I'll make it short. I developed a roll of film and found weird streaks on some frames. I did everything as I always do, only this time I was in a hurry and grabbed the roll right from a freezer and held it in hand to warm it up. I attatched a couple of examples. Is that what it looks like when there is condensation water on film?
Is this caused by condensation?
-
A
- Thread starter Juri
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI compensating timer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale NIKON L35 AD ISO 1000
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale German made magnetic stirrer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Imacon flextight film holder: 6x9 + 6x6
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Black Compur 0 shutter
- Started by Guivd
Forum statistics
Do you use the "swirl" method of agitation when you develop or do you invert the container?
I use Patterson style tanks to develop and I used to use the little handle that you stick in the top of the tank and turn back and forth to swirl the film in the chemistry. I would occasionally get "comet" shaped streaks in my images when air bubbles stuck to the film.
Changing to inversion style agitation, turning the tank upside down five times within five seconds made this problem disappear.
Also, making sure you tap the tank on the table top after every agitation cycle will dislodge any air bubbles that remain on the film.
I have a little habit. I always tap the tank three times for good luck.
I haven't had a single problem with air bubbles on the film since I started doing these things.
I use Patterson style tanks to develop and I used to use the little handle that you stick in the top of the tank and turn back and forth to swirl the film in the chemistry. I would occasionally get "comet" shaped streaks in my images when air bubbles stuck to the film.
Changing to inversion style agitation, turning the tank upside down five times within five seconds made this problem disappear.
Also, making sure you tap the tank on the table top after every agitation cycle will dislodge any air bubbles that remain on the film.
I have a little habit. I always tap the tank three times for good luck.
I haven't had a single problem with air bubbles on the film since I started doing these things.
Shutter curtains have holes.
MattKing
Moderator
Could it be static electricity discharge?
Thank you for the replies, but I'm afraid none of the assumptions are true. I do use a Patterson style tank and swril agitation, but my tank aslo moves the reel horizontally (up and down) while spinning. I use liquid developer (Fomadon R09) so undissolved particles are not the case. And the camera I used has a horizontal metal shutter.
Almost looks like a light leaking thru the shutter when you are advancing the film.
I would go for light leaking thru the shutter also.
Jeff
Jeff
I'd take the discussion back to condensation. Isn't it possible that condensation water drops somehow magnified the light and caused overexposure, where the water was? I shot the film at EI 50, so it got quite a lot of light.
I noticed that it is Lucky film - you haven't had any issues with the film before this? Could be a defect in the emulsion or possibly condensation, as you suggest.
By the way, the right one, isn't that the theatre in Tartu?
By the way, the right one, isn't that the theatre in Tartu?
Here's how to analyze it:
1) It's light on print, dark on negative. That means it is more likely extra light and definitely not an absence of development due to bubbles.
2) It's a very bright spot, so it can't be simple overdevelopment due to bad agitation.
3) It's a streak. That points to something related to the film advancing.
4) It's a comet shaped streak. That indicates some strong burning in of light followed by a lot less light (per square sub-millimeter). That strongly points to a hole in the shutter curtain. The film rests for the shot and then is exposed to the hole sequentially as it is advanced. The advancing film accelerates, so the streak wanes and fades.
5) It's in the same position with respect to the vertical dimension. Added weight to the shutter pinhole hypothesis.
6) Condensation problems would be randomly located and would not be so intense.
1) It's light on print, dark on negative. That means it is more likely extra light and definitely not an absence of development due to bubbles.
2) It's a very bright spot, so it can't be simple overdevelopment due to bad agitation.
3) It's a streak. That points to something related to the film advancing.
4) It's a comet shaped streak. That indicates some strong burning in of light followed by a lot less light (per square sub-millimeter). That strongly points to a hole in the shutter curtain. The film rests for the shot and then is exposed to the hole sequentially as it is advanced. The advancing film accelerates, so the streak wanes and fades.
5) It's in the same position with respect to the vertical dimension. Added weight to the shutter pinhole hypothesis.
6) Condensation problems would be randomly located and would not be so intense.
It might be a problem related to emulsion, but I've shot several rolls of Lucky and it happened only with this roll that might have been exposed to condensation water. By the looks of it, it certainly seems to have happnened inside the camera. However, I still doubt it has anything to do with shutter, since my camera has metal horizontal leaf shutter and motor drive.
I think I'll just try to avoid shooting a film taken right from a freezer and see if this happens again.
And yes, on the right photo is theater "Vanemuine" in Tartu. Very nice you recognized it.
I think I'll just try to avoid shooting a film taken right from a freezer and see if this happens again.
And yes, on the right photo is theater "Vanemuine" in Tartu. Very nice you recognized it.
Ok, what make and model is the camera, leaf shutters aren't horizontal.
Dear Juri,
The first image is more distinct than the second : I think they are a coating aberration called 'comets':
Comets can be caused by many things, base anomalys, bubbles, dust etc, etc and they are typical in that they have an 'erupted' area followed by a tail where the emulsion then 'repairs' itself after the eruption and during the coating process.
These individual coating aberrations are usually identified and cut out of the master rolls of products.
My suggestion is that you return the film to the reseller and ask him / her to return it to the manufacturer
to check, as it may NOT be as I suggest and its only fair they have a chance to examine it and give you their own verdict.
Similar looking 'comets' can actually be done in processing if the emulsion side of the film is 'nicked' but it is very rare and usually the comet tail is not as linear as the example shown in the left hand print.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :
The first image is more distinct than the second : I think they are a coating aberration called 'comets':
Comets can be caused by many things, base anomalys, bubbles, dust etc, etc and they are typical in that they have an 'erupted' area followed by a tail where the emulsion then 'repairs' itself after the eruption and during the coating process.
These individual coating aberrations are usually identified and cut out of the master rolls of products.
My suggestion is that you return the film to the reseller and ask him / her to return it to the manufacturer
to check, as it may NOT be as I suggest and its only fair they have a chance to examine it and give you their own verdict.
Similar looking 'comets' can actually be done in processing if the emulsion side of the film is 'nicked' but it is very rare and usually the comet tail is not as linear as the example shown in the left hand print.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :
The camera is Pentax *ist. I know leaf shutters are round, but I thought that the term "horizontal leaf shutter" would mean a shutter consisting of metal leaves that move horizontally.
The frames in the original post are #7 and #13 respectively. It also occurred on the first frame, which you can see below. So three frames in the first part of the roll and the same position each time. That's strange now that I think of it.
Ah yes the same place, same shape on the frame as well. This suggests a light leak, not aliens, comets, condensation, chemicals or bubbles.
With the mirror in the up position, shine a bright light into the lens as you look through the open back where you can see the closed shutter? Do this in a dark room so any light wil be seen imedeately if it is in fact a pin hole in the shutter curtain. BTW the image will be upside down in the camera so look in that location as if the film were oriented in the camera, not as seen on a print? Also look in the place where the dot is not the streak.
I'm banking on a light leak.
.
With the mirror in the up position, shine a bright light into the lens as you look through the open back where you can see the closed shutter? Do this in a dark room so any light wil be seen imedeately if it is in fact a pin hole in the shutter curtain. BTW the image will be upside down in the camera so look in that location as if the film were oriented in the camera, not as seen on a print? Also look in the place where the dot is not the streak.
I'm banking on a light leak.
.
Nicholas Lindan
Advertiser
My vote is also emulsion defect.
If you look at the emulsion side with glancing light is there any evidence of a bump or cavity where the spots are?
I have never gotten condensation damage on film. I had on occasion taken film from freezer and put directly in the camera with no problems. I began to suspect that the condensation thing was a bit of a hysterical old wives' tale. I have since tried, with all my might, to get 'condensation damage' on film by taking it straight from the freezer and putting it in the camera as fast as I can - both breathing into the camera to raise the humidity and doing it on days with 99.999% relative humidity [an all too common occurrence in Cleveland, Ohio]. I can't get anything to happen. That may the be reason for a complete lack of examples of condensation damage.
If you look at the emulsion side with glancing light is there any evidence of a bump or cavity where the spots are?
I have never gotten condensation damage on film. I had on occasion taken film from freezer and put directly in the camera with no problems. I began to suspect that the condensation thing was a bit of a hysterical old wives' tale. I have since tried, with all my might, to get 'condensation damage' on film by taking it straight from the freezer and putting it in the camera as fast as I can - both breathing into the camera to raise the humidity and doing it on days with 99.999% relative humidity [an all too common occurrence in Cleveland, Ohio]. I can't get anything to happen. That may the be reason for a complete lack of examples of condensation damage.
Yeah, that's the name of it, remember it now. I've been a fair bit in Tartu, borrowed an apartment out in Annelinn for a while. Walked around town and found all sorts of run-down, crazy places in Supilinn for example. Unfortunately I was no good at photography back then.
Ive experienced bad condensation, and it causes large vertical lines and wide splotches all over the emulsion surface. I only had 1 printable negative from a roll of 36, it was that bad. The others were not even fixable after scanning. After that I learned to let it warm up before shooting, and not to throw them in the fridge after.
Nicholas Lindan
Advertiser
There may have been some other cause. The film warms up pretty quickly - almost instantly when in contact with the pressure plate - and has little heat capacity. Towards the end of the roll the film would be at room temperature.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |