Another epic processing fail


A day before, I had used chemicals from the same left over batch to develop an unimportant roll. The pictures came out more or less okay, so I thought it would be safe to use the chemicals on my holiday roll. The result: epic failure.

Credits: stratski

It looked like a completely blank (Tungsten) film. Naturally I was pissed off. I left the negatives to dry, forgot about them for a few weeks, and came across them again. On closer inspection, I thougt I could see some slight images on them, so I decided to put at least those bits trough the scanner. I was in for another surprise.

Credits: stratski

There were recognisable images on there! Sure, they’re extremely low-fi, and often it helps to know what you’re looking at to actually recognise stuff, but still. It’s not a COMPLETE failure. When I looked at those negatives firs, I tought I had no pictures whatsoever, so I’m happy I at least have this. It gave me a whole new respect for my scanner (an Epson V500) as well.

Credits: stratski

More here

The lesson learned: always run your negatives through the scanner, there might be more on them that the naked eye can see.

written by stratski on 2012-03-17


  1. emperornorton
    emperornorton ·

    Could be underexposure, too.

  2. stratski
    stratski ·

    @emperornorton: Perhaps, but I doubt it. These shots were mostly taken in blazing sunlight in the snow, so even 64 iso film in a Diana Mini should get enoug light. I think.

  3. wyrdchoice
    wyrdchoice ·

    Your damaged negatives look very interesting! I've noticed something similar with exposed rolls that have waited for development for twenty years or more, 110 film especially. It's partially because the negatives are so small, but they look completely blank until you scan them.