|
|
|
-
Can you post a straight scan of the negative as a negative or positive image?
PE
-
How about you use the correct developer instead of paper developer? I realise that it "sometimes" works, but it may be that it works with only certain times or temps or whatever, and that you're on the borderline of what works with that chemistry.
-
Sorry to say this but I have no computer and the scan would simply show a perfect negative, except that it had a completely even green cast in the unexposed areas, throughout, instead of a light orange cast in the unexposed areas. It's that simple.
Polyglot, on a theoretical basis your chiding is warranted ... but for 12 years I have done as I do and with no problems. At least give me credit for the 'track record'. No, I believe it is with the film or developer (?), itself, and since it comes from a 100 ft bulk roll (Fuji Super G +, ISO 100) no lab will accept a bulk loaded roll to process. But only three days previously I processed it in the SAME chemicals and procedure and the negs were great. It cannot be the film because, at room temp, it cannot go bad in two days. But thanks to all. My problems are of my own making.
Last night I made a print from the film exposed in tungsten light with no filter on the camera. That would necessitate much yellow in the enlarger. My final pack was 205Y and 105M. The print was fully acceptable and included a grey scale and color swash. I just wish that that light green fog' on the unexposed areas was not there. This was absolutely not light fog. I will also say that there is a light, oily deposit (easily cleaned off) after the processing on the film. I remember someone once complaining about a tar buildup with the RA4 developer. Don't know the details. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 10-13-2011 at 07:45 AM.
|
|
Adv Reply
