Diagnosis please...

[stradibarrius]

This is a shot taken on Christmas day with my Bronica ETRS and HP5
Notice on the left of the frame the dark area from top to bottom. Every frame on the roll had this dark area.
What do you think caused it?

 

[CGW]

If the back you used is empty, detach it, remove the dark slide and insert and see if there's anything intruding into the light path. With the back off, check the body with the mirror locked up for any intrusions. Beyond this, no clue.

 

[Mlatterich]

On first view it does not look like a shutter or curtain-related issue. I would check the light path far removing the film back to see if any of the shut blades is lagging. Have you tried a new/different type of film? If I had to bet it is a film emulsion lated issue. If not, check to see if the film pressure plate is in the focal plane.

 

[stradibarrius]

I have not had this problem in the past with the same camera and back. I felt it might be a processing error on my part????

 

[DWThomas]

On the 645 that would be along an edge of the film, right? Could be a little short of developer in the tank. (But I'm jus' guessin'!)

 

[Chris Lange]

Looks like inadequate agitation or you aren't rapping the tank enough to rid yourself of air bubbles. I used to have a similar issue with my 120 film too.

 

[Huub]

Have seen that on my negatives too. It definitely is a developing issue - from either to much or to little agitation - air bubbles look different.

 

[pgomena]

My bet is that you had not quite enough developer in the tank to reach the top of the reel and that between agitation cycles that side of the roll was just barely out of the solution. Something blocking the light path would leave a much more distinct edge.

Peter Gomena

 

[whlogan]

I can't see the dark area you mention in the print, which is a light area on your negative. Look at the area between the images and see if the spaces between the images seems to be lighter than the negatives. If it does, you may have my old nemesis, Bromide burn out. Causes seeme to be stainless steel reels, rotation during negative development and too active agitation during development.
Logan

 

[nworth]

I'm intrigued by how sharp the demarcation is between the darkened space and the rest of the picture. There is almost no transition. Since this is not the direction the shutter runs (I think), I lean toward a processing error. But that sharp line is unlike any processing error I've seen.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I concur as this goes along the entire length of the roll. Were it vertically on each frame I would go on-camera issues. But, yeah, this is a processing corrective matter.

 

[lxdude]

Just an FYI for a couple of ya's-the ETR series are all leaf shutter.

 

[Chris Lange]

Like I said, I'm positive it's an issue with agitation or quantity of developer in the tank.

 

[R gould]

I have had this happen, the awnser for me was to add a little bit more solution than the tank suggests,for instance, patterson tanks say 500ml for 120 film, so use 600ml,to make sure the film is well covered, even if the reel rides up a bit on the center spool, and voila,problem solved,Richard

 

[Katie]

Ditto - R Gould ... I had the EXACT same thing happen to me (with HP5, too).


http://www.flickr.com/photos/katkindred/5204422054/

Mine was the "too short on chems" issue ... I used a Patterson tank also, and decided to up my liquids.

 

[MichaelR]

Hello all,
I had the same problem recently solved by APUGers. I have not tried yet to up the amount of processing solutions, but I suspect that is the problem.

The thread with the explanations is titled: "Unexplained spots on Rolleiflex negative" Just last week.
Happy New Year to all
Michael

 

[George Collier]

I'm goin' with the "almost enough developer in the tank" crowd. You don't mention the agitation intervals, but if they are frequent enough, this could make sense.

 

[stradibarrius]

Agitation is the first 30 sec and 3 turns every 30 secs. This method is the same and the same amount of chemistry I have used for the last couple of years so I am a bit confused why this time the problem shows up and never before????

 

[MartinP]

You might find that the volume of chemicals is ok, but that the reel has started to slip a little bit on the core during agitation - and therefore ending up being a little too high . . .

 

[chimneyfinder]

I recently replaced my Paterson reels with some new ones as they were more than 10 years old and even intensive cleaning couldn't get rid of a noticeable chemical residue from the inside of the grooves: they weren't terrible, but, I put that down as the cause of inadequate fixing along one rebate on occassion. Since having new reels I have had no processing problems.
Worth checking reels quite closely for any slight residuals that could inhibit chemical flow or cause sticking.

 

[burchyk]

Can you please tell us more about the tank / reel / developer volume used?

 

[MichaelR]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[paul ron]

If that is happening on every frame in the same place, it's not developing. It's a light leak on the right side of your film back since the image is actually upside down in the camera.

I suspect it may just be a reflection of the intense light of the snow scene reflecting off the edge of the film mask of your back. That can be fixed with some flat black paint on the edge. BUT....

First look at how the film sits on the rails n if it's nice n tight on the front mask? Do this by loading a paper backing in th ethe film back off the camera, Advance the film... maybe it's a preasure plate issue of roller at the edge is too high or the film is not winding tight enough on the spool.

If all looks good check the light seals on the right side as well as the screws of the plastic mask. If you are handy, take the mask off n inspect the dak slide light baffle.

 

[stradibarrius]

Martin, I think you may be on to something!

 

[MichaelR]

Actually, I only started to have the problem when I switched from the Patterson reels (that were crunching my film) to the Samigon reels that load much easier. Perhaps they tend to ride up on the stalk. I would hope that increasing the volume of processing chemicals would help that.