Visual guide to film/processing faults

I may have missed something, but I don't ever remember seeing a visual guide to film faults on here.

The old Ilford (latterly Focal) Manual of Photography used to have some example pictures, but copies are getting quite rare and expensive these days.

Anyway. I'll kick this off by posting examples of the most common exposure and processing faults and how they affect the appearance of the negative.

First an example of a correctly exposed and normally developed neg, as you would see it on a lightbox or held up to a window:

Next an over developed neg. -

Underdeveloped -

Underexposed -

And overexposed -

And yes, these are simulations, but I've seen enough of the real thing to say they're a pretty accurate guide.

So, that's kicked this thread off. Please feel free to post your own 'boo-boos'; together with the cause and cure if possible.

A picture's worth a thousand words when it comes to communicating film faults.

There's also a lot of bad advice and just plain craziness on the internet WRT film use and processing. So I feel quite sorry for anyone starting to attempt to use film these days.

Great idea.

This will be very helpful to us beginning the home developing.

Thanks.

The old Ilford (latterly Focal) Manual of Photography...

latterly Focal...this made me chuckle. It's been the Focal Press Manual of Photography since 1971. I don't think the "latterly" designation is really necessary anymore.

Also, if anyone wants to see the (formerly) Ilford Manual of Photography, the 1945 edition is available online from the Internet Archive:

The Ilford Manual of Photography : James Mitchell : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here are a few more - non simulated - examples I dug out of my archive.

Overlapped film during processing. Remedy: don't load overlong or multiple loose strips of film into the spiral.

Classic "half moon" crimp mark in 120 rollfilm, with edge marking for scale. Caused by pressure from kinking or sharply bending the film when loading the developing spiral.

Remedy: Be careful and treat rollfilm gently.

Another pressure mark (lower right) plus a drying mark top left, and numerous dust spots.

Remedy: Take more care - again! Process and dry in a dust-free environment and use a wetting agent for the final rinse.

Thanks for the link to the Ilford Manual Colin.

1971 eh? How time flies!

Here's another: How to read a negative.

- A reasonable guide.

Not too sure about the references to 'black arts' and 'alchemy' being too constructive though. It's all science, and perfectly logical. Not at all mind-boggling if you approach it that way.

If you tell someone a subject is difficult and obscure, then that's how they're going to see it.

I also think it's misleading to show the shadow areas of a negative as totally clear and 'white'. They almost never are in actuality, and it gives a false impression of the degree of contrast you should expect to see in a real negative.

I've deliberately left the shadow areas grey in my examples, because base fog and uncleared anti-halation backing is a fact of life.

I may have missed something, but I don't ever remember seeing a visual guide to film faults on here.

Thanks rodeo_joe, what a great thread! In the photos in your first post, could you please describe what to look for exactly in order to differentiate, firstly, between the overdeveloped and the overexposed negative, and secondly, between the underdeveloped and underexposed negative?

To me, the key differences seem to be that the overdeveloped shows stronger contrast than the overexposed and the underdeveloped shows less contrast than the underexposed. Is that correct and is there anything else that I've missed?

All the best!

To me, the key differences seem to be that the overdeveloped shows stronger contrast than the overexposed and the underdeveloped shows less contrast than the underexposed. Is that correct and is there anything else that I've missed?

- That's about it. Neatly summed up.

Development controls contrast - more development = more contrast; less development = lower contrast - while exposure controls the amount of shadow detail and overall density.

It gets a bit more complicated if either over-development or overexposure are taken to extremes. There's a limit to how dense (black) the film can be made to go, and close to that limit contrast is reduced. This is commonly called having 'blocked up' highlights, and no matter how much printing or scanning exposure you give them, you just can't extract any detail in those highlights.

With modern films you have to expose or develop a lot more than normal to get blocked highlights, but it's possible. For this reason it's best to attempt to expose and develop 'normally' as per the maker's instructions.

WRT exposure: The persistent myth of being able to 'push' film beyond its box speed is just that - a myth.

All that increasing development does is to increase contrast. It may appear that by doing so you've increased the speed of the film, but it's an illusion, as examination of any published film curves will show.

I suspect that most 'pushing' is done in already contrasty and difficult artificial lighting conditions, where a loss of shadow detail isn't noticed, and only a printable or scannable mid-tone density is wanted. The old-fashioned dismissive term for this kind of thing was "soot 'n' whitewash" to describe the overly contrasty result.

Here's a 1954 Popular Photography (Sept.) "Darkroom Troubleshooting" guide that may also be helpful:

Here attached you will find other examples.

For your information VOILE (number 9 on the list) means FOG in photography.

I may have missed something, but I don't ever remember seeing a visual guide to film faults on here.

 

The old Ilford (latterly Focal) Manual of Photography used to have some example pictures, but copies are getting quite rare and expensive these days.

 

Anyway. I'll kick this off by posting examples of the most common exposure and processing faults and how they affect the appearance of the negative.

 

First an example of a correctly exposed and normally developed neg, as you would see it on a lightbox or held up to a window:

[ATTACH=full]1271023[/ATTACH]

Next an over developed neg. -

[ATTACH=full]1271024[/ATTACH]

Underdeveloped -

[ATTACH=full]1271025[/ATTACH]

Underexposed -

[ATTACH=full]1271026[/ATTACH]

And overexposed -

[ATTACH=full]1271027[/ATTACH]

And yes, these are simulations, but I've seen enough of the real thing to say they're a pretty accurate guide.

 

So, that's kicked this thread off. Please feel free to post your own 'boo-boos'; together with the cause and cure if possible.

 

A picture's worth a thousand words when it comes to communicating film faults.

 

There's also a lot of bad advice and just plain craziness on the internet WRT film use and processing. So I feel quite sorry for anyone starting to attempt to use film these days.

great starting point for many new comers assesing their developed film. thanks for starting this Joe.

Not to complicate things too much.... Under n over exposed look almost the same as under n over developing. it takes a sharp eye as pointed out above to spot the difference. Thats basically what the zone system is about... over exposing n under dev or vs vs to compensate for certain conditions to maintain contrast n tonal range.

as for processing faults... not reeling properly, aggitation n temerature, chemical dilutions, drying dirt n finger prints, curling... those are the most common noob mistakes when developing film. I think we all had a chance at them all.

whats your favorite noob story?

ps; but to bring it all into perspective... how to properly expose is another worth while discussion to start for noobs. Any ideas Joe?

.

Here attached you will find other examples.

 

For your information VOILE (number 9 on the list) means FOG in photography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1275456[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1275457[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1275458[/ATTACH]

Thanks for that Jean-Claude.

Some of the French technical words had me guessing, but I got the gist of most of it.

However, two little 'niggles'.

The illustration of reticulation is pretty much lost in the halftone reproduction, and I'm not too convinced about using edge-markings as a guide to development. I've seen edge-markings of various densities on different films, and even on different batches of film.

whats your favorite noob story?

- I think that might need a thread of its own Paul.

One embarrassing moment sticks out though: I was persuaded to put a friend's film through with one of mine. It should have been a 'no sweat' routine deal - except the lid popped off my stainless tank halfway through the developing and ruined my friends film, which was on top. Some of the frames of mine survived.

That incident took a bit of gentle explaining, and a few free pints! Ever afterwards I've stuck a strip of electrician's tape across the seam of the lid of stainless tanks after loading them.

The edge markings above indicate 3 development different procedures:

- either very well defined which means development was properly done or

- slobbery which reveals overdevelopment (number 3) or

- rather thin. They show underdevelopment.- (number 4)

Finally fog but that is visible along the whole negative.

The edge markings above indicate 3 development different procedures:

- Yes, I know what they're supposed to show. I'm just saying that the density of edge markings isn't consistent between types of film, and will also fade if the film is old.