Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,759   Posts: 1,516,007   Online: 904
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,374
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
    No it was pre loading, as in attendant opened canister in light. The light shone through and would have fogged the edges of the film and shone through sprocket holes in addition to the tail. If you opened the back of the camera it would have the appearance of fogging a length of film and tapering off in the other direction to increasingly less fogged banding more obvious beneath sprocket holes.
    That's what I thought, which of course, they soundly denied. Oh well, that one's probably closing anyway. There is reportedly one good Ritz near here - it's just not that close to me (about an hour). There are certainly drawbacks to living in the country.

  2. #12
    aparat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    428
    Images
    39
    This definitely looks like a processing problem. It happened to me once before - exactly the same kind of thing. The lab was using a Frontier processor.

  3. #13
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    Actually, it was about 4 rolls that this happened to, in varying amounts. The other 5 rolls that went through the same camera on the same trip were perfectly fine. I didn't develop them - they were done by a local Ritz last fall.

    It only occurs near the start of the roll and tapers off along it. On 2 rolls, it tapers off quickly and only ruined one frame. On this roll, it takes awhile and is still visible at the sprocket holes a few frames along. It sorta looks like the film could have been rolled up and exposed while rolled, but I'm not positive about this.
    All of the film was exposed to one X-ray zap as this was on my Costa Rica trip. Again, only 4 of the rolls were affected - all were together in the same bag (though probably aligned differently).
    *******
    You may have more than one problem with these rolls. The first looks to me like the stress marks stemming from rewinding the film backwards. After a few turns, the stress disappears along with the vertical stress marks.
    Others may be light leaks into the cartridge--perhaps at the point of processing. Another, the chemical fog, looks like rolls I saw which suffered fog from some kind of aromatic solvent. Was it perhaps in a camera bag where something had spilled releasing fumes? Believe it or not, I have seen it. Or just too high a temp?
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  4. #14
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,689
    Images
    23
    Yeah, I think that Ritz let some light hit your film or something. It doesn't sound like something on your end. You may want to use a good mail order lab such as Swan Photo (http://www.swanphotolabs.com/swan08/mailers.php) or Dale Labs (www.dalelabs.com). Dale is a little more expensive, but I highly reccomend them. These places see a fair amount of E-6 and reprints of mine. They are great!.....probably better than Ritz....
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Potter View Post
    Were the 4 rolls developed as a single batch? The other 5 rolls developed at a different time? I'm guessing that the bath chemistry didn't reach the top of the film roll consistently. I'd blame Ritz.

    Nate Potter, Austin TX.
    not how roller transport machines work.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
    No it was pre loading, as in attendant opened canister in light. The light shone through and would have fogged the edges of the film and shone through sprocket holes in addition to the tail. If you opened the back of the camera it would have the appearance of fogging a length of film and tapering off in the other direction to increasingly less fogged banding more obvious beneath sprocket holes.
    and no. I can tell you 100%.....The only cans i opened in the light were for make shift scratch test leaders and the whole film is promptly fogged.

  7. #17
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,226
    Those "shadow marks" of perforation holes indicate light fogging. The red colour of the fogging makes me think that the light entered via the back side of the film

  8. #18
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    I'll guess it wasn't the lab, or if it was it was done prior to development when splicing the films onto the plastic leader. If you notice the fogging seems to come from the top as if the cassette was leaking light through the part near where the felt light trap meets the film can.
    Do you leave the leader poking out after re-wind? If so bending the the leader can do this and some folks do that to differentiate between a exposed/un-exposed film. The bend can allow some light into the felt trap especially if put back into canisters with the fold emulsion outwards.
    Whatever the cause it was done before processing.

  9. #19
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,193
    Images
    63
    I thought it looked as though light trap leakage was a possibility also, which brings up a pet peeve. In the days of films at 10, 32 and 80, the 35mm stuff came in metal cans -- pretty light tight. As film speeds have gotten faster and faster, the opacity of the containers has gone lower and lower. It seems most stuff comes in a translucent container anymore. That makes me think an exposed roll, stuck in a translucent container, and left maybe on a table where sun is coming in a window, could be hit and produce something like this. Makes one wonder about "progress."

    DaveT

  10. #20
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,374
    Images
    47
    I don't leave the leader sticking out after rewind - I'd be too likely to double expose a whole roll.

    I keep most of my film in the freezer and it usually goes straight into the camera bag to wait for use. These rolls were taken out of their plastic cans prior to the trip and put into a ziplock bag to save space, but they didn't sit in the sun during any of that time. During much of their life with me, they were in a camera bag. The worst of the rolls was put into the camera while in the hotel room, so there wasn't very much light then either.

    I agree that the light exposure likely happened while most of the film was on the spool and, of course, before processing. The question is whether someone not very good at grabbing the leader could have spread the opening and exposed the film while starting it through the processor and whether that would cause this.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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