What is this shadow around some edges?

[removedacct2]

I am testing Svema Foto-100 in 120 6x9 with different developers.

this is two baths: replenished D23 (inversion every 30s after initial 1mn constant) then 10 mn in borax 12% solution constant agitation.
Some tower edges are shadowed, otherwise everything's fine:

this was overdeveloped anyway, so with next roll I did shorter time in replenished D23, and in one of the frames got shadow of some foliage:

???

 

[ic-racer]

Deleted

 

[removedacct2]

Flare from the enlarger lens causes black glow like that. Is your enlarging lens clean, or did you focus with a "RED" safe filter over the lens and the paper on the easel? If the safe filter was not "safe" it could fog the paper like that during focusing.

well I didn´t print to paper, this is a scan (Epson V700). I typically scan, apply ColorPerfect virtual paper grades to get a digital positive (what I posted here), then decide what images to print. I post here because the way I do is not exactly "hybrid", sometimes I just keep the digital positive for web, sometimes I enlarge.
On the 2nd picture the texture of the shadow around the foliage made me think of some optical artifact similar to Newton rings, because the scans are done with the negative sandwiched between two thick sheets of optical glass over the scanners bed, with a bit of spacing for optimal scanning lens focus. This sometimes causes Newton rings.

Your explanation about enlarger lens is useful, it could be then indeed some artifact, different than Newton rings, caused by the scanning. I will scan again with a holder no glass sheets, and also do a large print see what I get. Thanks!

 

[AnselMortensen]

Have you looked at the actual film negatives with a loupe?
If it is not on the negatives, then it is certainly a scanning artifact.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Would you photograph the negative and post the photograph here please?

 

[removedacct2]

yes I did inspect the negative but only with a 4x loupe and noticed nothing. I will scan again, as well as do an enlarging later this evening so could inspect with the scoponet....

on the ligthboard negative tells nothing, quite contrasty:

I'd like this to be a scanning artifact but in hundreds of scan first time it happens.


And this: same roll (ie. same tank) a strip with two 6x9, so laying together on the scanning bed:

the left one, scan + ColorPerfect digital "printing", a "clean" positive:

but the next frame by the side of this one, same processing, notice the slight "stain" or shadow by the left corner of the roof... also some around tree's foliage and the top of forest edge in right-side background. I'd suspect something with the developer in that case...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Your scanner needs to be cleaned.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Did you scan these mounted in a film holder or just plain on the scanner's glass plate?

 

[koraks]

the scans are done with the negative sandwiched between two thick sheets of optical glass over the scanners bed, with a bit of spacing for optimal scanning lens focus

You're looking at all manner of reflections and indeed also newton rings in some places (although they might actually be finger prints on the glass) due to this setup.
I'd give the Epson stock film holder a try. Alternatively just tape the film to the glass platen. The latter isn't optimal for sharpness, but for web versions of negatives it's usually more than good enough.

I tried the glass-sandwich trick a couple of times as well in the past, but abandoned it quickly. One reason btw was that handling the glass on top of the scanner platen carried the risk of scratching the scanner's glass if I dropped something etc. I found it too risky, and like you, I ran into all kinds of optical problems - plus a handful of additional surfaces that needed to be kept clean of dust, finger grease marks etc.

 

[ic-racer]

Somehow this thread shows under 100% Analog, maybe the mods can move it.

 

[removedacct2]

Somehow this thread shows under 100% Analog, maybe the mods can move it.

well, here I correct it to 100% analog.

I put the negative under the enlarger.
So to be clear about all parameters, I hope:

the lens a pristine Fujinon-EP 5.6/105mm:

I enlarge to size ~A4, and check fokus with a scoponet (ie. 20x magnification):

I set the fokus, for instance here on a part of the planks body of the tower:

I move then the scoponet to the edge of the tower and this is what we see.
It's in the negative.

 

[koraks]

Oops. Time to have a look at that camera.

Well done narrowing down the problem!

 

[Neal]

Could it have something to do with the "light piping" warning? (Wild guess.)

 

[koraks]

Could it have something to do with the "light piping" warning? (Wild guess.)

You might very well be right.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

120 6x9... which camera?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

That looks like camera movement to me.... If not, then check for pinholes in the lens board area that may be casting a secondary image.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

Camera movement is the most likely, because the shadows correspond to less dense areas on the negative. Any problems with light leak or bromide drag or any of the other usual suspects show up as areas of increased density on the negative.
If you look at a photo where the foreground subject is lighter than the background, you may be able to see a corresponding light area instead on the positive, and a more dense area on the negative. Evaluation may be complicated by any funky spectral response of this particular film.
FWIW, those appear to be seriously overdeveloped negatives!