Discussion in 'Black and White' started by royall_berndt, Nov 24, 2017.

  1. I shot a roll of outdated--but not badly--Ilford b&w.. The results are extremely foggy. Does Ilford age so fast? The film was kept refrigerated. Was it maybe a processing error?
  2. What speed (ISO) was the film?
  3. It was ASA 400.
  4. Do the scans look foggy or is it the actual negatives that look fogged? As in, could it be underfixed? When scanned, underfixed negs look fogged. FWIW, if the film was refrigerated, a few years shouldn't get much fog (if any) on most Ilford films. ISO3200 will be visibly fogged a year or two out of date, but I've had normal looking rolls from HP5+ and Delta 5 years out.
  5. I'll have to study the negs. One of the scan frames wasn't fogged, to add to the mystery.
  6. Could this roll of film have been left in a very hot car or other high temp place? That could do it.

    Rick H.
  7. No, Rick, it was in the fridge till I used it.
  8. That is a puzzle. Could you please post a few of the scans, please? It could be base fog or it could be veiling lens flair or it could be ...
  9. What developer was used?
  10. Room temperature age fog should be low for ISO 400 films at 10 years.

    Mostly notice it as white spots in what should be black (in the positive/print).

    This is TMax 3200 (TMZ) about 20 years at room temperature, EI 3200, and maybe underexposed, besides.

    As above, it could also be underfixing. Both age and underfixing emphasize the larger grains.

    You don't say which ISO 400 film, but hexagonal grain films need more fixing than cubic grain, so that could also the the reason.

  11. The playground shot does look like a worse version of what I have. Here is one of the better frames. 21394R2-R01-028.Jpg
  12. Any chance you can take a picture of the negatives themselves, edges and all, against a white light? A light box or white computer screen would work. I'm unclear from the photo in post #11 exactly what you mean by fog. If you mean that the boy is fuzzier than the rest, that's just because of lack of depth of field - the background is in focus and the boy is not.
  13. I will study the negs more. You may be onto something. The viewfinder of the camera is so dirty that it is hard to focus.
  14. Well, well, well. I studied the roll. Besides the general fogging, not one main subject is in acceptable focus. In some shots, nothing is in focus! We are probably looking at a combination of factors. Damn if I use that camera again. (It's a Contaflex II from the 1950s. I just bought it used.)
  15. It doesn't look like fog to me. As I noted, fog makes white spots in black areas.

    Your picture has some pretty good black areas, that look black enough.
  16. Here's another shot from the roll. 21394R2-R01-014.Jpg
  17. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    These look a bit like shots I took with an old Leica 3.5 cm from the '50's I hadn't used in years. Turned out to be fungus in the lens.

Share This Page