Ooops, a bad roll of FP4+ ? V-shaped streaks...

part 2

A
part 2

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Sonatas XII-32 (Homes)

A
Sonatas XII-32 (Homes)

  • 0
  • 1
  • 30
Thirsty

D
Thirsty

  • 4
  • 0
  • 994
Cowboying up in Kiowa.

Cowboying up in Kiowa.

  • 3
  • 0
  • 1K
Cowboying up in Kiowa.

Cowboying up in Kiowa.

  • 8
  • 3
  • 1K

Forum statistics

Threads
199,390
Messages
2,790,837
Members
99,890
Latest member
moenich
Recent bookmarks
0

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
Hello friends,

today I got a strange defect on my roll of FP4+, exposed in Linhof Super Rollex 56*72 back. I developed it in Ilfotec 1+47, on a regular routine. Well, it looks like some thin but long (4-5 mm) dark V-shaped thingies, occuring on the same height for 2/3 of film length here and there, with some king of regularity. They're all different, and the height is not always the same. They're looking to the frame 1 with their nose, but there are some that are not full Vs, just slashes. There's no visual damage on emulsion, or sharp edges - they're quite diffuse but visible well, made from silver grains. They're visible only on exposed frames, not anywhere on the blank space. The first thing I thought was that these are some results of friction/pressure fog because of the back (Linhof spring really pushes against the roll like mad), but in that case the defects should have been much sharper, more regular, visible everywhere including places unexposed to light, and they shouldn't have a shape of V. And yes, the defects are not located where the back pushes against the film, and all the rolls inside are well-cleaned. Can it be just a defective roll? I've never seen any bad film from Ilford, but apparently that shouldn't be the back... maybe someone was getting something alike with FP4+ in 120?

Cheers, Zhenya

PS. I didn't have any option to scan the negative - tomorrow I would just shoot a roll of Fortepan 100 and see if the defects are there again.
 

Bob F.

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
3,977
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
Try re-fixing in fresh fixer - always worth a try with unexpected greyness or foggy looking artifacts.

If it was a problem in the emulsion, I can't think why they would not be on the unexposed areas too. So, if the film is fully fixed it sounds like it may be something with the camera.

Difficult to say without a scan (and probably still difficult even then!).

Good luck, Bob.
 

ricksplace

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,561
Location
Thunder Bay,
Format
Multi Format
If it is only on the exposed part, it sounds like the camera is doing it. Light leaks come to mind. I had a folder whose shutter was causing weird light leaks due to the improper closing of the leafs. What made it frustrating was that it was intermittent. One of the shutter leafs was worn and once it was replaced, the problem stopped. The worn part was not visible until the shutter was disassembled. The wear was in the camming slot in the leaf which prevented the leaf from opening and closing as it should.
Just my .02

Rick.
 

glbeas

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,945
Location
Marietta, Ga. USA
Format
Multi Format
Sounds a lot to me like static discharge from some part of the camera while winding. Occurs most frequently in cold dry environs, winding fast will do it the worst. Does this sound like your situation?
 
OP
OP

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
Well, guys, it's difficult to admit, but the real cause of the defect was a bad roll of fp4+ - yesterday I shot a roll of Fuji 64T and Fortepan 100, and the defects are gone, just gone. All the version you've proposed could be valid, but that's just the film. Well, I still got three rolls frome the same lot - let's see how are these :smile:

Thanks, Zhenya
 

photomc

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Messages
3,575
Location
Texas
Format
Multi Format
After sleeping on this, is it possible that this is from the backing paper...meaning that it is the arrow '>' used to indicate the film direction? Might look at the backing paper and see if it lines up. That might explain, IIRC this has happened once in a while. Think that Kerik might have posted something in one of the galleries last year with the number 9 transfered. Just a thought.
 
OP
OP

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
Oh, and backing paper is not an issue - Linhof back is a wonderful piece of machinery and precision design, and there's no chance for light to penetrate it. Well, even the backing doesn't have such marks in affected areas :smile: Just a bad roll.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom