Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?This is a wild guess, but it may be emulsion damage incurred during confectioning / spooling the film into the cassettes. Since it's significantly beyond the part of the film that's typically used, Kodak may simply not care.
Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?
I've heard of people rewinding film after 36exp. And even cameras that do that automatically. They obviously have reasons. None that make sense to me, but hey...
I take great pleasure squeezing 39 frames (and sometimes 40) out of a 36exp roll, but have never observed this on my films.
Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?
37 frames or more is pretty feasible on normal 36exp rolls depending on how frugally you load the film.But if @Joerg Bergs is routinely getting "37–39" frames on different cameras, then that makes me think maybe he is winding his film from bulk
But if @Joerg Bergs is routinely getting "37–39" frames on different cameras, then that makes me think maybe he is winding his film from bulk, and loading a little long? If so, then his marks may be related to the way he loads the cassettes?
I don't know of any way to force extra frames at the end of the roll.
Would make some sense too if pressure-sensitive dyes are used
Note that silver halides in a gelatin emulsion are already sensitive to (intense) pressure; no dyes need to be involved. You can create density easily by marring the emulsion with e.g. your fingernail (followed by chemical development). And indeed no specifically pressure-sensitive dyes are involved a regular photographic film, including Aviphot.
Thanks for posting the negative. At the size shown, it is difficult to see the defect in sufficient detail. If you look at the defect closely with a 5x-10x loupe, can you see physical damage? By that, I mean is there a crater or scratch in the emulsion (emulsion missing) -- or is the emulsion smooth and undamaged?
As mentioned in my first post, close inspection with a loupe confirms physical damage: the emulsion is missing. On many many Kodak Films after the no. 36. Color and BW.
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?