Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,864   Posts: 1,583,190   Online: 752
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    425
    The foam-sealed window to show part of the type 135 cassette, as you thought! I finished a test roll, going to dev and see what cames up. Will post the results!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    162
    I put a piece of aluminium foil over the window on my Nikon F70 and secured it with black tape. Haven't seen any evidence of light leaks after shooting a few rolls, but I didn't test IR film without the foil.

  3. #13
    agnosticnikon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Mississippi mud
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    103
    I've shot Kodak infrared with cameras with the film canister window with no problem. A bigger problem is what kind of frame counter does the camera have. I used a Nikon N80 which uses an infrared frame counter instead of a sprocket based counter, and it fogged the film all along the top of the film. (bottom of your photo) When I used my F4s there was no problem, as it uses the sprocket drive to count the frames. So look for a little window at the top or bottom of the inside of the camera, probably near the sprocket drive to see if it has an infrared scanner to count the frames. Even though I used Kodak film, I'm sure that it would have the same effect to some degree on any infrared sensitive film.

  4. #14
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    425
    I got only one frame with some strange mark, off all the film after I turned the film window to direct sunlight. After, I did 6 or more and then put a piece of aluminium foil over the window and did the rest of the film. No one more had the mark

  5. #15
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,057
    But now the question arises how this mark came into existence. Most probably an academic question. But still...

    I have not yet seen a solarisation of this kind nor any with that film.

  6. #16
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    425
    In terms of exposing and developing the film, I did some mistakes. I think I overexposed the film when I set the TTl meter to iso 25/12 and use a red filter (still do not have the special IR filters yet) and went for Rodinal 1:50 to develop, but my nice brain thought that for 500ml, 1:50 is 5ml of rodinal... did 12m (taken from digitaltruth). The negs come up pretty dark and dense. After scaning, I saw a lot of grain, got 2 or 3 nice shoots.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    323
    I would have thought the light leak from a film window would have appeared as a light area on a positive image. It would do no harm , however, to take the precaution of covering the window when using this film. I have had reasonable results with obvious IR effects using this film with a Hoya R72 filter. Alex

  8. #18
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    67
    Indeed that result is rather mysterious, almost as though the film was all lightly fogged except for where it was against a widget of that shape, or something that shape reduced development by contacting the film? Hmmmm - brain hurt!

  9. #19
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    Indeed that result is rather mysterious, almost as though the film was all lightly fogged except for where it was against a widget of that shape, or something that shape reduced development by contacting the film? Hmmmm - brain hurt!
    What this fine gentleman said!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    It's a dark leak!

    I don't see how that effect could possibly be caused by light through the film window, although it would be interesting to compare the mark to the size and shape of the window, I guess. Based on the size of the negative, it looks narrow for a 35mm film window...

    It seems to me like it must be a separate cause, maybe something in development, but we don't have enough information to know what it might be.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin