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
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...
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.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 for chiming in, I guess we all do make mistakes of one form or another from time to time.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).
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.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
If you were in any place other than California I'd ask if you had checked the tassels on your mittens.
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?