[pure-silver] Re: OT: Condensation on frozen film
- From: johnfrost <johnfrost@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:37:38 -0700
My only experiance with wet film involved a white water rafting trip.
The pocket with the camera was full of water, as was the camera itself.
We let it dry for three weeks before rewinding the film, then processed
(c-41), with no visible problem.
john (:>))) I think they need to redo them in the last soup to remove
the sludge.
Michael Healy wrote:
>Sorry to go OT. I'm having a dispute with my (ex-?) lab, and hope someone can
>give me
>some thoughts/evidence/etc one way or another.
>
>The 35mm film I use, I purchase once a year (early spring or late fall because
>of the
>Phoenix heat), in quantities of 40-50 rolls. It gets frozen straight out of
>the UPS package
>- in original canisters, every one inside its original box. When using it,
>particularly for a
>client, I am anally careful to follow the same procedure every time: I pull
>rolls out of the
>freezer as needed, and let them come to room temp - for absolute minimum 3-4
>hours, if
>possible overnight. I have never had a single problem doing this, or so I
>thought.
>
>Today a roll I got a roll from the lab had weird puddle-like and large
>drop-like marks
>across the middle of a number of the frames, on the emulsion side. In
>addition, about
>1/3 of all frame had these sprocket-sized bubblle-like marks sporadically
>appearing just
>inside some of their sprocket holes, along one side only.
>
>The guy running the shop said yes, clearly something had happened during their
>drying.
>To him, the swirls indicated some sort of splashing in their dip/dunk process.
>As for the
>holes, he said, these have been known to hold liquid like a bubble, then pop
>during the
>drying.
>
>Later he changed his mind, though, and told me he thought that the sprocket
>marks had
>to be the result of condensation that collected when I used the roll straight
>out of the
>freezer. Case in point (he said): most of the "sprocket hole" problems occur
>in the latter
>1/2-2/3 of the roll, where it would have been tighter on the core, and that's
>why you get
>condensation problems. Well, he sure had me on that argument. I have never had
>a
>single such problem, so I wouldn't know; but I would have expected
>condensation to
>collect nearer the opening of the cassette, that is, on the first several
>frames. Those,
>tho, are fine.
>
>But I'm not convinced anyway.
>
>1) I did not use this roll for 6 days. In fact, it was one of two I pulled out
>six days ago for
>one job. The first of them, which I shot the next night, turned out fine. This
>2nd roll had
>to sit next to the camera - in box and plastic container - for another four
>days while I
>awaited client approval on the first roll of shots. While I cannot absolutely
>rule out
>condensation, it does not SEEM like a likely explanationgiven my work
>procedures and
>especially my handling of these two particular rolls.
>
>2) I have never had this problem on a single one of the 300+ rolls of frozen
>35mm film
>I've ever used. I've never had it on rolls of 120, either, nor on sheets of
>4x5 NOR on
>8x10, all frozen and thawed. And the one and only roll this might conceivably
>ever have
>happened on, is one he admits also got splashed in the dip/dunk procedure.
>
>BTW, in this case, my film is not b&w, it happens to be Fujichrome T64, so it
>involves
>E6. I assume that the principles are the same, though. (Well, and I've never
>had a
>problem with any rolls or sheets of my b&w out of the freezer, either, and
>I've processed
>gazillions of these right here at home under less-than-idea conditions.)
>
>So what exactly DOES a roll of film look like if you use it before letting it
>come to room
>temp? And has anyone had experience with the above situation, who might be
>able to
>comment on the problem, and/or the range of its impact on the film? Could I
>have gotten
>condensation even though the film was still double-boxed? And supposing I had,
>would
>it still be sticking around, messing up the film nearly a week later? It's
>been nearly 100
>degrees here since about May 1st, with humidity in the minus numbers. Is this
>guy's
>scenario legitimate, or is he generously trying to share some blame?
>
>Thanks for any input.
>
>Mike
>
>=============================================================================================================
>To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
>account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
>and unsubscribe from there.
>
>
>
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
