I think Ilford have been snooping in my negative file :-)

It was looking informative and helpful until this part:

"Squeegee the film after washing"

:runaway::runaway::runaway:
 
I can confirm that I have all those problems over the years. Not always on separate films.
 
It was looking informative and helpful until this part:

"Squeegee the film after washing"

:runaway::runaway::runaway:
I always squeegee. If you keep your kit clean there can be no problems with it.
 
I'm another who never squeegees. I haven't had problems with drying marks (possibly because I use a wetting agent and have a final rinse in purified water) and I can see the potential for s ratching from a squeegee.

Possibly this is another of the "to UV or not to UV" questions as applied to lens protection.
 
I found the bit about improper fixing quite interesting. However I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the effect ('milky negative') apart from say, an underdeveloped or underexposed negative. It seems to me the poorly fixed example has no real blacks and no real whites. Any further suggestions on how to spot this mistake from the negative?
 
It won't be clear at the edges (or in the clear parts of the image), but slightly milky. You know what undeveloped film looks like (think 35mm leader)? Like that, but obviously much more transparent.

Edit to add

This link has some information. It's 1945, and I'll say that I didn't notice the brown colour when I had an insufficiently fixed film.
 
Last edited:
You could always pop a bit of cut off film in fixer and observe the changes as fixing progresses, and note the appearance as it reaches the clear stage.
 
You could always pop a bit of cut off film in fixer and observe the changes as fixing progresses, and note the appearance as it reaches the clear stage.
I always do that to make sure I fix for long enough. When the cut off film is completely clear, I continue fixing for the same amount of time again.
 
Back
Top