I started using film again and took these shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600827867713/

All are scans from 120 film, either from B&W or color slide film. Leaving aside things like composition for the moment, there is a huge difference in quality. The B&W shots have vertical dark light variegation in them and a mottled look. The color appear to be clean and sharp. Another role of color, shot immediately after the B&W here, also looks fine (I didnt post it because it is still being scanned but I looked at the slides). All three roles, these and the one I didnt post, were shot within a couple hours of one another in the same camera. The B&W negatives may have some variegation but seem to look better, but Im not expert at looking at negs.

Is it a coincidental film loading issue? Or is the banding indicative of something like incomplete washing during developing or printing? Any comments would be appreciated. I have about 5 more rolls of 120 B&W and Im trying to decide where to go with them for processing. I may test a roll somewhere else just to see what happens. Thanks.

What type of camera specifically did you use?

My first thought would be a light leak in the film back/insert you are using.

If however you processed the film yourself them my first thought would be that you loaded the film improperly onto the tank reel and thus got uneven chemistry distribution.

Second thought would be defective pressure plate within the back/insert and my third thought would be that your lab has a defective film processor.

More specific info needed.

I can't tell in what order they were shot from the flickr images. Is there any kind of progression from one shot to the next?

Wirelessly posted (TMobile DASH: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.12) T-Mobile Dash)

Sorry, all were shot with a Yashica MAT 124G so no separate backs or inserts. All were in the same camera within a hour or two of one another. All were 120 so the pressure plate in the camera didnt change. The order was color roll shown here, the B&W roll shown here and then a roll of Fujichrome not posted but looked fine with visual inspection of the transparencies. thanks.

Was the film fresh?

Was the film processed in China or someplace else?

Did the exposed film pass through airport X-ray machines or get subjected to heat/cold in baggage hold?

The B/W looks kind of like a bad developing job. Perhaps old chemicals or improper handling, although the regularity of the discoloration is puzzling. Perhaps improperly loaded into the machine.

You could try having a couple of reprints made to see if the problem occurred during developing or printing.

Yeah, from my days of developing B&W roll film I would immediately suspect mishandling or old chemicals - or roller marks, light leaks, something in the machine. Sucks.

Was the film fresh?

Was the film processed in China or someplace else?

Did the exposed film pass through airport X-ray machines or get subjected to heat/cold in baggage hold?

The B/W looks kind of like a bad developing job. Perhaps old chemicals or improper handling, although the regularity of the discoloration is puzzling. Perhaps improperly loaded into the machine.

You could try having a couple of reprints made to see if the problem occurred during developing or printing.

Fresh film from B&H so a very high volume dealer, even in 120. The color and B&W film were of the same ASA and transported together in carry on bags. They were x-rayed, but together and also with some 35mm 400 ASA B&W that looks fine. Im also suspecting a bad developing job. I will have the B&W negs scanned, I think Duggal (they did NOT develop this I sent it to a cheaper mail order place) can scan directly from a negative to a positive JPEG. I have about 5 more rolls of TMax 120 that Im very hesitant to send back to this place. I may have to bite the bullet and take them to Duggal.

You say the negatives look better than the scan? Who scanned the negatives, was it the place that developed the film?

Most of the problems seem to be darker slices on the right side of the frame. Are the negatives for the bad shots visibly lighter on the right side of the frame? (Beijing-07073.jpg looks the worst, you should see the difference on the film.) If you can't see it on the negative, I'd guess it was a scanning problem, not processing.

That said, ditto the other comments about poor processing or chemicals. If the negative looks bad, I'd assume the processing house uses a continuous line type of proccessing, (think one hour photo type gear) not a tank. Consistent streaks like that are hard to create in a tank. If a roller is slipping or running slow/fast in line processing, they'll get results like you did. I'd avoid using the same processing house for the remaining film.

If you really want to save money, go back to B&H, buy a 120 tank and reel, some out of date film, chemicals, and learn how to develop on your own. ;) Of course, then you'll get a whole new set of problems to puzzle through as you learn....

You say the negatives look better than the scan? Who scanned the negatives, was it the place that developed the film?

Most of the problems seem to be darker slices on the right side of the frame. Are the negatives for the bad shots visibly lighter on the right side of the frame? (Beijing-07073.jpg looks the worst, you should see the difference on the film.) If you can't see it on the negative, I'd guess it was a scanning problem, not processing.

That said, ditto the other comments about poor processing or chemicals. If the negative looks bad, I'd assume the processing house uses a continuous line type of proccessing, (think one hour photo type gear) not a tank. Consistent streaks like that are hard to create in a tank. If a roller is slipping or running slow/fast in line processing, they'll get results like you did. I'd avoid using the same processing house for the remaining film.

If you really want to save money, go back to B&H, buy a 120 tank and reel, some out of date film, chemicals, and learn how to develop on your own. ;) Of course, then you'll get a whole new set of problems to puzzle through as you learn....

Ive thought about developing myself but thusfar have decided not to. I have done some darkroom stuff but it was years ago. Also, I sometimes, if my allergies are acting up, can get quite sensitive to some of the chemicals. Usually not a problem but Im not sure I want to deal with it.

The same place did the developing and scanning. I think Duggal advertises all their B&W development is in dip tanks, not on a line. So I will take the next ones to them. There is also another place I found that I think does tanks only that I will check into. I will drop this set of negs off at Duggal for a scan. I see some of the streaks on some negs, but it doesnt seem as bad on the negs as on the scans. Im at work now but when I get home will check the neg of the one mentioned above. Thanks for all the tips people. ^

I'm gonna go out on a limb and vote for x-ray damage, because the pattern of bands changes frequency during a single roll which has been reported for x-rays.

Why one roll and not the others? It's hard to predict the effect of x-rays. The orientation of the film, type of film, type of processing used, are all variables.

I have about 5 more rolls of TMax 120 that Im very hesitant to send back to this place. I may have to bite the bullet and take them to Duggal.

Simple then: Take these rolls somewhere else completely and if the streaks appear again then you know you are looking at some type of x-Ray or heat damage [assuming there were in fact no streaks on your RVP stuff - which might then suggest a light leak].

Light leaks are usually easy to diagnose: they appear continuously on the neg., even between frames. Likewise, x-ray fogging is not confined to within the framed area.

Are the streaks parallel to the long axis of the roll or across the roll? Parallel to the roll means something systematic (perhaps low chemical levels, transport). Across the roll is an intermittent problem (perhaps poor chemical mixing, negs stuck together).

I have an MAT 124G myself. This camera has a felt lining that is supposed to seal the back of the camera against light leaks, and this lining eventually breaks down to a black tar like gunk, but it can be scraped out and replaced to stop light leaks. Try ebay for this replacement seal.

I had similar problems with my camera giving me less than outstanding shots, although not quite like these, so I have started changing the film in a changing bag. I I also wrap the film in aluminum foil before removing it from the bag. So far, so good.

I have an MAT 124G myself. This camera has a felt lining that is supposed to seal the back of the camera against light leaks, and this lining eventually breaks down to a black tar like gunk, but it can be scraped out and replaced to stop light leaks. Try ebay for this replacement seal.

I had similar problems with my camera giving me less than outstanding shots, although not quite like these, so I have started changing the film in a changing bag. I I also wrap the film in aluminum foil before removing it from the bag. So far, so good.

Well, I just today got more info that is making me think pretty conclusively that it was the processing. As I mentioned I took another roll, this time E6, that had been done at the same place that had processed the B&W stuff to Duggal for scanning. I picked them up today and they told me that the transparencies were really dirty and they tried to clean them before scanning but they werent sure they had gotten it all off because they were pretty bad. These transparencies had never been out of the sleeve and were just received the week before.

I then explained the B&W issue I had and showed them a couple of the negatives. The woman working there seemed extremely knowledgeable. She pointed out, as some did here, that if it was a light leak, it would cross the frame lines, and these didnt. She said that it was possible to get a light leak that didnt cross the frame line (Im guessing bad shutter for instance) but that didnt seem like the case here. She thought it was likely old chemicals or a roller issue given the pattern. After she looked at them she asked a bit incredulously, "we didnt do these did we?" I told her no, and that was why I had brought these, three rolls, for them to do. Plus, I had some digital printing done there and they were really helpful and gave real personal service and advice on how to do things so it is worth the extra money to me.

Light leaks are usually easy to diagnose: they appear continuously on the neg., even between frames. Likewise, x-ray fogging is not confined to within the framed area.

Are the streaks parallel to the long axis of the roll or across the roll? Parallel to the roll means something systematic (perhaps low chemical levels, transport). Across the roll is an intermittent problem (perhaps poor chemical mixing, negs stuck together).

See the post above for more info but to specifically answer, the streaks are parallel to the long axis of the film. The area between frames appears to be completely unexposed.

This thread is now the number one site on Google when you search for diagnosing B&W streaks. I'm impressed. This little FlyerTalk subforum is now the world's leading source of photographic troubleshooting information. :D

I also found threads elsewhere that recommend refixing negatives to see if that helps. Sometimes the film doesn't get fixed properly.

This thread is now the number one site on Google when you search for diagnosing B&W streaks. I'm impressed. This little FlyerTalk subforum is now the world's leading source of photographic troubleshooting information. :D

SCARY! :eek:

Thanks for all the help.

Here are some more scans, developed and scanned at Duggal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926822462/

This film was also in China so on the same flights, through the same Xrays, same camera, etc. The only thing different is the processing. Note, it was very hazy, which shows in the pictures but that isnt a flaw (well, except for in the air quality index in PEK).

The next set are here.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926866128/

These are from taken in the Marin Headlands just north of San Francisco the first weekend in July. It was VERY foggy, which shows in the pictures but no streaking, etc.

In several of the shots Im getting vignetting when I used a telephoto adaptor on the camera. I will have to be aware of that in the future. It is the first time Ive used that adaptor. Does that typically happen at low or high f stop, I forgot my physics?

What diagnosis have you confirmed? I am lost.

All sets show similar streaks that are not part of the scene, are not caused by vignetting, and are not normal.

The film may have been damaged before you received it. Have you considered that in your diagnosis?

In several of the shots Im getting vignetting when I used a telephoto adaptor on the camera. I will have to be aware of that in the future. It is the first time Ive used that adaptor. Does that typically happen at low or high f stop, I forgot my physics?

If it is going to happen it would happen at the short end of the zoom with large apertures (small f).

What diagnosis have you confirmed? I am lost.

All sets show similar streaks that are not part of the scene, are not caused by vignetting, and are not normal.

The film may have been damaged before you received it. Have you considered that in your diagnosis?

You see the same streaks in the ones I just posted??? I dont see them. So I was assuming it was the processing based on that.

If it is going to happen it would happen at the short end of the zoom with large apertures (small f).

Thanks. I misspoke, it really isnt a zoom, it is a telephoto adapter but your point would be the same.

What diagnosis have you confirmed? ...
I half agree with the previous poster. The second roll of China photos look a lot better than the first that you posted when starting this thread. The Marin photos show some blotchy discolored areas in the sky. That might be the fog/haze you report. I don't think you are going to be sure until you try some shots in clear conditions with no fog or haze. Some good, contrasty shots with strong blacks and clear skies will be the best to judge from.

JR

I half agree with the previous poster. The second roll of China photos look a lot better than the first that you posted when starting this thread. The Marin photos show some blotchy discolored areas in the sky. That might be the fog/haze you report. I don't think you are going to be sure until you try some shots in clear conditions with no fog or haze. Some good, contrasty shots with strong blacks and clear skies will be the best to judge from.

JR

I see that point to an extent, however, if you look at the first set of Beijing photos, the light-dark variegation extends past the sky and into the solid structures, while in the newer set, on one or two, there is something in the sky but the rocks or what have you dont seem to have the same pattern.

there is something in the sky but the rocks or what have you dont seem to have the same pattern.

Look at 0046.JPG in the Marin set. I definitely see streaks all across the sky and continuing all across the water. That happens to be one that's easy to see, but it's not the only one.

So perhaps all three rolls are damaged, but each to a different extent, which tends to rule out processing as the cause. That leaves damage to the film before you received it, or damage during the trip.

Look at 0046.JPG in the Marin set. I definitely see streaks all across the sky and continuing all across the water. That happens to be one that's easy to see, but it's not the only one.

So perhaps all three rolls are damaged, but each to a different extent, which tends to rule out processing as the cause. That leaves damage to the film before you received it, or damage during the trip.

Thanks, that is a more interesting observation than you might realize. 46, 47 and 48 (also showing a streak) are from the physical end of the roll of film that the Great Wall pictures are from. Shot 59, in the Marin set is another last exposure on a roll. There may be two things going on here. The idea of shooting something with a lot of contrast is a very good one, although all of that box of fiim is gone. I think I have a few more to process though. Im still thinking that there was a problem with processing on the first set. There may be something else going on as well. Overall this set look a lot better but there still are some issues. Thanks again for the comments.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1235929064&context=set-72157601665117041&size=o


So Im not sure what it was. This is new film, new processing place (Duggal). There are some other issues, I had some exposure problems, and vignetting with the wide angle and telephoto attachments. But in looking at the set, the problem of streaking is gone. There are some streaks in a few of the images with bright sunlight but those really were there, caused by storm clouds and showed on the digital shots made with my G7 also. The 120 scans are in this set.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157601665117041/


Also, although not related to the problem of the streaks, I did something else. I was showing some of the earlier ones to a woman I know that used to work in the fashion photography biz. She suggested over exposing Tri X and Plus X to increase the contrast. So all of these were over exposed half to one stop and I like the difference a lot.

Thanks to all here for the suggestions and help with the problem.

I didn't mention it before, but your Marin Headlands pictures had black spots on them. Dust on the scanner or film causes white spots on negatives. I'm not even sure how you would get black spots. They seem to have fixed that problem. Now if you could get them to omit the stupid logo. :)

If you overexpose, then don't you need to underdevelop to compensate?

Did you use a lens a shade? There is one nice picture that got spoiled by flare.

How exactly to you know when film is overexposed by 1/2 stop? There is no histogram on the LCD to tell you if it's overexposed. :)

I didn't mention it before, but your Marin Headlands pictures had black spots on them. Dust on the scanner or film causes white spots on negatives. I'm not even sure how you would get black spots. They seem to have fixed that problem. Now if you could get them to omit the stupid logo. :)

If you overexpose, then don't you need to underdevelop to compensate?

Did you use a lens a shade? There is one nice picture that got spoiled by flare.

How exactly to you know when film is overexposed by 1/2 stop? There is no histogram on the LCD to tell you if it's overexposed. :)

Hmm, what logo? Im not sure about the developing. If you push it yes, but I dont think for the partial like that you should compensate on developing. I think the idea is to hit a different part of the normal exposure latitude of the film, which is pretty wide under standard development. But I havent read any zone system books for 20 years and honestly dont remember. As far as lens shade, I dont have one for this camera. Im not sure you can still get them.

Hmm, what logo?

Lower left. Sugar Creek Photo.

Lower left. Sugar Creek Photo.

Oops, I can make that go away any time I want ;)

Lens hood at ebay, and it comes with a case: http://cgi.ebay.com/YASHICA-TLR-LENS-SHADE-NEW_W0QQitemZ220142509268QQihZ012QQcategoryZ30037Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

With an SLR you can use your hand to shade the lens, because you see your hand and the effect on the flare. With a TLR you need a real hood, and it has to be square.

Lens hood at ebay, and it comes with a case: http://cgi.ebay.com/YASHICA-TLR-LENS-SHADE-NEW_W0QQitemZ220142509268QQihZ012QQcategoryZ30037Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

With an SLR you can use your hand to shade the lens, because you see your hand and the effect on the flare. With a TLR you need a real hood, and it has to be square.

Great, thanks!

I didn't mention it before, but your Marin Headlands pictures had black spots on them. Dust on the scanner or film causes white spots on negatives. I'm not even sure how you would get black spots. They seem to have fixed that problem. Now if you could get them to omit the stupid logo. :)

If you overexpose, then don't you need to underdevelop to compensate?


The streaks seem to be gone, whatever you did worked.

A very small, pinhole light leak in the camera could cause black spots, they should be visible on the negatives (especially the one in the upper right hand quadrant on the Marin shots). There are 3-5 spots that consistently show up on the Marin headlands shots. That said, the NM shots look clean so I doubt a light leak is the cause.

It could also be from fixer dust in the lab that got onto the negatives before they were developed. Fixing undeveloped film leaves clear plastic which makes dark areas on positive prints.

Another term for overexposing is expose for the shadows. The pictures look better because negative films handle overexposure better than underexposure. In essence, you've gotten a better exposure on the shadows by overexposing and film's latitude keeps the highlights looking good.

In general, underdeveloping film (pulling) leads to less contrast on the negative. Overdeveloping (pushing) increases contrast.