Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,873   Posts: 1,583,555   Online: 865
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    192
    it looks like grass to me. like if the camera was pointing down at the ground on first exposure. I'd say double exposure.

  2. #22
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,669
    Images
    344
    I have never used an M4, but is it that easy to double expose?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,152
    Seems strange that preceding the alleged double exposure and the OP has shown us two frames with the same looking grass that in both cases he has shot grass or tree branches preceding each affected frame.

    Wouldn't he have had to do this for this grass/tree branches to show up each time or is there another way he could have double exposed to get this effect?

    This hasn't happened on every film either. Wouldn't this point to the odds lengthening on it being double exposure?

    pentaxuser

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,051
    I can't think of a simple way to double-expose on a correctly functioning Leica M, unless the whole roll was put through the camera twice. It looks as though it could be dampness, or some sort of 'abuse' to do with freezing/thawing etc, and in that case the damage would extend outside frame.

    The labelling of the cassettes sounds a bit like this is film d-i-y spoolled from bulk, as I have seen the Arista film having been packaged in factory-cassettes with 'proper' labels on, by Foma. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be unusable, but it adds questions. The film is so low-priced when new that buying a few rolls on Ebay seems counter intuitive, though the location of the OP might have a bearing on that.

  5. #25
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,239
    Images
    34
    If not double expose, then possibly ther film was frozen and improperly thawed, as in removed from the freezer and immediatly opened or frozen without canister or other protection, causing moisture to form on the film.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    72
    Now I lean to believe in your theory. It may have experienced some sort of 'abuse' during handling. I actually bought a lot of films and these are a small part of the lot.


    Quote Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
    I can't think of a simple way to double-expose on a correctly functioning Leica M, unless the whole roll was put through the camera twice. It looks as though it could be dampness, or some sort of 'abuse' to do with freezing/thawing etc, and in that case the damage would extend outside frame.

    The labelling of the cassettes sounds a bit like this is film d-i-y spoolled from bulk, as I have seen the Arista film having been packaged in factory-cassettes with 'proper' labels on, by Foma. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be unusable, but it adds questions. The film is so low-priced when new that buying a few rolls on Ebay seems counter intuitive, though the location of the OP might have a bearing on that.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    72
    The pattern continues outside of the frame. It doesn't look like double exposure. I think the films were damaged for some reason. Just don't know whether its due to fungus or mold.


    Quote Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
    If it's a double exposure then the effect will be seen only inside frame - the edges and perforations will be clear. If the pattern continues outside of the frame, on the negatives, then a picture of the negs (made by holding the strip up to the light and photographing it with a digi cam of some sort) would be helpful in further diagnosis.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails _MG_6179.jpg  

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7
    Dark pattern on the negative is some kond of exposure. Light pattern is something that prevents exposure.
    You hva dark pattern on the negatives. That may be static electrisity, either generated when the cartridge was loaded, the film advanced in the camera or when it was rewound.
    There may be more possibillities, but that is what I can think of at the moment.

  9. #29
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,432
    Images
    148
    Maybe damp and mold somethings attacked the emulsion. surface.

    Ian

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Trier, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    104
    Mold would be visible on the emulsion's surface in reflected light. Anything that doesn't grow would not.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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