Film Reticulation

[jcdeboever]

Here is why you don't leave film in a coat pocket for over a year... Now I've read it is caused by going from extreme water temps during developing. This was not the case. The only variable in my method was this roll was lost in my cell phone pocket inside my jacket. My guess is I left it in the truck to get baked and frozen, eventually ending up in my closet, only to be put on the other day because fall is here in Michigan. I decided to develop it in HC110 (B). I am not sure if there is a way around this in the future. But I did find it interesting.

Back ground... This was a project from over a year ago. The project was to use my film camera (Nikon FM, 50-135) on a tripod and a cable. The goal was to think about exposure under extreme conditions. With digital, it's so easy but with film, type of camera, shutter limitations, etc. I wanted to challenge myself to see if I could correctly expose 400 speed film in horrible lighting conditions and this was the perfect place to experiment. I actually was a little stumped as to where the roll went at the time. I recall going through my truck, and everywhere. It was in that little useless cell phone pocket that do not accommodate modern cell phones. Of course, I moved on and considered it a project fail. Well, at least the John Hedgecoe project on long exposure was successful after all, most of the images are reasonably exposed. This particular image was shot with the 50-135 AIS zoom, f/8 at 2 seconds in bulb mode. No mirror up, on a cheap tripod. I have since thrown the promaster tripod in the garbage. According to my journal, I was trying to properly expose the scene and incorporate a moving kiddy ferris wheel into the composition. I was surprised it was sharp enough, properly exposed. At the time, I thought I was over thinking the whole project and expected total failure on the roll. I ended up doing another one later on, different location, with a better tripod, and the results were good.

1. Full image, no edit, straight scan

2. Zoomed in, to see effect of the damaged emulsion

 

[terri]

That's a shame! Viewed up close, I agree the reticulation is overwhelming and, unlike grain, not pleasant to look at. But from a distance, with perhaps a smaller print should you choose to print any of these, it can pass as grain and looks badass.

There may be some frames in your roll with larger amounts of deeper values to lessen the visual impact of the reticulation, which here shows the worst at middle/lighter gray values, but is much more obscured in deeper grays and blacks. Dunno what it's worth to you.

 

[Gary A.]

Looks like you discovered reticulation.

 

[webestang64]

Have seen this many times over the years at the lab. I like the effect on this shot, it works.

 

[jcdeboever]

That's a shame! Viewed up close, I agree the reticulation is overwhelming and, unlike grain, not pleasant to look at. But from a distance, with perhaps a smaller print should you choose to print any of these, it can pass as grain and looks badass.

There may be some frames in your roll with larger amounts of deeper values to lessen the visual impact of the reticulation, which here shows the worst at middle/lighter gray values, but is much more obscured in deeper grays and blacks. Dunno what it's worth to you.

Yup. I thought of that but none of the images are worthy, expect maybe 2 or 3. My skill level is different today so I would definitely approach it with fresh eyes and mind. However, add it to the knowledge base for future reference. Thanks for the response, helpful and encouraging.

 

[jcdeboever]

Looks like you discovered reticulation.

Yes sir, I thought the negatives looked a little strange, they were very sparkly.

 

[jcdeboever]

Have seen this many times over the years at the lab. I like the effect on this shot, it works.

Yup, not into it by design, I suppose I could duplicate it based on my research, if I thought of a good way to present it. Basically need to shock the film, probably a pre soak in hot water followed by a less than 20° C development temp and develop longer. Followed by a hot stop, then a cooler fix.

 

[webestang64]

Basically need to shock the film, probably a pre soak in hot water followed by a less than 20° C development temp and develop longer. Followed by a hot stop, then a cooler fix.

I did this technique in college.

1) Use your preferred developer to develop film normally.

2) Stop bath at high temperature (approx. 140-150 deg F) for 1 min.

3) Wash the negative in a cold water bath (less than 40 deg F) for 1 min.

4) Wash the negative in hot water (180-190 deg F) for 1 min.

5) Fix as usual.

6) Wash as usual.

Experiment with either freezing the film while semi-dry or lay on a cloth and use a hair dryer to blow hot air across the surface of the negative.

 

[Derrel]

Every time I read about your use of the 50-135 Nikkor zoom, I cringe a little bit...I dropped mine from shoulder height right onto asphalt with the D3x attached..and the lens is toast...focus is now permanently at 7 feet...and there's an ugly gash in the front of the lens barrel...my 50-135/3.5 Ai-S is utterly toasted...
\

I've done reticulation by going from a hot water rinse stage to ice-water....but have not heard of it being from old film or film left in a glove box....

 

[jcdeboever]

Every time I read about your use of the 50-135 Nikkor zoom, I cringe a little bit...I dropped mine from shoulder height right onto asphalt with the D3x attached..and the lens is toast...focus is now permanently at 7 feet...and there's an ugly gash in the front of the lens barrel...my 50-135/3.5 Ai-S is utterly toasted...
\

I've done reticulation by going from a hot water rinse stage to ice-water....but have not heard of it being from old film or film left in a glove box....

That's the only thing I could think of. I was at 20°C on all the stages, even the 5 min wash. I know the thermometer is working. Developed a roll today, same process and it was fine. Sorry about your zoom

 

[webestang64]

but have not heard of it being from old film or film left in a glove box....

First time I saw this happen was around 1992. I developed a customer's film normally and it had this reticulation effect. Customer said it was found in the trunk of a car he bought. So to test the theory I took a fresh roll of (random shots) on Tri-X and left it in my glove box for 4 years (St. Louis gets hot humid summers and bitter cold winters). Had this same effect on that roll of film.