Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,650   Online: 705
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    Sounds like we have hopefully solved it. I will do a combo of Roger and Bob. I'll up the photoflo to 50% of the recommended in my last bath then take it off the reel and follow Bob's method for hanging. Thank you all for all your help. It feels good to know that I have you all out there watching my back.

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,026
    Images
    65
    After thinking this over for a day or so, I believe it might be a kink mark from bending the negative, before processing when feeding it onto the reel.

    I don't think photo flo would cause such a distinct mark, but I may well be wrong.

    Kinks are generally not that narrow, but rather are wider with a dark center where it bends more sharply, so I'm not sure of that either.

    Just a thought.

    PE

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    The only reason I don't know if it would be a kink is that it has a distict bottom edge like a pear shape. If it was a bend, wouldn't it look more like a crescent shape?

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,026
    Images
    65
    Well, Photo Flo is designed to prevent marks like that. I would expect it perhaps from a situation without Photo Flo.

    I pointed out that kinks are usually broader, and yes, open ended. I have seen that defect sometime or other but cannot remember what it was.

    Also, the Photo Flo mark would probably wash out.

    PE

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    That's why I was confused before. I didn't know how photoflo would stain it so that it would be lighter on the edges and I can wipe the watermark off but the shape is still there. I would have thought that there would be no watermark at all but maybe the mark is photoflo after drying. I think I'll use the same solution I make usually and put a full dropper onto some spare negs and let it dry and see if it makes a mark.

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,026
    Images
    65
    Rewash and treat with Photo Flo again and see if it vanishes.

    If it is due to Photo Flo, it should vanish. However, if it is very very hard water, it may leave a salt stain behind from the calcium and magnesium salts having injured the gelatin.

    PE

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    I will test our water here but I had been told that it was fairly soft but I haven't tested it myself. I wasn't that concerned because I have been using distilled water as the last bath. I actually did rewash the last thumbnail and the watermark was gone from the base of the film but the teardrop mark remained in the image. If it was a photoflo stain would I still see it on the base when I look reflected in the light?

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,026
    Images
    65
    If it was DW and Photo Flo, rewashing should remove about 80% of the mark. There will always be a small stress mark in the emulsion. But if it was a salt in the water such as calcium, then the mark can never be removed except by special treatment in a strong bath of a sequestrant such as EDTA (although the actual chemical would have to be stronger).

    It really does not seem to be due to the photo flo to me. Usually, these spots are light color on the negatives making a dark color on the print, while creases are a dark color on the negative making a light color on the print. This is what perplexed me and made me think of a crease.

    Metal salts and photo flo can leave behind a milky smudge which looks milky in the print and lighter than the background.

    Without a detailed analysis this is just speculation anyhow.

    PE

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    Ok, so I did rewash them and the white watermark that I could see on the base has been removed but the image still has the mark in it. If it was a kink, wouldn't I see a dent or kink in the film itself? I also did a test on another neg which has more photo flo so I can see how it dries. Thank you PE for taking the time to work with me. I really appreciate it.

  10. #30
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I think I've seen somthing similar, and I wonder if that wasn't on a film that had got wet - or at least moist - in the cartridge.

    Could that be it?
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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