Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,550   Posts: 1,544,819   Online: 1044
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,838
    Dear All,

    When the film numbers show through onto the developed film roll it is called ' wrapper offset '

    This is more common than people imagine.

    Fundamentally its down to the quality of the film, its sensitivity (speed) and the quality of the wrapper used ( high quality 120 Film wrapper is a very special and expensive product ) It can happen with just about any film, yes, it can be caused by loading in bright light, something none of us ever do of course! and red window camera's are more prone obviously, but it can happen in any camera.

    To lessen the risk, especially with red window camera's, always try and avoid loading a camera days or weeks before exposing the film, always use the window cover ( if it has one ) avoid elevated temperatures, and store the loaded camera somewhere dry, cool and dark. Once the film is exposed, remove it immediately and process promptly, if it is not possible to process promptly, remove teh film from the camera and store the exposed film somewhere dry, dark and cool.

    Finally......many have commented ( complained ) on the lightness of the printing of the frame exposure numbers on ILFORD 120 film, this reduced print density helps significantly lessen the risk of wrapper offset on our products....by reducing the contrast between printed and unprinted areas on the wrapper it means less chance of the offset 'print out' on the film itself.

    Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    There is also the number from the backing paper imprinted on the film if anyone hasnt noticed.
    Good catch! Your eyes are better than mine. Even now knowing that they are there I cannot see them clearly.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    Dear All,

    When the film numbers show through onto the developed film roll it is called ' wrapper offset '

    This is more common than people imagine.

    Fundamentally its down to the quality of the film, its sensitivity (speed) and the quality of the wrapper used ( high quality 120 Film wrapper is a very special and expensive product ) It can happen with just about any film, yes, it can be caused by loading in bright light, something none of us ever do of course! and red window camera's are more prone obviously, but it can happen in any camera.

    To lessen the risk, especially with red window camera's, always try and avoid loading a camera days or weeks before exposing the film, always use the window cover ( if it has one ) avoid elevated temperatures, and store the loaded camera somewhere dry, cool and dark. Once the film is exposed, remove it immediately and process promptly, if it is not possible to process promptly, remove teh film from the camera and store the exposed film somewhere dry, dark and cool.

    Finally......many have commented ( complained ) on the lightness of the printing of the frame exposure numbers on ILFORD 120 film, this reduced print density helps significantly lessen the risk of wrapper offset on our products....by reducing the contrast between printed and unprinted areas on the wrapper it means less chance of the offset 'print out' on the film itself.

    Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
    Thanks Simon,

    Seeing that:

    1) I loaded the film in bright light, because I wasn't sure how it worked and needed to see where everything fits;
    2) I merrily kept the film in my camera in my car boot for over a week;
    3) Singapore is anything but dry with high humidty all year round and
    4) our temperatures even at night is well over 23 deg celcius

    guess I broke every rule there was :-).

    Thankfully, this was a cheap and experimental roll !

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,838
    Dear Toledosun...

    You are not the first...and will not be the last, as you say nothing spoilt.....

    Simon.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17

    Thanks to Rick, here's the result of my second test roll

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    Dear Toledosun...

    You are not the first...and will not be the last, as you say nothing spoilt.....

    Simon.
    Firstly, I'll like to thank everybody for the many helpful advice that I've received on this thread, especially Rick, who provided me with his workflow.

    My second test roll was a success, by my standards. I've attached a sample so that all of you can see the difference as a result of the change in workflow. With Rick's workflow, I can happily say that this looks so much better :-)

    I can also conclude that "light leak" was not a cause of the imprinting of the numbers since I did not have that problem here. It's more likely caused by the reasons pointed out by Simon.

    Once again, many thanks to all and I'll post a "real" shot soon :-)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails results.jpg  
    Last edited by toledosun; 08-25-2011 at 09:13 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: file upload failed the first time

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    Apologies for the long post but I thought I should document my adventure with GP3, just in case it happens to anybody else. Once again, thanks to all who offered me valuable advice on this thread, I learnt a lot :-)

    Just to wrap up, I celebrated too soon... subsequent attempts came out a disaster (see 1st pic "test-2"), especially in the darker areas. The dark tones came out "blotchy", light tones fared much better. Most shots had the numbers/dots imprinted into the film.

    Anyway, I tried five rolls before I finally realized... it wasn't me, it was the film !!!! My friend passed me these rolls and he had them for about a year. He shot two rolls and one had the same problem as I did.

    It turns out that GP3 really doesn't store well in hot, humid climates like Singapore. This problem was also mentioned in another site:

    http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2010/09...fenol-c-l.html

    So, for the benefit of others who may face a similar problem, poor storage (in our case, film was kept for about a year, under tropical conditions, in a non-airconditioned room) may lead to the film looking a) blotchy in the dark areas; b) imprinting of numbering on the film and c ) film comes out looking "underdeveloped", as per my initial shot.

    Anyway, I've shot a roll from a another batch and this time, 16 mins with agitation every 4 mins works fine (see 2nd pic "symmetry"). No numbers imprinted on the negatives, and no blotchy dark tones..

    Rest of the roll can be viewed here

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunkm/s...th/6168730253/

    p.s. for those who are stuck with lots of GP3 with this problem and don't want to throw it away, you can try extending the development time (in my case, I went as far as 24 mins with 5 secs agitation every 4 mins) and you can improve the image quality somewhat, even though the numbers will still be imprinted on the film (see 3rd and 4th pic "scan 1" and "scan 2").
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails test-2.jpg   symmetry.jpg   scan 1.jpg   scan 2.jpg  

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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