|
Author
|
|
Dave
Administrator
Registered: August 2008
Location: Middle England; the best bit.
Posts: 3,192
|
|
Sat, 6, February, 2010 9:30pm
|
|
|
As it's 6x4.5 film am I right in thinking that they run the length of the film, rather than across?
------------------------------
Dave
PPC
|
|
|
|
Rob Archer
Friend
Registered: September 2008
Location: Kings Lynn, Norfolk - flatlands and big skies.
Posts: 494
|
|
Sat, 6, February, 2010 9:36pm
|
|
|
Yes, Dave. They run along the film. If they were across I would suspect 'bromide drag'. Definately not the problem here as I didn't use stand development, either.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Dave
Administrator
Registered: August 2008
Location: Middle England; the best bit.
Posts: 3,192
|
|
Sun, 7, February, 2010 8:17am
|
|
|
As you say that would seem to rule out any form of developer flow markings. Are you able to tie it down to any one film back?
It seems that it is more lightly to be a light leak problem, but I would have expected to see the mark more pronounced where the film was stationary if that were the case.
------------------------------
Dave
PPC
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gould
Friend
Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 907
|
|
Sun, 7, February, 2010 2:24pm
|
|
|
If it was a light leak it would surely be more pronounced so I can't see it being that,so I would guess it is some form of chemical problem,but what I could'nt say,Richard
|
|
|
|
|
B&W Neil
PR Executive
Registered: October 2008
Location: West Cornwall - Is there anywhere else :-)
Posts: 1,657
|
|
Sun, 7, February, 2010 5:49pm
|
|
|
Does this only happen with this Bronica / back combination ? If so it points to the camera / back. The only other thing I can think of is the backing paper on the film roll may have been loose and under a bright room light some light ingress could happen. But normally this would only affect the negs at the start of the roll.
Neil.
------------------------------
Neil Souch - mono-inthedark.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Bill
Keeper of the Calendar
Registered: September 2008
Location: Barrow - in - Furness
Posts: 539
|
|
Mon, 8, February, 2010 8:20am
|
|
|
Is it possible that rotational agitation could have caused this or do you invert?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gould
Friend
Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 907
|
|
Tue, 16, February, 2010 7:37pm
|
|
|
I had the same thing on a print this morning, nothing on the negative, checked it on the light box and clean, negative was from a rolleiflex negative. I re-printed it using the same paper,dev etc.only the second time I put the paper in the devolper emulsion side up, and the lines were not there, nice print, so I can only conclude that something went wrong with putting the print in the tray emulsion side down to start then turning it over, it was on fb paper,Fomatone,and had not happened before,Richard
|
|
|
|
|
DavidH
Friend
Registered: May 2010
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 5
|
|
Fri, 14, May, 2010 10:05am
|
|
|
I just wondered if you have tried printing this negative on paper from a different box. Some years back, I had a box of paper that gave a problem rather like this. The fault would only be noticeable in areas of mid tone and not in parts of the picture with more detail and contrast. I confirmed the problem by trying the same negatives on a different batch of paper. When I took it back to the dealer, I found that the film and paper were displayed on shelves directly above a radiator!
I have always found it best to put paper in the developer emulsion side up to avoid trapping air, and of course agitation is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Film and Darkroom User
Photo Details
