Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,953   Posts: 1,558,018   Online: 1123
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    50
    Thanks. I'll have a search. Although this is one reason that I don't develop film myself. I'm far too clumsy (and lack of space).

    Just for the sake of discussion. Most of the images I've seen online about reticulation seemed to have a more uniform pattern, which is why this seemed odd. These two images were next to each other on the roll (or pretty close), yet one has the issue and the other doesn't. I had also wondered if it was something that the lab did when they scanned the film (although this is something I do have experience with and it seemed odd)?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	with.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	170.3 KB 
ID:	62827 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	without.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	164.1 KB 
ID:	62828

  2. #12
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,782
    I did a search through the literature I got on this issue I have not seen any sample showing inhomogeneous reticulation (except for film frozen during processing, but that gives a different, very specific effect).

  3. #13
    Molli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    512
    My guess is that, if a drastic change in chemical or washing water temperature occurred (I'm going with the latter), then a small amount was poured in down the side of the tank, the error quickly realised, the water poured out. Assuming the film was still on the reel at that point, it would account for the odd spacing of the reticulation.

    I can picture in my mind what I mean and what I think possibly happened, but I'm not sure I explained it well. I hope you can make sense of that garbled idea!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,869
    Just read through some comments.

    1) Reticulation on modern emulsions is very rare, and really does take some doing

    2) Someone mentioned FUJI 'could' be more prone to reticulation, absolutely NOT the case, whilst any film can reticulate, FUJI / KODAK / ILFORD are ultra high quality coated products and are highly resistant, one test we all do is 'adhesion' that is adhesion of the emulsion(s) to the base. Adhesion of modern film emulsions is outstanding, perhaps APUGGERS who processed film in the 40's and 50's would be able to tell of many reticulation events...its very rare now.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,335
    Images
    148
    Simon, Neopan 400 is one of the few films from a major manufactuers that will reticulate quite easily. Rodinal with it's free hydroxide is often the culprit because it significantly sftens the emulsion.

    Ilford's film hardening is excellent, the last reticaltion I had was at school (late 1960's) using FP3 & HP3 (ex government surplus), I quickly learnt how to avoid it. FP4 & HP4 had significantly better hardening, it took Kodak a time to catch up.

    The issue these days is most films are so well hardened people get lax with temperature controls through out the entire process cycle and few remember that wash is part of that cycle, particularly as very few use hardening fixers now.

    Ian

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    50
    Just back to say that I've had another roll developed from the same batch - at a different lab - and all is well.

    Not sure I'm completely sold on the high contrast of this film compared to HP5, but that's another story. Probably just not used to it, I tend to do all the contrast adjustments post-process in Photoshop, so maybe I just need to adjust my workflow with this film. I've kind of got used to HP5 being 'flatter', which allows me to start from a more 'even' base, I suppose.

    Thanks again for all the comments above.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    289
    You might be better off sticking with HP5 if contrast is a problem. I choose lower contrast films and processing for a similar reason, adding contrast is far easier than trying to reduce contrast. Although for a high contrast look there is nothing like a good high contrast negative to start with, the subtlety of the transition of tone is much better than trying to force it in post processing or printing.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin