot wound yet: I'll be watching with popcorn in hand as this blatant money grab completely backfires on them.

I don't think it is easy to break the seal and reseal it without visible effect.

Especially not if still in the sealed foil package.

 

Overheating normally doesn't result in completely clear film, but can result

in almost clear. Hot enough and long enough likely can, though.

(The old favorite is a car on a sunny day, where the inside can get

very warm.)

 

Is there absolutely no image there?

Glen, on both rolls the film processed completely and totally blank.

 

I haven't examined the second roll in person, but the lab sent me photos of it on a light box right next to a roll that was processed at the same time(as I mentioned, in their processor two rolls are taped to a plastic card that then feeds them through the machine).

 

Everything about the packaging is seemingly factory original and correct-the mylar package is fine looks like every one of the other probably thousands of rolls of Kodak film I've used over the years, and the paper band around the roll itself is good and unbroken, or at least was on the roll I shot.

 

One thing I WILL mention is that on the first roll I shot, the end tab was completely stuck to the backing paper. I've seen this before(I carry rubber bands in my camera bag just in case, and I delivered it to the lab that way), but it seems to usually be on film that stayed in the camera for a long time. On the roll where this happened, I let the film come up to room temperature(as I usually do) before opening the mylar, and it was loaded in teh camera for a week or so. It hasn't been humid here, which also seems to contribute to sticking tabs.

I don't think it is easy to break the seal and reseal it without visible effect.

Especially not if still in the sealed foil package.

 

I would agree in the case of a still-sealed foil package.

 

With respect to the blank film, personally I would probably break into another roll, get a short bit of film out, and do a couple of tests with b&w developer. I would think this would answer the question pretty quickly. (Keep in mind that the yellow filter layer may be a very-fine silver layer which won't fix out, so this may confuse the issue a bit.)

 

Ps, if you are at all inclined to try shooting another roll, you could stop several frames short of the end, ensuring that some of the film is never unwound from the roll (meaning that it could not have been exposed to light in the camera). Then unload in a darkroom (you will know exactly what part is still unwound); clip off that last part for your own experimentation. If your at-home tests (in b&w developer, or whatever) indicate that this roll is usable, then you could send the first part of the roll in for processing.

 

This lab DOES use a continuous minilab-type E6 processor that can handle 35mm or 120/220. I have gotten to know the operator well, and she had dumped the chemistry the previous day due to other issues, refilled it, run a test strip, and my two rolls(35mm and 120) were the first of the day.

 

A couple of unsolicited comments on this: 1) I would tend to be somewhat distrustful of a lab that had to dump chemicals (depends on the reason), and 2) I'd never ever want my (good) film to be the first processed after any significant machine maintenance work.

 

But my main reason for commenting on this was this: if you are on really good terms with the operator, and you are inclined to experiment with the processing, consider asking her to collect some of the waste chemicals for you. (It's not well appreciated that everything discarded from a working processor is perfectly suited for further processing.) Those chems are discarded because there is excess volume, not because they are "bad." If you had been there before she dumped chems, well, you would have had to spend considerable $$ to buy, new, what she just threw away. At any rate, anyone who knows how to dump and refill the machine shouldn't have any trouble figuring out how to periodically pull some "samples for you. Note: a fairly standard way to pull these is with a "turkey baster" (one is clearly labeled as "developer only") when the processor lids are off.

 

Buying the occasional box of donuts for the lab will help grease the wheels, as they say. Or you could offer to periodically test the pH and specific gravity of the samples for the lab. Ps, don't over promise on pH testing of developer; you may have problems getting good numbers on their seasoned samples (yeah, I know that everyone on the internet knows how to do this with a $50 meter, but I'm speaking as someone who has personally helped "wear out" a couple of research-grade pH meters over the years).

Edited March 29, 2019 by Bill C