It Wasn't Foggy

I was up in Pennsylvania last month with my Olympus Chrome Six, Ikophot meter, three rolls of Reala and the last three rolls of 120 format VS (so sad). Everything just came back from Dwayne's and some of the frames are foggy (for lack of a better description). A few of the transparency frames show this and if it were only these I would have put it off as an exposure issue, but it is much more prevalent on the Reala. I didn't even need the meter for negatives and, besides, it doesn't look like an exposure issue.

The problem is with the negative, and not the scan. The bad scans are from bad frames. A great frame and a bad one can be right next to each other. The ones below are just as they show on the CD; just shrunk a bit to reduce the file size.

Any ideas?

Some more. Note that even the last "good" pic is a bit foggy.

While processing may be the culprit, I'd lean towards a light leak. I had a similar issue with a C220. Some frames were fine, others fogged, different films, different lenses, but all processed at the same time (C-41 lab), and at first I thought it was sporadic.

After really thinking about the shots, I figured out that the frames with the fogging spent more time waiting for the exposure then the shots with no fogging. Ie, if I took 3 shots in fairly quick succession, only the first image had fogging, but the other two were ok because they spent very little time waiting at the shutter. The photo was taken, then advanced to the take up before any noticeable fogging occurred. The first shot had sat waiting behind the shutter longer, which allowed the light leak to do it's dirty deed.

I changed the seals, and then everything was right with the world.

Processing doesn't seem likely as the problem is specific to individual frames. I was thinking light leak too as the washed out frames have the look of a double exposure. In fact it took me a while to recognize the one obligatory double exposure for what it was.

The problem with the light leak theory is that the wash out is uniform across the frame in most cases. And one shot I know was in place for several minutes while waiting for the clouds to clear and it looks fine. The only thing I can think of is that the counter window wasn't always closed. But it doesn't seem likely this could uniformly wash out a whole frame, and if it did one would expect the frames to have a red cast.

As the neg and transparency films obviously passed through a different processing line, a fault or light leak in processing seems unlikely.

Does the fogging extend into the rebates or edges of the individual frames.....I'm thinking that a shutter problem would perhaps be restricted to the picture area (or, if it occured while the film was being wound on, or part wound-on, you light get the effect in picture 2 of the first set above^)?

At first glance the frames appear to be sharply defined, i.e. there is a foggy frame surrounded by an unexposed area, just as one would expect. But on closer inspection there is a ghosting around the frame, as if another exposure was overlaid, but slightly misaligned. The images below show the top and bottom corners of the same side of the same frame of one of the Kodak VS rolls. Note that the same thing can be seen on the Fuji negatives.

The first image shows the ghosting in what should be the unexposed part of the film. But this stops short of the top of the frame, and the fogging also stops short of the top edge of the image and a little strip of unfogged image can be seen. The second image is the bottom corner and it is even more confusing. This shows three different areas. First is the fogged image, then a thin strip at the edge of the image that appears to be properly exposed, then the ghosting in what should be the unexposed part of the film.

I'm really at a loss to imagine what could have caused this. It certainly appears that additional light struck the film. But it could not have been much light; it seems about the same as would be required for a proper exposure. This additional light is generally uniform across the frame and is aligned nearly, but not exactly with the frame. Then to make it even more confusing you have the second corner with three different areas, with the proper exposure apparently sandwiched between two bad exposures.