Problem with scanned film

[Grajindo]

Hi,

I just received this scanned film from a local lab and found out almost all of the photos have this weird line effect. Has anyone know what's the cause of this? Tried to consult the local lab but they do not have any idea and it is their first time to see such as well.

F1230037 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

F1230034 by Victor Ng, on Flickr


F1230029 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

F1230005 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

F1230019 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

It seems to me like those taken indoor were better compared to outdoor shot.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/victor_ng/

Could it be damage to the shutter? I am yet to check my camera since there's currently still a loaded film in it.

 

[dmb]

Some questions to help narrow things down :-

1) Are the marks on the negatives ?
2) Has this film been through airport x-ray machines?
3) What film is this?

 

[john.margetts]

Yes, look at the negatives. It could be the film moving slightly during exposure (slack pressure plate, slightly corroded bush in the rewind mechanism to name two possabilities). What camera did you use?

If it is not on the negatives, it is a scanning issue and will certainly be caused by the film moving while being scanned.

My money is on the film moving while being scanned.

 

[Grajindo]

Some questions to help narrow things down :-

1) Are the marks on the negatives ?
2) Has this film been through airport x-ray machines?
3) What film is this?

Yes, look at the negatives. It could be the film moving slightly during exposure (slack pressure plate, slightly corroded bush in the rewind mechanism to name two possabilities). What camera did you use?

If it is not on the negatives, it is a scanning issue and will certainly be caused by the film moving while being scanned.

My money is on the film moving while being scanned.

Just collected my negative.

1. Yes, they are on the negatives as well.
2. Yes, multiple times.
3. It's Kodak Portra 400.

The camera is Canon 7. I think I should quickly finish up the loaded film and check inside the camera.

 

[dmb]

Just collected my negative.

1. Yes, they are on the negatives as well.
2. Yes, multiple times.
3. It's Kodak Portra 400.

The camera is Canon 7. I think I should quickly finish up the loaded film and check inside the camera.

Regarding 1) & 2) Are there wave marks between frames, if so then x-ray damage is most likely cause - always take undeveloped film in carry on luggage and get hand checked - even get a roll or two of 1600 ISO to carry with them (even empty ones) so they don't say is OK for less than 800 ISO

 

[excalibur2]

always take undeveloped film in carry on luggage

indeed and also developed film as this has cropped up before and guys have taken films in hand luggage through x-rays many times (IIRC at least four) with no effect on the film. I have taken Fuji 1600 on holiday which would be there and back thru' hand luggage x-rays with no problems.

 

[john.margetts]

X-ray damage is only likely if the camera has been through an x-ray machine. If the Op has stayed at home, it is the camera.
Edit: just read the Op's last post more carefully.

 

[Nikkorr]

From the sounds/looks of it, your film has been exposed in at least two different angles to a powerful x-ray source, this would be the case if your film was not carried with you.

 

[PeterSpencer]

I had a similar problem when a bit of film got stuck between my Leica shutter curtains, it was just enough to mask parts of the image and similarly the result wasn't straight lines but wavy as seen here. The shot with the underexposed band seems to point to a shutter fault.

 

[Grajindo]

Regarding 1) & 2) Are there wave marks between frames, if so then x-ray damage is most likely cause - always take undeveloped film in carry on luggage and get hand checked - even get a roll or two of 1600 ISO to carry with them (even empty ones) so they don't say is OK for less than 800 ISO

Collected my negative and found out that there are the wave marks in between frames as well. I believe that would mostly likely be the culprit now since this particular roll had been scanned a lot of times both through check-in and carry on luggage. Lesson learnt!

I tried to ask for hand check once last year but was rejected and did not bother to ask again since then. Think I should try to ask again next time. Any idea if there is any pouch that I could use to reduce the effect?

indeed and also developed film as this has cropped up before and guys have taken films in hand luggage through x-rays many times (IIRC at least four) with no effect on the film. I have taken Fuji 1600 on holiday which would be there and back thru' hand luggage x-rays with no problems.

So does this mean that X-ray machines use at the gate will cause less harm to film compare to X-ray machines use for check-in luggage? I always know that higher ISO film is a lot more prone to damage when scan through X-ray but didn't know that it will cause damage to lower ISO film too.

I had a similar problem when a bit of film got stuck between my Leica shutter curtains, it was just enough to mask parts of the image and similarly the result wasn't straight lines but wavy as seen here. The shot with the underexposed band seems to point to a shutter fault.

I have to finish my loaded roll and check will it be the shutter curtain fault. But for now, I most likely believe that it'd because of X-ray.

Gonna update all again when I finish the loaded roll.

 

[excalibur2]

Any idea if there is any pouch that I could use to reduce the effect?

Well the x-rays in check in must be quite high now because of terrorist threats and if there were shielding materials that worked then smugglers, terrorists etc would have used them.

 

[excalibur2]

So does this mean that X-ray machines use at the gate will cause less harm to film compare to X-ray machines use for check-in luggage? I always know that higher ISO film is a lot more prone to damage when scan through X-ray but didn't know that it will cause damage to lower ISO film too.

Unless things have changed recently the hand luggage X-ray scan is less power than check in.

 

[steveo_mcg]

. Any idea if there is any pouch that I could use to reduce the effect?

You can get x-ray proof bags but somehow I don't think a small black lump which the scanner is unable to penetrate will stand you in good stread with airport security....

 

[Grajindo]

You can get x-ray proof bags but somehow I don't think a small black lump which the scanner is unable to penetrate will stand you in good stread with airport security....

Well the x-rays in check in must be quite high now because of terrorist threats and if there were shielding materials that worked then smugglers, terrorists etc would have used them.

Make sense. Think would just try my luck to ask for hand check the next time.

 

[dmb]

You can get x-ray proof bags but somehow I don't think a small black lump which the scanner is unable to penetrate will stand you in good stread with airport security....

What they do first with x-ray proof bags or anything they can't see through is to raise the x-ray level. Then after pulling you aside for a swab, hand search and questions eventually let you go (you hope), it is when your bags swap positive for cellulose nitrate (gun cotton) that the fun really starts - I did have an explanation that they accepted, eventually.

 

[excalibur2]

Make sense. Think would just try my luck to ask for hand check the next time.

Let us know how you get on as I would guess they wouldn't mind it if it wasn't busy.

 

[steveo_mcg]

What they do first with x-ray proof bags or anything they can't see through is to raise the x-ray level. Then after pulling you aside for a swab, hand search and questions eventually let you go (you hope), it is when your bags swap positive for cellulose nitrate (gun cotton) that the fun really starts - I did have an explanation that they accepted, eventually.

I acidentally got the wife moved into that queue when I put my tablet underneath a bag, security thought she'd been trying to hide it. I'd just been trying to stuff all my gear into one of those little buckets.

 

[ChrisR]

CSo does this mean that X-ray machines use at the gate will cause less harm to film compare to X-ray machines use for check-in luggage? I always know that higher ISO film is a lot more prone to damage when scan through X-ray but didn't know that it will cause damage to lower ISO film too.

It's generally accepted that hold luggage X-rays are much stronger than those at the gate, and advice is always to take films in hand luggage. If you can get them checked without X-ray that's good, but most films seem to pass relatively unharmed.

 

[ChrisR]

I acidentally got the wife moved into that queue when I put my tablet underneath a bag, security thought she'd been trying to hide it. I'd just been trying to stuff all my gear into one of those little buckets.

Ooh Mr Popular I bet!

 

[NickT]

.

 

[dmb]

Those wavy lines look like they originate from shutter curtains not lying flat at some time. I can't think how x-rays could cause such a fault. The best thing to do is to examine the sprocket holes' area on the negatives, if it's clear then it's unlikely to be caused by x-rays.

While I have seen odd effects from horizontal and vertical focal plane shutters with holes or defects these are limited to the frame area and sometimes with pinholes between frames. With a severe defect you can sometimes get flare going up into the sprocket area but not a line effect as seen on these films.

1) Wavy lines going beyond the frame (top and bottom) cannot be from the shutter.

2) The x-ray machines in airports are no longer like old fashioned medical x-rays that used to just shine through an object. They use a pulsed thin line source and scan with varying strengths and wavelengths to allow differentiation of materials. The wavy line effect occurs when the line passes obliquely through a roll of film and the exact effect depends on the orientation of the roll with respect to the x-ray source.

 

[excalibur2]

2) The x-ray machines in airports are no longer like old fashioned medical x-rays that used to just shine through an object. They use a pulsed thin line source and scan with varying strengths and wavelengths to allow differentiation of materials. The wavy line effect occurs when the line passes obliquely through a roll of film and the exact effect depends on the orientation of the roll with respect to the x-ray source.

That's for check in luggage? AFAIK no one has had films ruined in hand luggage, but something in the back of my mind is that x-rays are progressive\cumulative? so you can't take the same film indefinitely through hand luggage x-rays e.g. touring the world and going through many countries....but can't say if my memory is any good

 

[steveo_mcg]

That's for check in luggage? AFAIK no one has had films ruined in hand luggage, but something in the back of my mind is that x-rays are progressive? so you can't take the same film indefinitely through hand luggage x-rays e.g. touring the world and going through many countries....but can't say if my memory is any good

Yeah its a bit like a very low light*, if you exposed the film to a few photons it would fog inperceptively if you kept doing it eventually the film would go black.

*Yes I know its nothing like exposure to light but I'm trying to explain it

 

[excalibur2]

Yeah its a bit like a very low light*, if you exposed the film to a few photons it would fog inperceptively if you kept doing it eventually the film would go black.

*Yes I know its nothing like exposure to light but I'm trying to explain it

Just thought:- the films we get from abroad e.g 7dayshop must go through an x-ray m\c and could be twice.... leaving Holland and scanned arriving in the UK.

 

[FishyFish]

Just thought:- the films we get from abroad e.g 7dayshop must go through an x-ray m\c and could be twice.... leaving Holland and scanned arriving in the UK.

I think they're sometimes marked up so they don't get scanned. I'm sure I've bought film from overseas and it's had a label saying something like "Photographic Film. Please do not X-Ray" stuck to the package.

 

[steveo_mcg]

I think they're sometimes marked up so they don't get scanned. I'm sure I've bought film from overseas and it's had a label saying something like "Photographic Film. Please do not X-Ray" stuck to the package.

I bought loads of GP3 direct from China and all of it came in an inconspicuous jiffy bag but none of it showed signs of xray damage. I often wondered about that.

 

[FishyFish]

I bought loads of GP3 direct from China and all of it came in an inconspicuous jiffy bag but none of it showed signs of xray damage. I often wondered about that.

The stuff I bought (some Fomapan) was from France. I guess it's down to the seller.

I think in general, a couple of passes through an X-Ray scanner probably won't do that much harm anyway - especially slower speed films - it's not like everyone who ever went on a package holiday came back with wavy lines all over their snaps. . I'm also unsure what happens with imported film in general - other than Ilford, most films I use will have been imported so will possibly have passed through x-ray scans anyway.

 

[john.margetts]

Do all imports get scanned by x-ray? I wouldn't have thought so. I can't imagine anyone being able to scan all the containers on a container ship.

 

[skysh4rk]

Well, I've travelled to a number of different continents with films ranging from 100 to 3200 ISO and I haven't yet seen any issues with x-rays. I've even accidentally left five rolls of Acros in my checked baggage and there were no visible issues on the other side.

That said, I do try to minimise scans as much as I can, but I don't fret over it. I generally don't bother to ask for hand checks anywhere in the UK or the rest of Europe.

 

[excalibur2]

I think they're sometimes marked up so they don't get scanned. I'm sure I've bought film from overseas and it's had a label saying something like "Photographic Film. Please do not X-Ray" stuck to the package.

Watching programmes on the TV about Australia, Canada and USA it seems they scan all posts coming in and would think the UK does the same.

 

[niko]

While I have seen odd effects from horizontal and vertical focal plane shutters with holes or defects these are limited to the frame area and sometimes with pinholes between frames. With a severe defect you can sometimes get flare going up into the sprocket area but not a line effect as seen on these films.

1) Wavy lines going beyond the frame (top and bottom) cannot be from the shutter.

2) The x-ray machines in airports are no longer like old fashioned medical x-rays that used to just shine through an object. They use a pulsed thin line source and scan with varying strengths and wavelengths to allow differentiation of materials. The wavy line effect occurs when the line passes obliquely through a roll of film and the exact effect depends on the orientation of the roll with respect to the x-ray source.

are you sure? i work with xrays and other imaging every day (its my job) and xrays are a set relatively small set of wavelengths or they don't differentiate. the equipment is designed to not vary wavelength. other wave lengths such as microwaves, radio waves or infrared just don't have the same ability's. its the difference in the absorbed x-rays the shows different materials density. if you vary the xrays then this no longer holds true as you cant tell if its the material or the change in the power that has caused the apparent difference in the absorbed and transmitted x-rays. X-rays don't shine though anything they are transmitted or absorbed (or scattered) dependant mainly on atomic number/density. even relatively low power x-rays will go straight though a film and canister. i just cant see how they could cause this effect, fog a film yes but not selective wavy lines

 

[Grajindo]

My apology for the very late update. So I manage to finish my loaded film, which had traveled across the world just as many times as the 'problematic' roll. Quite surprise to see that there is no such problem with this roll of film.

I have also attached few photos of the negative here to show how it looks like.

IMG_9804 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

IMG_9803 by Victor Ng, on Flickr


Would it because of the marks on the shutter curtain? But the marks are already there since the day I bought my camera and did not encounter such problem for my past 10 rolls of film.
IMG_9807 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

 

[excalibur2]

Jeez looks like somebody has poked their finger where they shouldn't

 

[RaglanSurf]

My apology for the very late update. So I manage to finish my loaded film, which had traveled across the world just as many times as the 'problematic' roll. Quite surprise to see that there is no such problem with this roll of film.

I have also attached few photos of the negative here to show how it looks like.

IMG_9804 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

IMG_9803 by Victor Ng, on Flickr


Would it because of the marks on the shutter curtain? But the marks are already there since the day I bought my camera and did not encounter such problem for my past 10 rolls of film.
IMG_9807 by Victor Ng, on Flickr

Bloody hell, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen shutter curtains in that sort of state, I’m surprised you’re getting anything like a decent exposure.

 

[dmb]

Ok - marks on negatives do NOT extend beyond the frames - that points to shutter problem and seeing the state of it am not surprised. The lack of marks outside the frame also suggests that the rear lightseals are working OK.

 

[john.margetts]

Shutter problem! I suspect the artifacts are reflections off the no longer flat shutter blinds. Be thankful you have any image.