What caused the scratches on this negative?

[stephen_mcateer]

I notice some fine vertical lines in this image, which I take to be scratches on the negative.

The camera was my Rolleiflex 3.5F.

Film was Portra 400.

[It's a very thin negative, almost completely transparent.]

I'm wondering if the scratches are happening during film transport through the camera, or if they're being caused at the lab? [I believe this lab uses 'Dip and dunk'.]

It's not a huge problem — it's not often I'll be shooting at dusk, and I hope if I do so in future, I'll give it a bit more exposure so the neg is not quite so thin.

Thanks for any insights.

[AJG]

If the lab is dip and dunk then this is most likely to be a camera problem.  Make sure that the rollers in the camera are clean and that they are rotating freely.

[stephen_mcateer]

21 minutes ago, AJG said:

Make sure that the rollers in the camera are clean and that they are rotating freely.

Thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that the rollers might be dirty, though thinking about it now, the camera had probably been out of use for a long time before I got it. I will go now and clean them. Cheers.

Edited December 28, 2023 by stephen_mcateer
Typo

[stephen_mcateer]

UPDATE: I pinged the lab & it turns out they don't use dip & dunk for C41.

[rick_drawbridge]

A multitude of abrasions like these is unlikely to be a camera problem. I'd suspect they are caused by dirty or poorly maintained rollers in a C41 processor.

[stephen_mcateer]

@rick_drawbridge Thanks Rick.

Yes — I checked the rollers and the other bits of the camera that might come into contact with the film, and as far as I could see they were pretty clean.

It's something I'll have to look out for in future.

Having said that, most of the negs I get back from this lab are great — it was just these few very thin ones that the scratches were visible on.

[john_stockdale2]

It looks as though the scratches are not parallel to the film transport which to me suggests that it's not a camera problem. (Unless you have reframed at an angle)

[stephen_mcateer]

8 hours ago, john_stockdale2 said:

It looks as though the scratches are not parallel to the film transport which to me suggests that it's not a camera problem. (Unless you have reframed at an angle)

You're right — I hadn't noticed that.

The lab say they use a "short-leader transport processor". Not sure what that is exactly.

Anyway, I do occasionally shoot in low-light situations with colour negative film, so I'm not sure what the ansewer is here...

[AJG]

2 hours ago, stephen_mcateer said:

You're right — I hadn't noticed that.

The lab say they use a "short-leader transport processor". Not sure what that is exactly.

Anyway, I do occasionally shoot in low-light situations with colour negative film, so I'm not sure what the ansewer is here...

Unfortunately, I think the answer is to find a different lab.  I don't know if you have access to any "dip and dunk" labs, but when film was still the professional medium of choice that was the way to go.

[stephen_mcateer]

1 hour ago, AJG said:

Unfortunately, I think the answer is to find a different lab.  I don't know if you have access to any "dip and dunk" labs, but when film was still the professional medium of choice that was the way to go.

Hmm. This lab is otherwise very good. Prices are reasonable too. I'll do a search for a 'Dip and dunk' lab and see what I turn up though.

Cheers.

[rodeo_joe1]

As has been said, the "scratches" aren't parallel to the frame edge, and are also not sharply defined. Ergo they aren't scratches, but minor streaking, most likely from processing. 

However, in the lab's defence, a very thin negative will show the slightest variation in density, due to the amount of contrast-boost needed in scanning. And, hey, it's film! If you want better image quality and total consistency shoot digital. 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I thought maybe chemistry too.  When you look at the negative under a loupe the striations are there? Maybe the effect was enhanced by scanning.