I've just run a second 220 roll (taken in the same outing) through the Jobo. I checked orientation of the processor (level) and used the higher speed rotation throughout. The chemicals are from the same batch as the prior roll (one shot, but Kodak's developer is designed for 2L mix). So, sometime tomorrow I will scan and post the results. Thanks!
If the scanner brings out abnormalities, then the problem is in the film. Does that make sense to anyone?
PE
No. The negative can be flawless, but if the bulb or sensor have even the slightest abnormality, it will affect the scan, just like a scratch on the condenser bottom glass.
Once again OP - can you see this issue on the negative with your own eyes?
What scanner are you using?
Is the scan you uploaded earlier modified in any way?
Try scanning any other underexposed negative you have which has previously seemed to be OK to you, and see what you get.
I've just run a second 220 roll (taken in the same outing) through the Jobo. I checked orientation of the processor (level) and used the higher speed rotation throughout. The chemicals are from the same batch as the prior roll (one shot, but Kodak's developer is designed for 2L mix). So, sometime tomorrow I will scan and post the results. Thanks!
Attached is a scan from this morning of a frame from the second 220 roll. I used the higher speed rotation throughout.
Originally Posted by mts
Adv Reply
