when that light impinges upon a frame of the film that has been exposed in camara, that part of the film will have received the extra exposure from the pinhole which may now reveal itself as an area of greater density when developed.
Ilford Ortho 80, and I assume other ortho films, are subject to 'light piping' because of the acetate base, so daylight can travel down the length of the film in the acetate base and fog the emulsion a long way in, but you'd expect it slightly worse near the start of the film. So always load and unload in subdued light. It's just a thought. It is a similar case with Adox CMS20, the film shouldn't be loaded, or unloaded with the leader out, in daylight, at all, ever, never, cross your heart and hope to die.
This is the idea behind "preflash" -- but it wouldn't be visible in the level of density in the example negative up thread; preflash (correctly done, below Zone I exposure level) will push Zone I up to Zone II, approximately, but won't add enough exposure to push Zone II into Zone III. The area that shows those density bars is around a Zone III to IV, to my eye.
Ilford Ortho 80, and I assume other ortho films, are subject to 'light piping' because of the acetate base, so daylight can travel down the length of the film in the acetate base and fog the emulsion a long way in, but you'd expect it slightly worse near the start of the film.
You say the bands do not exist on the frame lines (an expression from cinematography), i. e. the unexposed area between the images lengthwise, so it’s the cameras though.
It can be cameras, plural, because they may have a common issue. Since the bands are quite central something inclined at an angle just in front of the aperture can be the cause. What cameras do you have? I’m thinking of the rear side, shiny parts on the back of mirrors.
The spin is reserved for painting sessions with Pearl Jam in the good ear buds.
Seriously, do no knock different approaches that work for others and indoing so stepping out of your Orthodoxie, until you can correctly test out the process, enough times to come to a fair conclusion, otherwise, you simply lock your brain in a dusty ol' box, and negatively influence others whom may want to try to think of solutions that do no occupy that dusty ol' box you can no step out of, yourself.
IMO.
I still have a hard time coming to grips with how a light leak in the changing bag could consistently result in a band (or parallel bands, in this case) of increased density straight down the long dimension of the frame. If the bands were in random locations, not perfectly straight/parallel, then I think a light leak would be a plausible explanation. Also, this issue has occurred when I've loaded film in a changing bag and outside a bag in a darkroom so I don't think the bag is the culprit. But I appreciate all of the theories, keep them coming. One of them might help me resolve this.
This is the idea behind "preflash" -- but it wouldn't be visible in the level of density in the example negative up thread; preflash (correctly done, below Zone I exposure level) will push Zone I up to Zone II, approximately, but won't add enough exposure to push Zone II into Zone III. The area that shows those density bars is around a Zone III to IV, to my eye.
Flashing will not change the banding. This is clearly a shutter problem in multiple cameras.
Sirius if the banding is common across several cameras in terms of location, size etc on the film which it appears to be, doesn't that mean that all of his camera have to have the same fault in the same place? I wonder what the odds are for this to be the case
I take it that it is logan's specific cameras to which you refer and not the makes of those cameras, otherwise I'd have thought that at least several here would have reported it?
pentaxuser
Hmmm. I did not know this flaw, in that case maybe Ortho 80 isn't a good choice.
without the bands in the spaces between the frames, the odds of a processing error have gone to a mathematical zero.
"Light piping" as described earlier sounds like a design flaw that allows light to creep in and fog the roll. If Ilford Ortho 80 was designed to be film that gets fogged like that, to me it sounds like a flaw. I suggested logan2z use that film so he could make short rolls and see if the cameras have a shutter issue because the film can be developed in a tray under a red safelight. 1 roll for every 35mm camera would rule out equipment failure. Since the film can also be developed in regular tanks logan2z he could actually look at the film on the reel to determine if it was a reel loading issue, and rule that out. There are not really many things that can cause problems like he is experiencing. Camera, loading film, developing film. I wonder where and how he loads his reels, dark bags are notorious for light leaks.It is not a flaw, it is by design
Yes the odds are small, however without the bands in the spaces between the frames, the odds of a processing error have gone to a mathematical zero.
mmmm....pinholes in the (Leica) shutter(s)???
but in the same place ? Seems really unlikely....but possible.
I consider almost anything a possibility at this point
Post #8. Just sayin'....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?