35mm color print film print problem, part II

About a month ago I had some problems with some 35mm color print film prints from “photoprocessor A,” so I started a new thread about it here and got some very helpful suggestions which I have since implemented but I’m still scratching my head some.

About a week later I then took another new roll of 35mm color film back to “photoprocessor A” for processing and prints and this time had no problems.

Then today I took two more rolls to “photoprocessor A” and the problem is back on both rollls: three micro-thin parallel lines (cyan, yellow and magenta) of differing spacing and instensity on every print with the exception of those with the very darkest backgrounds. I chose the print that was the most egregious example of the parallel lines and asked “photoprocessor A” to reprint it on the spot. This time the lines were still discernible but much fainter.

I then took the negatives to “photoprocessor B” and asked them to reprint the most egregious example. It wasn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison: glossy vs. matte finish and a warmer vs. colder look but there was no doubt that the “photoprocessor B” reprint had no lines whatsoever.

I returned to “photoprocessor A” with both prints. They acknowledged the proof but continue to insist that they never have this problem on other people’s negatives. At at least they refunded my money again.

I returned to “photoprocessor B” to to have reprints made of all 50 negatives and they all turned out just fine. It was a bit more expensive way to go, but the results were worth it.

Assuming that “photoprocessor A” is not lying through their teeth about not having this problem with anyone else’s negatives, what could be happening there?

The only reason that I care is because “photoprocessor B” does not develop film–they can only reprint developed negatives.

I don’t know what exactly might be wrong with “A”'s equipment, process, etc., but it’s obviously something - and to my mind, perhaps just a matter of time before they screw up your negatives too - if “B” can’t develop film, I’d be looking for recommendations for “Photoprocessor C”.

Personally, I think photoprocessor A is full of crap. There is no reason that I could think of that your negatives and your negatives only would print with cyan, yellow, and magenta banding. They obviously have some sort of issues with their printing equipment. I would find a new shop for prints.

Regretably, “A” and “B” are the only local options and “A” is literally only a block away.

I have patronised “A” for more than ten years now with more than 20 rolls of film per year and have never had any problems there until just recently. They have also refunded my money twice in the past month.
“A” also said they would call a Tech out to look at my “A” and “B” prints and then look at their machine and try to figure it out. I’ll give them one more shot and if it blows up again I’ll be hiking it to “C.”

I still sure would like to know, though, how, theoretically, that this could be happening only at “A” and only on my negatives.

Ask each processor what brand machine they use for making prints.

Something tell me that one is using a digital processor and the other is using an optical one. (And I’ll bet that Processor ‘B’ is using the optical one.)

Do the bands run the long axis of the frames?

Is ‘Photoprocessor B’ making digital prints or traditional ones?

Can you see scratches on the back side of the negatives?

Why not use a digital camera?

No clue–all I know is that they made prints from my negatives.

No, we couldn’t find any and scratches while looking at the negatives on a light box through a magnifying glass.

Now that’s kinda ironic. :slight_smile:

You just might want to check out my current thread in MPSIMS on “Yestertech.”

Suffice to say:

I still have a corded telephone.

I still have a PC powered by a 486 processor @ 25 MHz that only boots from a floppy.

I still have a turntable and about 200 vinyl LP’s.

etc, etc., etc

I’ll have to check that out. Thanks.

Are the lines that obvious that Joe printing his kids birthday photos would be bothered? Or is it only annoying to you? Maybe they don’t process a lot of raw film for exceptionally picky Luddites. The rest are just happy with any result, and the other perfectionists know better than to patronize A. (Not that I’m saying you’re wrong, just that others are more forgiving of poor quality)

If the prints are digital then maybe the banding is a set of pixels on the printing band that are stuck “on”… Assuming printing is done with a horizontal band of LEDs or such as the film is scanned as it is slowly fed thru the machine. Or, some pixels are stuck on the scanner sensor bar. (that would be more likely, which would explain why the majority of their customers, with digital prints, have nothing to complain about.

They should try this simple trick - print a strip of pics from negatives, then rotate the film 180 degrees and see if the band comes out the same or near the other margin of the picture. That means its the scanner or printer. Print a digital image immediately after- no lines means the scanner.

Or maybe the paper was accidentally exposed during manufacturing. I assume it comes in rolls. Wait until they use up that roll and try again. (I once left the lid off a can of 100 feet of film for a few seconds. The top of every neg ha a dark bit up to the sprocket holes)

I’ll bet you ten whole internet dollars that it is scratches on the emulsion side of your film. Take it out and look at it under bright light. Look at the ‘Matte’ side vs. the ‘Glossy’ side of the film. THERE WILL BE SCRATCHES THERE. The question is whether they line up with the ones on your film; I bet they do. In this case, it’s a question of sand, or some other grit, inside your camera.

A hundred internet bucks it’s not. Lab B doesn’t show that problem, and emulsion scratches don’t manifest themselves as magenta, yellow, and cyan bands in the print. Not in my experience. That points squarely to a digital scanning or printing problem.

Parallel scratches in the emulsion side, CMY, are almost always in the camera.

But then why would they have been absent from the images produced by the second photolab?

Face it - film is not a priority for most places nowadays, and sometimes they just don’t know how to handle it properly.

If you’re serious about film photography - and there are good reasons to use film - then I suggest you scan your negatives yourself. Check eBay for used film scanners or purchase an inexpensive flatbed like the Epson V500.

This is one possible explanation. When I gave copies of my first set of “banded” prints away to relatives the other day and pointed out the errors, most said that they had not noticed the 'banding."

Proud to be a Luddite, yes that’s me. :wink: Luddites of the world, unite!

Well, I just now did your test, checking both sides of the film right up to a 200W light bulb and see no scratches.

All I can say is I have never seen it manifest as in the OP: one solid cyan line, one solid magenta line, one solid yellow line, all parallel to each other. (ETA:well, the parallel part is normal for scratching.) It would mean that whatever is causing the three scratches in camera (or at the developing lab), one is digging down just to the cyan layer, one down to the magenta layer, and one down to the yellow layer. Not impossible, but seems rather unlikely to me that it happens to hit all three primary colors. Plus, these parallel layers are all of “different intensity and spacing” in every print. I read that as the location varying from print to print. A scratch across the film will usually be in the same place across the whole length of the film. It was be odd, to say the least, to have parallel scratches of three colors vary in location from frame to frame as an emulsion scratch on the film. Add to that that interim rolls have not shown this problem and that the film printed by the other lab does not show this problem, there’s no possibility I could see that it’s an emulsion scratch.

All signs point to a digital scanning problem, not scratches on the negs. Lab A is scanning the negs, converting to digital, then printing with a digital printer. Lab B is using optical equipment from start to finish.

Like postcards said.

Lab A has a scanner and/or printer problem and you may be seeing a digital artifact. Perhaps the reason no one else’s photos are affected is they haven’t looked closely enough.

There’s no reason to be certain that Lab B is not using digital in its workflow. All we know is that Lab A doesn’t keep up its equipment. Lab B may very well scan and digitally print them, too.