Film developing issue

[Jeff Kubach]

Try C-41 film and have it develop at the local one-hour lap and see what happens and go from there.

Jeff

 

[Juri]

It's not the developer. Why is it that people first blame the developer and stop looking for other explanations.

In this case not the developer, but developing methods were blaimed. And for me personally, blaming developing process makes very much sense if you're doing it for the first or second time in your life.

 

[Photo_Gaz]

Any chance you could scan or digitally photograph a contact sheet or negative preserver page so we could see what you are talking about?

Just got in from work and thought I'd check replies so I'll attach a scan in the morning.

Also, when I was referring to blank being at the front that was for my latest cartridge of Fomapan 100, I had blank film at the end of Ilfopro FP4 (the first cartridge).

 

[Photo_Gaz]

In this case not the developer, but developing methods were blaimed. And for me personally, blaming developing process makes very much sense if you're doing it for the first or second time in your life.

Thank you for your kind words....I'm sure I'll be able to blame other things soon

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is a quick way to determine whether there is a camera problem. Open the back and exercise the shutter. Does it always work?

 

[Photo_Gaz]

There is a quick way to determine whether there is a camera problem. Open the back and exercise the shutter. Does it always work?

I think I posted above somewhere, I've opened it up in front of a bright light and operated the shutter at it's various speeds and it appears to work ok. So my mind boggles.

 

[michaelbsc]

There is a quick way to determine whether there is a camera problem. Open the back and exercise the shutter. Does it always work?

This may not answer the question.

I have a nice old camera with the film advance and shutter interlocked. I cannot easily exercise the shutter without advancing the film.

When I use it I have come to accept that the first two frames will be blank because the shutter sticks. If I shoot the rest of the roll reasonably quickly it will be fine.

To date I have never been able to get the shutter to stick with the camera back open. It knows I am watching.

MB

 

[michaelbsc]

I think I posted above somewhere, I've opened it up in front of a bright light and operated the shutter at it's various speeds and it appears to work ok. So my mind boggles.

I suspect the blank frames occur on the first shot after the camera has been sitting for a day or two??

 

[removed account4]

I think I posted above somewhere, I've opened it up in front of a bright light and operated the shutter at it's various speeds and it appears to work ok. So my mind boggles.

sometimes "stuff" happens ...
do you have access to another camera ?
has it been overhauled ( cleaned/adjusted /lubricated ) lately ?

sometimes cameras act finicky, like morris the cat in the old pet food ads...

good job on processing your first rolls and welcome to apug !

john

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[Worker 11811]

I have a Pentax ME-Super that I got at a rummage sale for $20.00 which had a problem with the shutter/film advance.

When you racked the lever, it would advance the film but not cock the shutter. You could rack the lever again and advance another frame which would not be exposed. On the first couple of rolls of film I put through it, I wasted a fair bit of film.

The problem was because the camera had been sitting idle for a long time and hadn't been cleaned. It was simple enough for me to take off the bottom plate and carefully clean the gears. The camera has operated perfectly for more than a year, now.

My suggestion is to have the camera cleaned, either by yourself or, better yet, send it to a professional for a good cleaning.

 

[Photo_Gaz]

Ok then peeps, this is the scan of the part of the negative that is blank.

If you look carefully you can see where the developer has started to make it clear at the part where I have subsequently cut it off the other part of the negative.

 

[Monito]

Clear?!? You mean dark, don't you? Black from edge to edge obliterating the numbers. It's not blank! Wow. Black, not blank.

It looks like a massive light leak.

It also looks like the rest of it is gray due to light leak or fog.

Judging by the numbering, isn't that the beginning of the roll?

It would seem that you are closing the back and taking the first exposure on the light-blasted leader. You have to advance the film at least two shots before making a real photo.

 

[removed account4]

It would seem that you are closing the back and taking the first exposure on the light-blasted leader. You have to advance the film at least two shots before making a real photo.

exactly !
- john

 

[Photo_Gaz]

Clear?!? You mean dark, don't you? Black from edge to edge obliterating the numbers. It's not blank! Wow. Black, not blank.

I do now, yes.

 

[Juri]

It looks like a massive light leak.

I'm quite sure it's not a light leak. It's just a beginning of a roll.

Is it really so difficult to deduce that the part of the film that you pull out the cartridge in daylight is exposed to light and therefore turns black after development?

 

[Monito]

I'm quite sure it's not a light leak. It's just a beginning of a roll.

Is it really so difficult to deduce that the part of the film that you pull out the cartridge in daylight is exposed to light and therefore turns black after development?

It only looks like a massive light leak. Then I wrote more. I looked at the frame numbers and deduced that it was indeed the front part of the roll, which I stated. And certainly the leader is exposed to light. It does indeed turn black and we have a black leader there; but the OP was consistently talking about "blank" and "clear" portions. Please read the post you selectively quoted from. No upset here, just wanting to be precise about what was written. Perhaps I should have deleted the part about "light leak" rather than just writing more. The film base does look a bit fogged somehow.

 

[Juri]

It only looks like a massive light leak. Then I wrote more. I looked at the frame numbers and deduced that it was indeed the front part of the roll, which I stated. And certainly the leader is exposed to light. It does indeed turn black and we have a black leader there; but the OP was consistently talking about "blank" and "clear" portions. Please read the post you selectively quoted from. No upset here, just wanting to be precise about what was written. Perhaps I should have deleted the part about "light leak" rather than just writing more. The film base does look a bit fogged somehow.

I'm sure you know better than me, I just used that statement to say what I think it is. My question was actually adressed to the OP. I mean, if you know how film works then the blackness in the beginning shouldn't be a mystery. Although I remember how difficult it is was to understand in the beginning.

And it might not be fogging on the film, but just a bad or unprocessed scan.

 

[Photo_Gaz]

I write about clear parts as in my original post I wrote regarding two issues that I did not fully understand, one concerning a "black" or "dark" piece of film and another concerning a "clear" part of the film.

My posts in this thread call for advice regarding issues that I may think I partly understand but, I do not want to carry on making the same mistakes hence the posting concerning my two specific issues. Please don't confuse with me with an overly- ignorant stupid person but rather one that is looking for pieces of refined experience while starting out in a new world of relatively complex procedures and nigh on limitless possibilities.

Thank you to those that have offered advice in the spirit that it was asked for!

 

[Monito]

Although I remember how difficult it is was to understand in the beginning.

And it might not be fogging on the film, but just a bad or unprocessed scan.

Right on both counts. We shouldn't be too hard on the OP. There are many things we notice that we take for granted, like frame numbering, that actually were explained to us so far back we've forgotten there was a point we didn't know about it. So it would be easy to get front and back of the roll confused.

But mistaking black for clear is a bit odd. It certainly misdirected the people responding trying to help.

 

[Photo_Gaz]

I didn't mistake black for clear at all. If you're referring to the earlier scan I was referring to where you can see clear film at the part where I had cut it from the rest. So, with my rudimentary understanding of the developing process, to my eyes the developing process had started to turn the film from it's undeveloped state into its developed state of "clear", as in you can begin to see through it-as in the opposite to how it looked when I first saw the film as it was being loaded into the camera.

I was not saying that the dark developed film was in fact clear I was stating that I could see where clarity was beginning to form as I expected the film to go from dark and opaque in its exposed state through to translucent in it's developed state. When I saw the opposite to that in the aforementioned part of the film and how there appears to be the beginnings of a translucency developing, I was merely getting confused as to whether or not the dark bit had been developed, had not been developed, had not been exposed or I had done something else specific that produced the strange appearance of dark film merging into clearer film.

 

[Photo_Gaz]

I think I'll cut this thread short now. I think I've got the extra info that I need to reduce the amount of errors in my next batch of negatives.

A massive appreciative bowl of thanks to those that brought their advice. It's certainly a friendly forum, cheers!

 

[Monito]

I was merely getting confused as to whether or not the dark bit had been developed, had not been developed, had not been exposed or I had done something else specific that produced the strange appearance of dark film merging into clearer film.

Fix clears film. That's why people talk about fixing twice the "clearing time". That means it will turn undeveloped film clear = blank = nothing on it = transparent (whether exposed or not).

Developer blackens exposed film. It makes exposed film dark. If there is no black or gray at one part (besides the very light gray of the film base) then there is either no exposure or no development at that part. Either absence of exposure or absence of development will leave that part clear. Both are necessary for blackness or grayness.

Film is printed with edge numbers by shining light through templates to expose the edge of the film with a bit of light in the shape (form, image) of a number. If there are no edge numbers (if the film is clear/transparent/blank) right across to the edges) then there was no development.

The film leader of 35 mm film gets exposed to light. Thus if it is developed it will get very black (dark, blocks light). It will be so black that the black edge numbers will not be visible because they will be obscured.

Any questions?

 

[Monito]

Try this:

1) Load 35 mm camera with 24 exposure 35 mm film (or 36 exposure if you prefer).

2) Advance the film with two strokes, firing the shutter after each one, with the lens cap on, so there is no chance of an image.

3) Advance the camera one stroke and then make 24 photos (or 36 with appropriate film). Make sure they are easy ones, like on a sunny day.

4) Don't make too many photos trying to go past the natural limit or count. Rewind the film completely into the canister. Take it out in the shade or indoors and put it into a dark box or canister.

5) Load the film onto the reel and develop.

6) Do not cut the dry film!

7) Check that there is a black leader and black frame numbers. Check that there are black frame numbers.

8) Most frame numbering systems run like this: 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, .... Your FOMA example runs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... so you have two numbers per frame. Count the frames and see if there is a reasonable number of frames. A reasonable number of frames would be something like 23 or 24 or 25 on a '24 exp. roll' or 35, 36, or 37 on a '36 exp. roll'.

9) If anything is not right, start a new thread with complete information and a scan of the affected region. Be precise and accurate in descriptions and if possible discuss only one problem in a thread or, if they are on the same roll, then unambiguously identify one as Problem A and another as Problem B, so that there is no confusion about which problem is which.

 

[cmacd123]

Ok then peeps, this is the scan of the part of the negative that is blank.

If you look carefully you can see where the developer has started to make it clear at the part where I have subsequently cut it off the other part of the negative.

I am interpreting that you have two differnet strips scanned here?

the part to the right of the diagonal line looks like a normal roll of Fomapan. They put a number every four perfs, and the count gets up to 88 on the part of the film intended to load the camera.

FOMA has a dark base so you are laughing on that part.

I can't tell where the BLACK film was on your original roll. what did the trasnition from normal to black look like?