What Happened? Processing Error? My Error?

cconnaker · Oct 5, 2016

Hi Guys - I just got some 120 film developed and scanned by Dwayne's photo, and one of the scans looks like something went wrong. I haven't received the negatives yet, but my guess is the negative has this same issue. On the top of this photo something is clearly not right. Does anyone know what could have gone wrong?

P.S. I've intentionally blurred my daughter's face.

DWThomas · Oct 5, 2016

The wavy line looks like the end of a piece of sticky tape -- maybe some sort of label or "traveler" with the film (or a previous) got in the way of the scanner. Guess you'll know more when you see the negatives.

Kirks518 · Oct 5, 2016

Was this the first photo you took on the roll? Looks to me like it's a simple case of partial frame exposure at the beginning of the roll, but that doesn't explain the tape. Maybe it was the last frame?

cconnaker · Oct 5, 2016

Kirks518 said:
Was this the first photo you took on the roll? Looks to me like it's a simple case of partial frame exposure at the beginning of the roll, but that doesn't explain the tape. Maybe it was the last frame?

Thanks for the reply. This was the last frame on the roll.

Kirks518 · Oct 5, 2016

That explains the tape then. When this happens to me, there is usually a headless body in the picture.

cconnaker · Oct 5, 2016

Kirks518 said:
That explains the tape then. When this happens to me, there is usually a headless body in the picture.

I hate to sound dumb, but does this mean I opened the camera without winding the film at the end or something?

Kirks518 · Oct 5, 2016

No. It means the last frame wasn't really a frame. It was just the last little bit of film that was 'available' to shoot. Happens I would say most frequently when you don't realize you've shot the last full frame, and go for one more. I bet after you shot this frame, you couldn't advance the film anymore, and just had to rewind it.

Kirks518 · Oct 5, 2016

And I just realized this was 120, so there was no rewinding involved.

This may be an indication of poor frame spacing on the camera's part, or, when you loaded the film you advanced too far past the start mark on the camera.

pdeeh · Oct 5, 2016

diagnosing problems by looking at someone else's scan and without having the negatives in hand has the potential to be very misleading indeed.
wait til you see the negs before drawing any firm conclusions.
would be my advice.

DWThomas · Oct 5, 2016

Hmm -- you don't say what camera -- is this one where you index frame numbers through a red window in the back, or does it have a more sophisticated indexing system? With setting each frame number in a red window, "this should not be able to happen." If you wind to align the start arrow line to some mark, and magic happens from there out, it may be a load or start problem as Kirk518 suggests, or the spacing being erratic.

Interestingly, my Perkeo II can take 13 frames on a 120 roll. I normally avoid that, as at 13 one film's worth of frames doesn't fit in the standard negative file pages. While the 13 fits within the film, the last frame gets pretty close to the end.

I think some processors may tape the film to other films or a leader to create a longer strip for machine processing; perhaps that provoked something.

cconnaker · Oct 5, 2016

DWThomas said:
Hmm -- you don't say what camera -- is this one where you index frame numbers through a red window in the back, or does it have a more sophisticated indexing system? With setting each frame number in a red window, "this should not be able to happen." If you wind to align the start arrow line to some mark, and magic happens from there out, it may be a load or start problem as Kirk518 suggests, or the spacing being erratic.

Interestingly, my Perkeo II can take 13 frames on a 120 roll. I normally avoid that, as at 13 one film's worth of frames doesn't fit in the standard negative file pages. While the 13 fits within the film, the last frame gets pretty close to the end.

I think some processors may tape the film to other films or a leader to create a longer strip for machine processing; perhaps that provoked something.

I'm using a Hasselblad 503CW with A12 back.

Patrick Robert James · Oct 5, 2016

This is what happens if the lab uses cartridges to load the film into before I goes into the machine. The end of the film is exposed outside the cartridge. You can clearly see the tape squiggle that attached it to the card that pulls it through the machine. Normal stuff. Nothing you did or anything to worry about really.

cconnaker · Oct 5, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
This is what happens if the lab uses cartridges to load the film into before I goes into the machine. The end of the film is exposed outside the cartridge. You can clearly see the tape squiggle that attached it to the card that pulls it through the machine. Normal stuff. Nothing you did or anything to worry about really.

So is it just the scan that's messed up, or did the lab ruin my last frame?

removed account4 · Oct 5, 2016

it is nealry impossible to suggest what is wrong without the acutal negative.

williaty · Oct 6, 2016

I have seen labs ruin a lot of rolls of 120 this way and, when I worked in a lab, I saw coworkers do it a number of times. When you load film into a minilab roll processing machine, you typically tape it to some sort of a leader card to pull it through the machine (or at least pull it into the machine). With 35mm, you just tape the film leader directly to the leader card and everything is fine because the user exposed more leader by loading the camera than you will when you tape it to the leader card and send it into the machine. However, with 120, you typically take it into the darkroom, unroll the 120, roll up just the film, place that into a small light-tight (at least if it's been taken care of!) transfer case, and pull out a *tiny* bit of the end of the film to tape to the leader card so you can send it into the machine. If you use scissors to remove the film from the backing paper you shorten the film a bit and have problems. If you accidentally bump the film transfer case away from the leader card while you're trying to get it into the machine you have problems. If your camera spaces the last frame quite close to the end of the roll, you have problems. If, at any stage, the technician doesn't take enough care, you have problems. It's not really an optimal problem.

Get your film back. Measure the length of the film. If it's less than 72cm long, they cut some of the film off and this is likely the lab's fault. If the film is full length but more than ~1.5" of film is fogged, it's the lab's fault. If the film is full length and less than 1.5" of film at the end is fogged, your camera probably pushed the last frame too far towards the end of the roll. If it's the camera's fault, you should probably run a roll through the camera, removing the film back at each frame and tracing the film gate opening onto the film with a marker before replacing the back and advancing to the next frame. When you get to the end of the roll, remove the film and unroll it, looking at how all your marker-drawn boxes line up on the film. They should be regularly spaced and biased towards the leading end of the film.

cowanw · Oct 6, 2016

Williaty is correct.
If it is the labs problem with loading the film into the cassette for developing they CAN do better if you discuss it with them. I had this exact issue.

MattKing · Oct 6, 2016

cconnaker said:
I'm using a Hasselblad 503CW with A12 back.

How many scans did you end up with? 12, with one "damaged", or ?

ransel · Oct 8, 2016

cconnaker said:
P.S. I've intentionally blurred my daughter's face.

Great! I stared at the picture for 2 minutes trying to figure out how they messed up the little girls face in the processing or scan. I am to stupid to live.
To me it looks just like I would expect if I took my first shot with my 120 roll film camera before I had advanced my camera to the correct starting point after loading the film. The tape that holds the film to the backing paper shielded part of the film from being exposed. I am sure I have done that before.

DWThomas · Oct 8, 2016

ransel said:
[ . . .]
To me it looks just like I would expect if I took my first shot with my 120 roll film camera before I had advanced my camera to the correct starting point after loading the film. The tape that holds the film to the backing paper shielded part of the film from being exposed. I am sure I have done that before.

But most films I know of have the entire width of the film taped to the backing paper; e.g, a narrow piece of tape runs across the end of the film. The OP appeared to be an inch wide or so as though someone was applying a tag or leader to the middle of the free end. Sure bet if the processor did that with all the light struck area, I'd be quite annoyed!

Harry Stevens · Oct 15, 2016

cconnaker said:
P.S. I've intentionally blurred my daughter's face

PHEW!! Got me there I thought of that film "the Ring" where after watching the VHS video any photo taken of the viewer/victim gives them a blurry mixed up face........SPOOKY.

Mungos · Oct 22, 2016

I also had a problem with the film scaning (35mm). All of the photos came out with redish appeal. Is something wrong with the camera,scaning...??

What Happened? Processing Error? My Error?

cconnaker

Attachments

DWThomas

Kirks518

cconnaker

Kirks518

cconnaker

Kirks518

Kirks518

pdeeh

DWThomas

cconnaker

Patrick Robert James

cconnaker

removed account4

williaty

cowanw

MattKing

Moderator

ransel

DWThomas

Harry Stevens

Mungos

Attachments

What Happened? Processing Error? My Error?

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency