Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,058   Online: 1018
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    12
    If it's not lens fog, my guess is that your film is underfixed, due to the fact that there is more density in the middle. Does it look a little milky or perhaps light brown?

  2. #12
    /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Helinophoto View Post
    Looks like light going trough the film and being reflected back again, I just red a thread on here about this effect with long exposures.
    I was thinking about that as well being the issue. Some negatives have bulbed exposures up to two minutes and the effect seems worse. So negatives from this same roll.

    There were surrounding lights were I was taking the pics. Maybe I should've go for the smallest aperture on this camera (f6.3) and higher ISO to have less (correct word?) diffuse light? SO the light surrounding me from all over.

  3. #13
    /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    If it's not lens fog, my guess is that your film is underfixed, due to the fact that there is more density in the middle. Does it look a little milky or perhaps light brown?
    I fixed with Amaloco X89 for 2,5 minutes. That should be enough for ISO50 film, right? The density in the middle could be explained by the fact that the middle has more light hitting the camera, the light from the shops where you can see the dummies in the window.

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by /dev/null View Post
    I fixed with Amaloco X89 for 2,5 minutes. That should be enough for ISO50 film, right? The density in the middle could be explained by the fact that the middle has more light hitting the camera, the light from the shops where you can see the dummies in the window.
    The underfixing would be my guess also, but I haven't encountered this exact phenomenon before. 2.5 minutes might be enough, assuming the fixer was fresh. Do you test your fixer before you use it?
    A fresh rapid fixer should clear a piece of Pan-F in about 30 seconds. I use small pieces of 35mm 'waste' for this. Or old and expired sheet film that is useless.
    If the film rebate around the picture area clear? Or does it appear 'milky'. If yes, re-fix in fresh fixer after soaking in water for a few minutes.

    Also, if you didn't expose the film enough and the midtones slid too far down towards the shadows, and you try to bring them back then that could look like fog.

    I'm not familiar with long exposures causing what you see. I sincerely doubt it was the developer, however, because HC-110 is a developer that I used a lot in the past to process expired film, because it gave such a nice clean result with minimal base fog.

    I hope that helps a little bit.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #15
    /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    The underfixing would be my guess also, but I haven't encountered this exact phenomenon before. 2.5 minutes might be enough, assuming the fixer was fresh. Do you test your fixer before you use it?
    A fresh rapid fixer should clear a piece of Pan-F in about 30 seconds. I use small pieces of 35mm 'waste' for this. Or old and expired sheet film that is useless.
    If the film rebate around the picture area clear? Or does it appear 'milky'. If yes, re-fix in fresh fixer after soaking in water for a few minutes.
    That part looks fine, so maybe it wasn't a developer issue at all. I developed film in the past with 'wrong' times and temperatures, but never saw any results like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I'm not familiar with long exposures causing what you see. I sincerely doubt it was the developer, however, because HC-110 is a developer that I used a lot in the past to process expired film, because it gave such a nice clean result with minimal base fog.

    I hope that helps a little bit.
    Thanks. I think what I need to do is shoot another roll with the Rodenstock (this was the first roll I shot with this camera) and develop in HC-110 and see what the results are. I think what happened is, like explained before is due to the long exposure times (some 2 minutes) the diffused light caused this. So, now I learned to watch for this next time I do night shots and use a lower f value for faster shutters speeds....
    Last edited by /dev/null; 12-02-2011 at 09:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,245
    Images
    65
    Hmm I've only shot one roll of PanF, I metered at ISO 50 and developed 7 minutes in HC 110 1+63 and got decent results. But my PanF testing went on back burner and I don't have much of a working knowledge for it.

    The effect seen above strikes me a bit as lens flare (or was it misty?) but that's a guess. Speaking of scientific method, have you shot any normal daylight scenes with this camera? Long night exposures could be a tedious way to verify other parts of the process.

    My two cents,
    DaveT

  7. #17
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by /dev/null
    I think what I need to do is shoot another roll with the Rodenstock (this was the first roll I shot with this camera) and develop in HC-110 and see what the results are. I think what happened is, like explained before is due to the long exposure times (some 2 minutes) the diffused light caused this. So, now I learned to watch for this next time I do night shots and use a lower f value for faster shutters speeds....
    That sounds like the best thing to do.

    The more I think about lens flare, the more interested I become in that option. It really is something you have to watch out for in night time photography. If you're using an old uncoated lens, then that could be a very strong contender. Thanks to others who pointed that out.

    A roll of film in daylight at f/11 and normal shutter speeds should tell you a lot.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    62
    I last shot 120 Pan F rated at ISO 32. I developed in HC-110 1:79 for 7 minutes at 68 degrees. Good results. I rated it at 32 so I could use fill flash with the Pentax 645's 1/60 sync speed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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