Or that is designed in a way that requires you to always have at least two reels in it.Your results suggest that it's not a good machine.
Yeah, if I look very, very hard, I *think* I see something about 2/3 down that film strip on the inside of the sprocket holes that might be 'surge' marks. However, they might as well me uneven drying of the film as it's still partially wet. Important to note is if these marks are also still present when the film is completely dry. 35mm tends to dry unevenly.Yes, if we could see these marks. I can't.
I don't see much of it in your example. I had some of it myself. Anyway, the most lkely causes are agitation turbulences around the holes during processing and light-piping through film edges during film handling. In any case, they have no negative effect on image quality and I have, therefore always ignored them.I use a rotational film processing machine to develop my film (filmomat - videos on youtibe)
Sometimes - especially when I only process one roll of film at a time - I'll rin intto an issue where soe parts of the roll have these shadows coming from the sprocket holes. The film I didn't shoot myself so idk if there are any other thigns that could have happend to the film. But does anyone have advice on al lthe possible reasons this owuld happen? Photo below
I think it's basically a very well done machine. But it has some design flaws.... the biggest one for me, 2-bath C41. My ATL can go up to six different chemicals and separate washes.Your results suggest that it's not a good machine.
+1! As Adrian Bacon once mentioned, always use the max. reels in your tanks for consistency.Or that is designed in a way that requires you to always have at least two reels in it.
Well, I do not see any shadows. AlI see is a glow at the upper edges of the hole, a matter of light piping.I am amazed by how many people said they don't see anything. Aren't you all photographers and supposed to have decent (even calibrated!) monitors and a good eye to judge "tonality"? The perforation shadow marks are screaming at me from the posted photo, and I am on a relatively pedestrian Macbook Pro.
I haven't bothered with spending the money for the equipment to calibrate my monitors because I so rarely have anything printed digitally.I am amazed by how many people said they don't see anything. Aren't you all photographers and supposed to have decent (even calibrated!) monitors and a good eye to judge "tonality"? The perforation shadow marks are screaming at me from the posted photo, and I am on a relatively pedestrian Macbook Pro.
Urs, I am actually fascinated by Filmomat. This page says "Up to 19 custom programs with up to 10 steps can be programmed" but you're saying "2-batch" C41? I've looked for a downloadable PDF manual, but could not find one.
There's a streak originating from every whole on both edges going outside in, 100% exactly like on this image from this thread.
One can clearly see the tiny black lines but, I was searching for the announced shadows of which I saw none.Well, I do not see any shadows. AlI see is a glow at the upper edges of the hole, a matter of light piping.
Could you upload a copy of the OP's image with marks you made which then would be screaming at us instead?
Well, I "analyzed" countless artefact photos uploaded to Apug, but this is a weird case where we see very different things or rather see them not.One can clearly see the tiny black lines but, I was searching for the announced shadows of which I saw none.
I do not quite understand in which orientation your shadows are are running, but do you see a relation between the orientation of the rotation and the oprientation of the shadows in your case?
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?