Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,655   Online: 844
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,234
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by ndrs View Post
    Mold would be visible on the emulsion's surface in reflected light. Anything that doesn't grow would not.
    Look at that top edge of the film there's clearly emulsion missing.

    Ian

  2. #32
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,009
    MY experience with the Ultra.edu and foma brand films is that they are both packed in black cassettes, lately ones with the CP-xx and C-41 info under the paper label. Both have very dark edgeprinting with the frame numbers on one edge and the batch number and either "FOMAPAN" , "ULTRA" or just " PAN". The 120 version sometimes says "F PAN" also 400 for the 400 speed film. The BULK FOMA does NOT have edge printing.

    MY guess is that someone had some film that got wet or other wise damaged and they sold it loose to cover that up. ALL the FOMA and ULTRA.EDU I have bought form Freestyle came in individual cardboard boxes.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  3. #33
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,190
    Images
    12
    Thread resurrection! I have similar symptoms with 20-year-old 70mm Tech Pan - see my post here and scroll down for the image sample.

    Given that I've received some tech pan that has evolved so far that it'd be legally allowed to vote, it would seem to support the notion that the original poster here also has something growing on their film.

    In my case I can tell you for sure that it's not double exposures; I made my series of exposure test shots using film loaded directly from a factory-sealed Kodak box. In my case, you can barely see the fungus (?) on the surface of the film outside the image area but it has no silver density there. It's only where fungus AND optical exposure occur together that the effect is visible, as if the fungus is acting as a development catalyst.

    The patterns are a little different on mine too.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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