Is this a lab error or something else?

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I shot my first roll of medium format film in my Mamiya RB67, every one of the ten shots had this very thin reddish line. It extended from the top to the bottom of each picture at an angle. I finally tracked the problem down to the film holder. Stretched and stuck across the opening where the film gets exposed I found one of my wife's long red hairs.

 

[foc]

If it was a finger or some other object obstructing the lens then it should appear dark or black.
The obstruction looks too bright to me to be a finger or camera strap unless it is far enough in front of the lens to get enough light and so appear like in the OP photos.

 

[railwayman3]

I've been caught out in a similar way with the corner of the front of a camera ever-ready case......in front of the lens, but not visible in the viewfinder.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is difficult to believe that in the Nikon pic which has the biggest obstruction, the viewfinder would not reveal an obstruction covering that amount of the lens without it being obvious to the taker, isn't it?

I am unclear what the negatives look like. Presumably an obstruction such as finger that close to the lens prevents a lot of light from entering the lens so lack of light indicates that this area on the negative is clearish so the print area is black or are the pictures scans of the negative which are reversed?

I assume that is what the one dissenting voice of foc is hinting at?

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

It is difficult to believe that in the Nikon pic which has the biggest obstruction, the viewfinder would not reveal an obstruction covering that amount of the lens without it being obvious to the taker, isn't it?

I am unclear what the negatives look like. Presumably an obstruction such as finger that close to the lens prevents a lot of light from entering the lens so lack of light indicates that this area on the negative is clearish so the print area is black or are the pictures scans of the negative which are reversed?

I assume that is what the one dissenting voice of foc is hinting at?

pentaxuser

The pictures are scans of the negatives, so the white areas in the lower right corners are areas of high density on the negatives.

I used similar logic to yours and foc's to come to the conclusion that this could not be something like a finger close to the lens. But quite honestly I haven't shot a picture of my finger near the lens before so I deferred to other's opinions on how that might appear in the final image I still have my doubts, but honestly don't have a better explanation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So, the consensus seems to be that my grubby digits found their way in front of the lens on a few shots on my most recent rolls, despite the fact that this has never happened over the course of hundreds of rolls shot with these cameras. I do find it hard to believe and rather humiliating if true, but I guess it's a possibility. In my own lame defense, that third frame really does look like some sort of fogging to me, I can't believe I wouldn't notice that in the viewfinder of an SLR before firing the shutter. I've shot enough Pulitzer prize contending photos of the interior of my lens cap to know that anything is possible with a rangefinder, however.

Crawling into my hole now...

All of us have our best photographs on their lens caps.

 

[grat]

I grabbed my DSLR, and put my finger across the edge of the lens-- I regret to inform you that it looks very much like what you're seeing.

However, I wonder if said digit was in motion, since it appears to be in different places in different photos.

And don't feel too bad-- I managed to screw up a 4x5 photo three different ways in one shot-- Opened the dark slide while the lens was open, hooked up the shutter incorrectly, and then proceeded to double-expose the shot (without fixing my shutter mistake).

 

[pentaxuser]

The pictures are scans of the negatives, so the white areas in the lower right corners are areas of high density on the negatives.

.

Thanks I don't scan so have difficulties with the meaning of "scans of negatives" phrase. I always think of a scan as replicating the actual image which is a negative image rather than thinking of a scan as reversing the negative so it looks like a print as these scans do.

If your fingers on all other occasions which presumably run into the hundreds or thousands have never strayed across the lens then I do wonder if there might have been another object that was common to both cameras. I tend to think that a finger which is a common object in all three pics as it never leaves your hand might have been sensed by the brain as presumably it occupied a different position to what your finger or fingers normally do when taking pics

Still everyone else with the exception possibly of foc does not seem to doubt it was a finger or other object that was common to both cameras and presumably was there hours or even days apart. So I'll drop the Henry Fonda role in 12 Angry men now


pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

I grabbed my DSLR, and put my finger across the edge of the lens-- I regret to inform you that it looks very much like what you're seeing.

However, I wonder if said digit was in motion, since it appears to be in different places in different photos.

And don't feel too bad-- I managed to screw up a 4x5 photo three different ways in one shot-- Opened the dark slide while the lens was open, hooked up the shutter incorrectly, and then proceeded to double-expose the shot (without fixing my shutter mistake).

Thanks for chiming in, I guess we all do make mistakes of one form or another from time to time.

 

[logan2z]

Thanks I don't scan so have difficulties with the meaning of "scans of negatives" phrase. I always think of a scan as replicating the actual image which is a negative image rather than thinking of a scan as reversing the negative so it looks like a print as these scans do.

If your fingers on all other occasions which presumably run into the hundreds or thousands have never strayed across the lens then I do wonder if there might have been another object that was common to both cameras. I tend to think that a finger which is a common object in all three pics as it never leaves your hand might have been sensed by the brain as presumably it occupied a different position to what your finger or fingers normally do when taking pics

Still everyone else with the exception possibly of foc does not seem to doubt it was a finger or other object that was common to both cameras and presumably was there hours or even days apart. So I'll drop the Henry Fonda role in 12 Angry men now


pentaxuser

I'm going to have to assume at this point that everyone who said 'finger!' got it right. I'll obviously be much more conscious of this possiblity for the next little while and maybe I'll catch myself doing whatever I did to cause this on my last few rolls. Maybe as @MattKing said, I somehow developed a bad habit without being conscious of it.

If there's any upside here, this only happened on a few frames of four rolls of film, and the casualties were not exactly masterpieces

 

[MattKing]

If you were in any place other than California I'd ask if you had checked the tassels on your mittens .

 

[logan2z]

If you were in any place other than California I'd ask if you had checked the tassels on your mittens .