Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,512   Online: 1005
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,405
    Images
    47

    So what happened to this roll?

    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).
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails fu415.jpg   fu416.jpg   fu419.jpg  

  2. #2
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,093
    I suspect that the rolls of film were zapped by the X-ray. If they were not in the camera that would explain why the damage was at the beginning of each roll. The fact that the other rolls were not damaged leans towards the conclusion that the problem has nothing to do with the camera.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    33
    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.

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,245
    Images
    148
    It's quite unlikely to be x-ray damage, there's a Kodak web-page somewhere that shows typical X-ray fogging and its not like any of those examples. Modern airport machines are safe for multiple scans of film up to 800EI in hand baggage and it's extremely rare anyone has a problem.

    The problem is far more likely to have occurred at the Ritz.

    Ian

  5. #5
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    It's not X-ray. X-ray causes banding. It's not stopped by the anti-halation layer and penetrates giving even banding throughout the entire roll of film, not just the beginning. That is the blatant look of fogged film from camera back being opened up before film was rewound. I've seen it many times (only once by me )

    If you're sure you didn't do it I'm not sure where it came from. Actually it may have been exposed on the reel itself once it was removed from the canister. Bottom line, if it's not you it's them.

  6. #6
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    Definitely NOT X-ray damage.

    Looks to me like a processing problem - a dip/dunk line that didn't dip far enough with the result that the first few exposures at the end of the strip were incompletely processed.
    Louie

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Proud to be from the Jersey Shore !
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Monophoto View Post
    Definitely NOT X-ray damage.

    Looks to me like a processing problem - a dip/dunk line that didn't dip far enough with the result that the first few exposures at the end of the strip were incompletely processed.
    I would agree... had a similiar problem when I took a roll of 220 film to be processed (not at Ritz). Even though I had told them it's 220 and the film is twice as long, the operator did not adjust the machinary for the extra length.

    My problem was at the end of the roll, about 14 frames were fine, the rest were not

  8. #8
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,405
    Images
    47
    I really didn't think it was the X-rays. I added that because it did happen to the film (and because some labs are quick to say that's what something is). Actually, Ritz already tried to say there's something wrong with my camera. Every other roll on this trip and ones I've done since have been fine. The camera is a Pentax PZ1p, so I don't think it even has any type of internal thing that could expose film (and I've shot HIE with no problem).
    The 5 rolls that were fine were processed the same day as the 4 screwed up ones.
    I don't know enough about the film path in automated processors, but how could film not go all the way into the chemistry? I'd figure them to be pretty much idiot-proof.
    Since I handled these the same as all other rolls of film (I've shot quite a few in my life ), I doubt I did it. Anything's possible.

    Thanks for the help, crew!

  9. #9
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    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.

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,245
    Images
    148
    You've nailed it, take your films to a Hotel like the Ritz and they stick it in Mulligatawny soup

    More seriously it does sound suspiciously like processor problems at Ritz, particularly as the camera has worked fine since, and they'll pass the buck rather than admit it was their fault.

    Ian

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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