milky nph.....

[matt_webber]

hi all

 

i have recently returned from a trip to southeast asia and just

this minute collected my snaps.

i was a little dissapointed to find that on each of the 7 rolls

there was at least a handful of the photos that have come back

markedly 'milky' (for want of a better description).

 

each roll (nph 400 through a nikon f80) contained a variety of

situations and environments (ie they weren't all of the beach, or

all of the sea, or all of people, but rather each roll includes a

broad range of lighting situations, subject matter etc)

 

 

does anyone have any thoughts as to what may be the cause of this?

 

- is it the nature of nph to be a little milky?

 

- is it the nature of not having each individual negative hand-

checked during processing (ie the range of environments etc has over-

challenged the automated process)?

 

- is it my fault with poor exposure?

 

- is it the fault of the brainless shop-assistant in the lab!!!

 

 

also, some of the prints have cut off the edges of the negative (ie

someones feet might be missing on the print but are clearly not cut

off on the negative). again, is this the nature of the enlargement

stage in the processing, or is the lab at fault?!

 

thanks a lot for reading and (hopefully) responding - partly because

i'm interested to know and learn, partly because i want to check

whether i'd be doing the right thing to kick up a fuss at the lab!!

 

cheers guys and gals,

 

matt

[matt_webber]

i have re-assessed the photos.

 

though i am curious to know comments on the milkiness, i have decided that the cutting off of the edges of negatives is actually much more of a problem!! some of the negatives have lost up to 2mm off the sides! this means that lots of feet are missing, and important edges of monuments and architectural detail have been left off when i was EXTREMELY careful not to cut them off when taking the photo itself!!

 

is this just something i need to learn from and not crop my photos so tightly during the actual photographing stage, or should i hold the lab responsible?

 

thanks again. sorry for reposting, but damn i'm p****d off!! (rightly so me thinks!)

[scott_eaton]

Take a half dozen of the problem shots to a different lab and see what happens.

 

Cropping is a big problem with automated processors.

[roman_kuznetsov]

Hi, Matt!

Just some thoughts -

 

- NPH has less contrast than usual consumer films, but you still should not get "milky" pictures

 

- poor contrast milky (and also grainy) pictures may come out because of severe (say two stops or more) underexposure. Look to your film - such frames will look noticeable less dense on it.

 

- fully automated high-volume machines just can not set correction when printing as good as a skilled human operator in a good lab.

 

 

So, find a new lab (even expensive one) and have troubled frames reprinted. Ask operator later if they requred extra correction in a case of exposure problems.

[bill_tuthill]

How old was the film? Compared to new NPH, introduced about 2 years

ago, old NPH looked relatively washed out when both were exposed

as rated. Milky? Hard to say what that means, but it could be the

result of depleted chemicals. Some minilabs (e.g. Agfa) are better

at retaining your original framing. The Fuji Frontier is the worst

for overzealous cropping of any lab I've tried.

[johnmarkpainter]

Post some samples if you can.

 

Could it be lens flare? Were you shooting into the sun at all? Strong light sources in the

frame?

 

jmp

[john_shriver]

3.5"x5" and 4"x6" prints both require rather noticeable cropping at both ends of the 35mm negative. If you are lucky, someone will at least choose to crop the end that doesn't matter as much.

[ccrevasse]

Actually, a 4X6 print requires no cropping at all. It is precisely the same ratio of length to width as a 35mm negative. This does not mean it won't be cropped, but if it is cropped, it will have to be cropped both lengthwise and widthwise.

[fred_bonnett2]

I have never seen milky looking NPH negs. Bill is right that it could be depleted fixer, or it could be insufficient time in the fixer or insufficient agitation in the fixer because of the proximity of other filmstrips.

 

In any case, take the milky looking negs back to the processor and ask them to re-fix and dry the negs. They will probably have to do the re-fixing by hand.

[matt_webber]

thanks for all the replies.

 

took them all back to the lab and kicked up a fuss about the fact that they call their 7x5 "standard" size, without telling the uneducated consumer that 7x5 will require cropping (indiscriminately it appears).

 

They did however agree that since they don't offer 7.5x5 (which would negate the need to crop), they would reprint them all at 9x6.

 

I have reassessed the photos after reading your responses, and think it may be a result of very high contrast in some of the shots. Since the majority of the pictures have fantastic colour rendition, i don't think that it could be related to insufficient agitation or time in the fixer, or presumably the effect would be noticable in more than a few odd shots... similarly, this would presumably rule out the possibility of depleted chemicals? or can this happen to certain sections of a roll and not others? (I have no idea how old the film was - it came from one of the more reputable shops in Bangkok, was refrigerated, and all looked quite pro - by the way, I cleared them out of supra and nph and didn't see much more about the city if any one else is heading out there!!)

 

again, thankyou all for your time.

[hclim]

Matt,

 

Did you by any chance left the film in the check in luggage and didn't hand carry to the aircraft cabin? I read here on PN that X-rays for cargo luggage are very strong. And NPH is a 400 film.

 

HC

[matt_webber]

the film was in my hand luggage the whole time so didn't go through the large scanners out back.

 

however, in some of the small thai airports, they scan all the luggage at the same time in a multipurpose (hand and hold luggage) out the front. I asked if they'd hand check the films, but they said it was ok (it did have the 'filmsafe' sticker on the x-ray machines).

 

I was curious to know how it could be ok when it is obviously high enough power to scan the hold luggage as well...

[hclim]

I believe they could vary the power to have a closer look. Then, infrequently or poorly serviced machines could have a higher than normal output. You could also have been in the sun too long and the higher temperature exacerbated the X-rays exposure.