light leak or dev error?

StoneNYC · Jul 15, 2013

I've made some absolutely beautiful prints from my flatbed up to 30 inches across with no issues ...

And the 12x12's are certainly sharp as hell

This is a not under glass example, on D3200 speed film had held...

I call that one ^^^ "more cowbell" hehe (Saturday night love reference if you didn't get it).

But as you can see there's really sharp edges with no kind of edge blur / fuzzyness you would get out of a bad scan, and scanned at 3200 I believe. For most applications 2400 is fine for the v750 but I like to ere on the side of caution and scan at the highest acceptable resolution in case I decide to print bigger.

Anyway, flatbeds aren't so bad.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

karrlander · Jul 15, 2013

I took some time to really get into my "scan" to see if that would be the problem as polyglot suggested and I think I start to find my way to all the nobs and buttons. This is what I ended up with and theres not much work done with it after the neg conversion. I used my DSLR for "scanning" with a Tominon 105mm on a bellow.

Now I just have to learn to take sharp pics of myself using the self timer.

polyglot · Jul 15, 2013

A definite improvement. However the contrast is very high, probably because you've effectively "pushed" the film in the post-processing stage by stretching the smaller available density range out to match the brightness range of a jpeg.

Sirius Glass · Jul 15, 2013

Welcome to APUG

karrlander · Jul 16, 2013

polyglot said:
A definite improvement. However the contrast is very high, probably because you've effectively "pushed" the film in the post-processing stage by stretching the smaller available density range out to match the brightness range of a jpeg.

Yes it is. It's not the best example but from the beginning that was the pic where my problems was most visible. Here is another one from the same roll treated the same way.

karrlander · Jul 16, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Welcome to APUG

Thank you!

And thanks everyone for all the help!

StoneNYC · Jul 16, 2013

I ha one more thought, could it also be vignetting from the taking lens of the DSLR? It worse double vignette from the combination of original lens and second taking lens for the "scan"?

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

karrlander · Jul 16, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I ha one more thought, could it also be vignetting from the taking lens of the DSLR? It worse double vignette from the combination of original lens and second taking lens for the "scan"?

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

It could. But I have tried different lenses with exact the same result so I don't think so. I have also tried a setup that gave me horrible vignetting. I think that I had two problems to start with. First there was some dev error and when I think I got that sorted out this scanning error showed up (was kind of hidden behind the dev error) and both of them did strange things to the edges of my pics. But with the last developed roll and a better job done with the scanning the results starts to look the way I think it should. Next roll will tell me if I'm on the right track.

clayne · Jul 16, 2013

The reason I pointed out the fluid capacity as a concern is that I've seen a similar thing happen with 135 film in stainless tanks. If they're "topped up" if you will, there isn't enough airspace for the liquid to displace and you get uneven development along the edges. I can't remember if it was the long edge or the short edge though. However, this may not apply to you if you're using a different tank setup with some kind of stirring rod which will effectively force the reel around.

karrlander · Jul 17, 2013

clayne said:
The reason I pointed out the fluid capacity as a concern is that I've seen a similar thing happen with 135 film in stainless tanks. If they're "topped up" if you will, there isn't enough airspace for the liquid to displace and you get uneven development along the edges. I can't remember if it was the long edge or the short edge though. However, this may not apply to you if you're using a different tank setup with some kind of stirring rod which will effectively force the reel around.

And it was something I haven't thought about so a good point indeed. So I checked and there was some space left in the top. But now i have a one more tool in the box when I run into future problems.

polyglot · Jul 17, 2013

There's got to be all space left in the top. You want the developer to only just cover the spirals if you're doing inversion agitation.

karrlander · Jul 17, 2013

polyglot said:
There's got to be all space left in the top. You want the developer to only just cover the spirals if you're doing inversion agitation.

Ok, I better recheck that. But to get some reference I'm planning to send away a roll to get it developed and scanned by a good lab. I'll take a brake with this untill I've got the result back from them.

polyglot · Jul 17, 2013

karrlander said:
Ok, I better recheck that. But to get some reference I'm planning to send away a roll to get it developed and scanned by a good lab. I'll take a brake with this untill I've got the result back from them.

From those scans, I don't think you have a development problem. You should consider continuous agitation instead of the classic 10s/minute arrangement, but they don't look uneven or otherwise problematic in the chemistry department. It looks like you've got your scanning black-point sorted better now, so I reckon with about one stop more exposure you will be getting wonderful results. Don't give up on your process now!

karrlander · Jul 18, 2013

polyglot said:
From those scans, I don't think you have a development problem. You should consider continuous agitation instead of the classic 10s/minute arrangement, but they don't look uneven or otherwise problematic in the chemistry department. It looks like you've got your scanning black-point sorted better now, so I reckon with about one stop more exposure you will be getting wonderful results. Don't give up on your process now!

Giving up is not an option! But I have developed another roll now and I still have some magenta/purple things on the sides. I'm pretty sure it's on the negs. I don't think I have got that on every roll so that problem together with bad scanning made it hard for me to sort it out. Anyway, a scanner is ordered and with some reference material from a pro lab I think I might be able to pinpoint the error better. I'll be back!

bvy · Jul 18, 2013

As far as scanning for analysis, you should try scanning an entire film strip, not just a single frame.

cs_foto · Jul 18, 2013

karrlander said:
Hi! I've read this forum for a little while and enjoyed a lot of good tips and trix. Just started to develop color negative and runned into some problem. As you can see on the pic I got some strange things going on in the left and right part of the pic. I doesn't show on all frames in the roll, at least not what I can see. This shot is taken with studio flash and a grey background so it becomes very obvious. I haven't had this problem with b/w. I develop in Digibase C41 and have tried both 38 degrees and 25 degrees.
Is this a light leak maybe from the roll not getting rolled up tight enough or is it a dev error? I have tried to agitate both by turning my paterson tank upside down and by just turning the little stick. The negs got better when I stopped turning it every 30 sec and just twisted the stick every 1 min in 25 degrees and 13 min. The film is Kodak Portra 160 and is shot with a Mamiya 645 AFD II.
Does anyone have a clue?

View attachment 71547

/robban

This is a typical issue of underdevelopment or underexposure, whatever it is, your negatives are too 'thin', not dense enough... so when scanned or digitally photographed those weird tones appear, I can see it in the over emphasised dust on the original image, also if you bring that image to photoshop or similar and play with the curves (contrast and blackpoint) you get something very similar to your second example.... the point is: the second sample you posted will have exactly the same problems as the first, you are just hiding them with the contrast applied to the digital file..

So the problem here is you are either underexposing pretty bad the negative (shooting 2 or 3 stops under what one can call a 'good' exposure) or your temperature or dev time is lower than what it should be..

Try to find a properly exposed negative and compare it to yours, do you see a difference in regards of density?

Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....

karrlander · Jul 19, 2013

cs_foto said:
This is a typical issue of underdevelopment or underexposure, whatever it is, your negatives are too 'thin', not dense enough... so when scanned or digitally photographed those weird tones appear, I can see it in the over emphasised dust on the original image, also if you bring that image to photoshop or similar and play with the curves (contrast and blackpoint) you get something very similar to your second example.... the point is: the second sample you posted will have exactly the same problems as the first, you are just hiding them with the contrast applied to the digital file..

So the problem here is you are either underexposing pretty bad the negative (shooting 2 or 3 stops under what one can call a 'good' exposure) or your temperature or dev time is lower than what it should be..

Try to find a properly exposed negative and compare it to yours, do you see a difference in regards of density?

Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....

Underdevelopment can surely be something. I don't think it's the camera that underexposes everything. I have checked the meter readings with a handheld and also tried another camera with the same results. The time is right as well if not my iphone got a really bad stop watch app. But my thermometer can be a bit off, it's not the most expensive proffesional one. I will have that checked against a couple of others.

karrlander · Jul 19, 2013

cs_foto said:
Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....

I did and I found this site with good examples of many errors. This is photos with a microscope but the errors are the same. Thanks for the tip!

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/photomicrography/colornegprocerrors.html

karrlander · Jul 23, 2013

Another roll and a new scanner, bought an Epson V500. Tried another thermometer witch showed a lower temperature compared to the other one so it all got a little bit hotter. Also checked that the film was just covered with fluid to leave enough air in top of the tank and went back to 1 inversion every 30 sec as said in the instruction for dev in 25 degrees celcius. The background was grey seamless and the light to softboxes. Still got the same thing going on on the sides of the pic. Scanned a raw scan with vuescan and then runned it trough the colorperfect plugin. I did shoot exactly the same shot on the roll I sent away to the lab. It will be interesting to compare when I get it back.

karrlander · Jul 30, 2013

Today I got a roll back from a pro lab. Here is there dev and scan of a testchart. Better then what I have achieved but the gray background is still not the same all over the frame. I took a shot from the same position with the same settings with a Nikon D800 and the background was perfectly gray all over. So, is it the film or is it the camera? Strange if it is the camera because then I have the same error on to cameras. The other pics looks good to me, it's just visible on the more controlled testshots on gray seamless that I did.

clayne · Jul 31, 2013

What I find interesting here is that the edge blooming we're seeing is always on the rebate edge and never between frames (and this is taking into account 645). While it seems like the film is the only common element here, it would be extremely unlikely the film itself is bad or otherwise has this kind of issue. Kodak doesn't let stuff out like that.

karrlander · Jul 31, 2013

I know, it's strange. But I don't have a clue otherwise. I have changed everything except the film. I have ordered a pack of Fuji Pro 400, it should be interesting to see what will happend there. Anyway, most of the color pics a have planned for this years trip to Estonia will have to wait until I get this sorted out. But theres a lot of b/w to shoot there as well so I'm not to dissapointed. And what would the charm of shooting film be if everything was easy as working with a DSLR?

StoneNYC · Jul 31, 2013

karrlander said:
I know, it's strange. But I don't have a clue otherwise. I have changed everything except the film. I have ordered a pack of Fuji Pro 400, it should be interesting to see what will happend there. Anyway, most of the color pics a have planned for this years trip to Estonia will have to wait until I get this sorted out. But theres a lot of b/w to shoot there as well so I'm not to dissapointed. And what would the charm of shooting film be if everything was easy as working with a DSLR?

The film might have a higher range of greys available and so the digital might not have seen all the grey tone shifts?

Was the light controlled with a strobe or from window light? Sun/clouds could be a factor.

Same exact time? Looks like the paper is folded and not flat.

Same exact lens? I think you need to use the same equipment, Lens contrast could be different. Do this with a Nikon film body that takes the same lens as the digital.

Digital camera could also be taking advantage of its "vignetting correction" (peripheral illumination correction) feature and that could have an effect on the greys.

Nikon owners I know complain that they don't produce the same tones that are present in a scene. Get a Canon haha (this is a teasing joke, lets not start a Canon-Nikon war lol).

Hope some of those suggestions were helpful.

Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

karrlander · Aug 1, 2013

StoneNYC said:
The film might have a higher range of greys available and so the digital might not have seen all the grey tone shifts?
Was the light controlled with a strobe or from window light? Sun/clouds could be a factor.
Same exact time? Looks like the paper is folded and not flat.
Same exact lens? I think you need to use the same equipment, Lens contrast could be different. Do this with a Nikon film body that takes the same lens as the digital.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, a lot more to put into the equationi. At least the light was under control, two studiostrobes and no windows. But not the same lens. Maybe there is some difference betwen my 80 and my 150mm lens but I'm not sure so it could be a factor. Will try another film and new chemistry as well. But the normal outdoor shots looked good (as far as I can say) on the lab developed roll so I'm getting closer.

StoneNYC · Aug 1, 2013

karrlander said:
Ok, a lot more to put into the equationi. At least the light was under control, two studiostrobes and no windows. But not the same lens. Maybe there is some difference betwen my 80 and my 150mm lens but I'm not sure so it could be a factor. Will try another film and new chemistry as well. But the normal outdoor shots looked good (as far as I can say) on the lab developed roll so I'm getting closer.

This was mentioned on another thread and I just thought of it, I don't know your camera but it was mentioned they with cameras that have leaf shutters, if you exceed the shutter speed, rather than see part of the frame completely black, you get a sort of underexposed center brighter image because the leaf shutter in the lens hasn't finished opening yet. Could this be what happened? Was the shutter speed too fast for the x-sync?

Just another thing to consider.

Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

light leak or dev error?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency