Topic: Can someone tell me why my film betrayed me?

[limr]

I bought a few rolls of Arista 120 film probably a little less than a year ago. Long enough at any rate that I forgot exactly what speed (either 100 or 400.) I assume it's Arista EDU since Premium isn't available in 120 as far as I know.

One roll was fine (it was used to take the boat picture I posted a few days ago and that I've attached below). The other two came out very oddly. There was...not really grain, but speckles? Sometimes big enough to be called splotches? (These clearly are not technical terms!). I could also see the markings on the paper backing on the film.

I shot these rolls using a Lubitel 166B. Every roll was shot on bright sunny days. The boat was taken in August, the hillside in September, and the dam is from a couple of weeks ago.

Does anyone have any idea about what could have made the film do this? Was it maybe a bad batch of the film or is this what happens because of some user error, either mine while shooting or the developer while processing (I'm not doing my own processing yet).

Thanks!

[Francois]

Leon has a better eye for this than I do but I'd be tempted to say they are underexposed. This usually brings up the grain quite a bit.
As for the last one, light definitely made it through the paper backing as you can see the fibers of the paper and the film markings.

[moominsean]

Looks like the film has "expired" early. Maybe was stored in a warm or moist place. You get that mottled look and the paper backing imprint on expired film. I had a bunch of Ekfa 127 film that was like this when I bought it new... it had obviously been stored poorly.

[LT]

I agree with both sean and francois. Also, what camera are using? Looks like light has got in through the back as well.

[Andrea.]

Did you forget to wash the developer out before you put the fix in??? I did the other day with some prints and got similar blotches.

[Chalky]

I had some film that got damp and looked like that too....

[charles binns]

In the last one, light has definitely got in through the back - the circles and numbers are from the roll film backing paper.  Put some black tape over the red film counter window.

[limr]

Thanks for the ideas, everyone!

Also, what camera are using? Looks like light has got in through the back as well.

The camera was a Lubitel 166B.

In the last one, light has definitely got in through the back - the circles and numbers are from the roll film backing paper.  Put some black tape over the red film counter window.

The film counter window has a cover that I keep closed except when advancing the film to the next frame. I do this with every roll and this mottling has only ever happened with the Arista. It's harder to see in the second picture, but all the shots from those two rolls had markings from the backing. It does seem like light got on the back but I'm not sure how. Unless the camera was working normally and the film itself was degraded perhaps?

Did you forget to wash the developer out before you put the fix in??? I did the other day with some prints and got similar blotches.

I didn't develop it myself. The guys at the place we take our film are usually pretty good, and we've never had any issue except with these two rolls.

I've put a lot of rolls through that Lubitel and have never had any issues with light leaks. I've underexposed pictures and they didn't come out with splotches. And I don't think these were underexposed - it was perfect Sunny 16 conditions and I exposed for those conditions.

It's really only the film that was the variable, so it seems most likely that it was expired or had gotten too hot or damp, as moominsean and Chalky suggested.

Thanks again! I think from now on, I'll just avoid the Arista 120.

[charles binns]

The markings on the third image (and I suspect the second) are definitely from the backing paper - I find these show up on the negative on a holga when the film counter window is not covered or, when using infrared film, if I load the film in daylight (I now only ever load my holga with IR film in the dark).

Somehow light has got into the film, either when you loaded or unloaded it or because the film counter window wasn't covered properly. It's nothing to do with development or processing, I'd say it's a handling issue.

[Terry]

I'm going to suggest another answer to the last frame's print-through.  I had the same problem with a batch of Shanghai GP3 in 120 and did some research on it.  It turns out that they used some sort of crap ink and paper combo that printed onto the emulsion when the film was rolled up prior to exposure.  This problem is an old one with Shanghai and you never know when you buy some whether it came from a good batch or a bad one.  (If they were the last people on earth making film I would hesitate to buy another batch from them.)

Anyhow, I just unrolled a roll of the GP3--no point shooting it--and I see that the numbers on your photo are the exact same font Shanghai uses.  I looked at the backing paper from a recently shot roll of Arista (which I believe is really Fomapan) and the markings are very different from these.  So I'm going to propose that either the third roll was Shanghai mistaken for Arista or Freestyle once bought Shanghai film and repackaged it with the Arista brand before switching to Foma as their supplier.

In the interest of fairness, I should add that I have shot Shanghai's sheet film and liked the results.  It's the 120 GP3 that sucks, because of the backing paper.

Addendum:
Here are some scans from a roll of GP3.  If you look hard you can see the same print-through, even the number 3 there in the third image.  That looks like a 6 in the bottom left of the first one.  Notice, though, how the last image has the same texture to it.  The paper must have some kind of chemical or acidity content that affects the emulsion.

[Francois]

You can also get mottled grain when the developer is contaminated by fixer...

Also for the markings, it could be due to the way the lab handles the film. I once saw people start to unwind the paper on the roll, keeping the roll tight with their fingers and pulling until a bit of film showed through. Then they would put everything in the changing tent and either spool the film or insert it in a clamshell.

[Terry]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/shanghai_film/discuss/72157632226611342/

[limr]

Terry, that is really interesting. Those last two images of yours really do look exactly like the shots from those two rolls. And it was every shot, so that would again suggest something with the film, not the particular frame.

The film came in unmarked red paper and there were no brand identifications on the film backing. I knew that the 120 Arista was really Fomapan but didn't know it could have been something else. And I've had good results with the Arista Premium 35mm, but for the 120 I'll stick to the Tri-X or Ilford I think.

[LT]

Good work Terry - I think that is case closed.

[sapata]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/shanghai_film/discuss/72157632226611342/

I like the guy who said "I like using it for all the same reasons you hate it"...brilliant!

[Terry]

I think he just likes the price--as I recall he has bought lots of it from disappointed users at a very low price.  There is a sort of 'working without a net' thrill to it I suppose.  The problem, of course, is that some batches are OK and others are crap.  Personally I liked the comment that they use the same paper they use to wrap fireworks.  Must be the traces of gunpowder!

[Francois]

Personally I liked the comment that they use the same paper they use to wrap fireworks.  Must be the traces of gunpowder!

I wonder how that affects the film's base in regards to its "safety film" status