|
Paper peeling on the roll causing minor exposure to light maybe?
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Paper peeling on the roll causing minor exposure to light maybe? so like static?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Is your camera winding the film tightly against the take up spool? Did the roll out of the camera feel tight or squishy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Is your camera winding the film tightly against the take up spool? Did the roll out of the camera feel tight or squishy? yup, was tight. also rolls were shot months separate, I think its something i did during development.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
If it's sitting in the camera for months it might just be a tiny light leak building up over time. I've got a couple of backs that do this, shot a roll in a day and it's all good otherwise you'll get this edge effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If it's sitting in the camera for months it might just be a tiny light leak building up over time. I've got a couple of backs that do this, shot a roll in a day and it's all good otherwise you'll get this edge effect. most of these rolls were shot then put into the freezer for when i could be bothered to develop. thinking about it some more maybe the camera is not rolling as tight as it should. its also cheap film (artista edu)so maybe the paper back is pretty bad at the edges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Those look exactly like the leaks I get towards the outer ends of rolls that aren't wound tight enough. It's like a strange diffusion from the top edge of the film that decreases in density as you move towards the center - I can't think of any other obvious cause that would keep it so close to the edges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
I get the same kind of crap on some of my rolls so now I'm going to have to figure out if it's a particular film type or particular camera where it happens. I got the exposure dialed in on this project, hopefully:  Untitled by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr 3 hrs in a picture frame with glass holding the neg flat on a really overcast day -- meter read at EV 13 or so all day. First attempt was twice as long on an EV14 type of day and was seriously overexposed. I really wish enough people messed around with darkroom and ancient chemical bullshit to bring a printing thread back from the dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Went ahead and did some black and white today, noticed these dark edges on the last two rolls i did, and only at the end i l first loaded into the reel. any ideas what might cause this? e: I should also note that the first frame in the top picture seems to look darker because the film is sitting against the bathtub faucet in the background (rather than all against solid white tiles.) krnhotwings fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:I got the exposure dialed in on this project, hopefully: Hopefully in the next few months I'll be able to put my contact printing frame to good use. I'm looking to do some Albumen printing, as I've got a bunch of silver nitrate ready to go, just gotta get down to Costco and get a bunch of eggs. I was also thinking of making a UV exposure box using one these things: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/36W-UV-L...=item2a40cb9d34
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:I get the same kind of crap on some of my rolls so now I'm going to have to figure out if it's a particular film type or particular camera where it happens.  I just watched a cyanotype video on youtube and it looks insanely easy. I would love a wet printing thread and would probably contribute in it quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
I'll soon be doing a bunch of B&W development, and the films i'll be using are all expired sometime in the last 30 to 40 years. what developer should i get?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:If you did separate batches of development, one after another, I'm guessing it's 'cause of the film edges sticking to wet reels. I had enough reels to do dry ones for each roll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:
It's dead easy, just kinda slow in my experience, even when I use an exposure unit. I'm gonna do some Gum Bichromate prints in the upcoming semester, just need to get myself some nice watercolor paper to work on and some water color tubes for pigment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:I had enough reels to do dry ones for each roll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me if they know what these weird patterns on my negs are? This is a scan that has had the brightness cranked a ton to emphasize the problem. Normally these patterns are barely visible in dark areas of the negative, but when I increase the exposure on accidentally underexposed scans, they become visible like this. They look too erratic to be water spots, and I always use a double rinse of distilled water as the very last step in my rinse cycle, anyway. My chems are mixed with tap water, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Can anyone tell me if they know what these weird patterns on my negs are? Distilled should suck up most of the minerals that cause spots, anything on the lens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Distilled should suck up most of the minerals that cause spots, anything on the lens? No, it happens across different cameras too, and the patterns are never consistent. I also see them extend past the edge of the frame between the exposures, so that rules out a camera issue. Edit: Actually thinking about it more, it seems to be most prominent on very long exposures (more than a minute)... maybe it is dust on the lens? It seems weird that sometimes the patterns extend beyond the edge of the frame, though. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:No, it happens across different cameras too, and the patterns are never consistent. I also see them extend past the edge of the frame between the exposures, so that rules out a camera issue. Could test to see if it's from the tap by using distilled for everything next time you develop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Can anyone tell me if they know what these weird patterns on my negs are? Looks like small fibres/dust to me. Either on the negs themselves or maybe your scanner glass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Looks like small fibres/dust to me. Either on the negs themselves or maybe your scanner glass. Yeah I think I isolated it to the scanner. I cleaned the glass and some spots are gone, but lots remained. I am thinking it might even be on the under side of the glass mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that's really annoying. I just cleaned the underside of my scanner glass the other day and I feel like I've mostly just managed to move dust around than actually get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
whelp, I packed up some camera bodies and a few lenses to sell to KEH, but I don't wanna go out in this snow to drop them off  They wouldn't take a broken Olympus omG for parts or an old Spotmatic, even the Yashica GSN I never use. I hope I can get them out before the end of the week so I can pick up some more film. I've been getting a lot of junky cameras over the last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Yeah, that's really annoying. I just cleaned the underside of my scanner glass the other day and I feel like I've mostly just managed to move dust around than actually get rid of it. Removing the glass on my scanner was actually ridiculously easy, so I did it just now and scanned again. Most of the dust remains. I am wondering now if it's behind the top backlight glass. I know its the scanner because I shifted the negative significantly before scanning, and the image moves but the dust doesn't. Annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
We're talking about scanner dust again? Paging Mr. Despair... Mr. Despair to the film thread...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Yeah. It was totally a bunch of dust behind the backlight glass. It was really easy to remove, check out this before/after - http://imgur.com/a/gu9Pu Ignore the change in contrast between images. I wasn't consistent in cranking the exposure between examples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Just scanned in some Delta 3200 from my trip. It ended up having to go through a carryon xray machine once because of some issues with flights. See those white dots? Is that a byproduct of the xray pass? Any ideas? Hanoi by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Afaik, x-rays show up as waves on your negatives - http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Afaik, x-rays show up as waves on your negatives - http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml yeah, that's what I thought..... Any ideas what the heck it might be? I guess it's *possible* that it could be a reflection on the window I was taking it from behind. They seem really uniform in size though...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Is it 120 film? It looks like it might be the printed pattern on the backing paper that was exposed onto the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Is it 120 film? It looks like it might be the printed pattern on the backing paper that was exposed onto the film. Yeah, it's 120. What would cause that? This is from the same roll and looks ok.  Roofs by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr Roofs v2 by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Hopefully in the next few months I'll be able to put my contact printing frame to good use. I'm looking to do some Albumen printing, as I've got a bunch of silver nitrate ready to go, just gotta get down to Costco and get a bunch of eggs. The difference in complexity between a relatively simple process like albumin and a dirt simple process like cyanotype is amazing. Having basically no free time, I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick to cyanotype for a while. I imagine that fine tuning my negatives and messing with toning will give me plenty to experiement with. I'm definitely curious to see how the UV easy bake works out because the winter is limiting me to two prints a day on my days off, if I'm lucky. Anybody who has any interest whatsoever in chemical / analog printing should try out cyanotype. It requires even less special equipment than darkroom printing and you can use whatever you want as a contact negative. You could probably even print a drat iphone photo on an overhead transparency sheet and use it to make a decent cyanotype print.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:The difference in complexity between a relatively simple process like albumin and a dirt simple process like cyanotype is amazing. Having basically no free time, I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick to cyanotype for a while. I imagine that fine tuning my negatives and messing with toning will give me plenty to experiement with. I'm definitely curious to see how the UV easy bake works out because the winter is limiting me to two prints a day on my days off, if I'm lucky. If/when I get to building one, I'll probably cut the lid off with the all the lights and electronics, then put a sheet off mat acrylic in for diffusion and mount in a DIY wooden box. I'll post details here eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Afaik, x-rays show up as waves on your negatives - http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml  I mean I always assumed there was some kind of effect but I wasn't sure what it was exactly. I recently took my backpack full of HP5 through a trip and back, thereby getting xrayed twice, will this have a visible effect?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Nope, even if you stuck it in your checked baggage you should be okay
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Nope, even if you stuck it in your checked baggage you should be okay I expected as much but the confirmation will help me rest easy knowing my lovely photos haven't been molested by the barely penetrating rays of a bag scanner
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Mido posted:I expected as much but the confirmation will help me rest easy knowing my lovely photos haven't been molested by the barely penetrating rays of a bag scanner It's okay for Spedman because he doesn't live in the US, but as the Kodak link above says, film is not safe in checked baggage for flights in/to/from the US because of the TSA's fancy explosives detection xray machines. Reading that link again, though, definitely made me feel better about maybe accidentally putting 40 sheets of Astia through an Ethiopian checked baggage xray last week 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
I have done a bit of US traveling (10 flights in under a month at one point inside the US) and haven't had any issues. The films I was carting around were Tri-X 400 in 35mm, Portra 400 in 120, and Instax Wide (800), with some Instax being chucked in checked baggage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
The general consensus is that film under 3200 ISO really isn't an issue in carry on baggage. I have flown with Tr-x in 35mm and 120 a few times and and have not noticed any issues with it at all after developing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Anybody who has any interest whatsoever in chemical / analog printing should try out cyanotype. It requires even less special equipment than darkroom printing and you can use whatever you want as a contact negative. You could probably even print a drat iphone photo on an overhead transparency sheet and use it to make a decent cyanotype print. I've seen a giant rayograph print at MoMA, I've even seen a mattress used to print one too. voodoorootbeer posted:I'm definitely curious to see how the UV easy bake works out this is the first I've heard of such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:52
|
|