"silhouette" on ilford panf+

shaggy · Jan 18, 2006

I'm new to APUG. I would like to say that this is the most knowledgeable site I've seen! Heres the run down...

Illford PanF+
developed in rodinal 1:25 for 6min
shot with external flash - direct flash and bounce on subjects

The problem I have is on the neg/print there is a black silhouette on 98% of my subjects. It's dosen't appear to have the characteristics of shadows. Most of my shots of the couples where standing about 20 feet from any walls. The room was low light, all of which was incandecsent. Could this be a problem with the anti-halation backing not being removed sufficiently. The film was also exposed twice to airport x-ray. They wouldn't hand check it because it was slower the 800iso. Or is this simply a case of user error.

thanks

Bob F. · Jan 19, 2006

Can't see how the anti-halation layer would come into it, but do you have a scan of a couple of frames - it's a bit difficult to visualise the problem without one...

Cheers, Bob.

pentaxuser · Jan 19, 2006

shaggy said:
I'm new to APUG. I would like to say that this is the most knowledgeable site I've seen! Heres the run down...

Illford PanF+
developed in rodinal 1:25 for 6min
shot with external flash - direct flash and bounce on subjects

The problem I have is on the neg/print there is a black silhouette on 98% of my subjects. It's dosen't appear to have the characteristics of shadows. Most of my shots of the couples where standing about 20 feet from any walls. The room was low light, all of which was incandecsent. Could this be a problem with the anti-halation backing not being removed sufficiently. The film was also exposed twice to airport x-ray. They wouldn't hand check it because it was slower the 800iso. Or is this simply a case of user error.

thanks

As BobF says it is difficult to visualise the fault but let me tell you of a problem I had which sounds similar. I used to take indoor flash shots with the camera's built-in flash and a 28-80 zoom for which I had bought a simple Jessops wide angle round rubber hood. The problem was that the pop-up flash wasn't quite high enough to clear the rubber hood which was casting a diffuse shadow on the neg, although this wasn't obvious looking at the arrangement.

OK This may be a mile out as an explanation as you mention bounce flash and anyway you may have a proper hood or no hood. Just a shot in the dark. Pardon the pun

Pentaxuser

Zathras · Jan 19, 2006

shaggy said:
I'm new to APUG. I would like to say that this is the most knowledgeable site I've seen! Heres the run down...

Illford PanF+
developed in rodinal 1:25 for 6min
shot with external flash - direct flash and bounce on subjects

The problem I have is on the neg/print there is a black silhouette on 98% of my subjects. It's dosen't appear to have the characteristics of shadows. Most of my shots of the couples where standing about 20 feet from any walls. The room was low light, all of which was incandecsent. Could this be a problem with the anti-halation backing not being removed sufficiently. The film was also exposed twice to airport x-ray. They wouldn't hand check it because it was slower the 800iso. Or is this simply a case of user error.

thanks

Are you shooting 35mm or 120? I have had problems with 120 Ilford films that turned out to be the printing from the backing paper transferring to the film. Could this be your problem?

shaggy · Jan 20, 2006

I'll be a little more specific.
I was shooting 35mm with a canon 540 ez flash.

I'll try to describe the problem a little better. I was shooting posed shots at a wedding for some friends. The silhoutte is around the people that I am shooting. The people in all the shots have black outlines around them, like a shadow, but it doesn't cast across the floor. I'll try to get the negs\prints posted. I hope that my have cleared it up a bit. thanks for the replies

I was under the impression that the anti-halation layer was to prevent the image from passing through the negative and reflecting back on to it? If that layer is not fully removed in the developing process it may leave black areas in your developed negative. Is that possible?

thanks again

shaggy

Dracotype · Jan 20, 2006

shaggy said:
I was under the impression that the anti-halation layer was to prevent the image from passing through the negative and reflecting back on to it? If that layer is not fully removed in the developing process it may leave black areas in your developed negative. Is that possible?

When you develop, usually the anti-halation layer comes right off. In fact, PanF+ is one of the few films that has a clear base, so you can see whether or not the layer has come off.

If I am understanding you right, the silhouette is black on the negative. So it will give a white halo around the person. Intriguing. Some scans would be good.

Drew

nick mulder · Jan 20, 2006

shaggy said:
The problem I have is on the neg/print there is a black silhouette on 98% of my subjects. It's dosen't appear to have the characteristics of shadows.

On the neg or the print ?

if on the print, are you sure it isnt simply the shadow cast by the flash that is caught on film because the line of the camera view isnt perfectly in line with the line of light projected by the strobe ?

These shadows usually dont 'have the characteristics of shadows' ...

If it were the halation layer you would see it around subjects with high contrast, independant of the position with respect to depth of the subject in the original scene ...

Neal · Jan 20, 2006

Dear Shaggy,

The odds that there was a problem with the film are incredibly low.

Neal Wydra

Bob F. · Jan 20, 2006

The anti-halation layer does its job at the time you take the picture - not washing it off properly when processing (difficult to do as it seems to come out very easily during development with Ilford films) would simply give you a messy looking negative with streaks and blobs all over the place. Even if there had been no anti-halation layer at all on the film to start with, the effect would be like you see on Kodak Infrared film - a general softness, especially at high contrast edges.

Now you mention you were using flash, my initial guess is the same as Nick's - you are seeing the shadow of the person projected on the background by the flash. How far away from the people were you? For example, if you were 10 feet away, and the wall is a further 20 feet away, you are still going to get a lot of light reaching the wall - something like 3 stops less than the people I'd guesstimate - still enough to show a silhouette, especially if the wall is a light colour.

Good luck, Bob.

BarryWilkinson · Jan 20, 2006

I have seen this phenomenon on HP5+

I took a grabshot of a friend outside at night using flash on 120 film. There is a tree branch above him which has a shadow on the dark sky. On the same roll I had an image of a tree in daylight which exhibited a similar shadow. They look quite strange. I don't have any idea what caused it.

Barry

nick mulder · Jan 20, 2006

please post these images - at least i'm intruiged, if not others (;

BarryWilkinson · Jan 21, 2006

nick mulder said:
please post these images - at least i'm intruiged, if not others (;

I'll try and find the negs over the weekend.

Barry

shaggy · Jan 21, 2006

After reading the thread that nick wrote, I went over my prints again. I noticed on some prints you can actually see the flash across the floor. The flash seems to align with the silhouette. Though the silhouette doesn't seem to cast across the floor, I'm pretty sure it is indeed a shadow. It just looks very odd to me. I don't shoot a lot of indoor or flash photography, mainly landscapes. Hopefully this is something I can avoid in the future.

thanks for your time and your advice.

shaggy.

"silhouette" on ilford panf+

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency