Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Notices


  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

  Home · Search · Register  
Please note: The posting of negative scans is prohibited in FADU, except within the Help or Discussion Galleries when requesting help with negative faults or the like.   Click for details.

Home » FADU Galleries » Help Gallery Photo Options
more
waterfall.jpg
Charles_Bridge_West_Gate.jpg
HP5_-_1013_copy.jpg
tree_study.jpg
printing_1.jpg
more

Previous image   Slide Show   Next image

Ilford HP5+ on Ricoh 35 ZF
Click on image to view larger image

Previous image   Slide Show   Next image


Photo Details
SerenaWong


Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
users gallery
Took this photo on the train journey to Wales. Self developed. Something when wrong during the processing? There is a different shade on the end photo. Any idea why? Scanned from negative as enlarger isn't working.
Date: Tue, 27, April, 2010 Views: 5307
Filesize: 193.2kb, 111.8kb Dimensions: 1003 x 621
Additional Info
Keywords: Ilford HP5+ on Ricoh 35 ZF
Film make, size & rating:: Ilford HP5 Plus, 35mm
Lens focal length, aperture & speed:: 40mm
Tripod used Y/N:: N

Author
Thread  
Neil Smith
Friend

Registered: May 2009
Location: Carmarthenshire Wales
Posts: 1,448
Tue, 27, April, 2010 3:37pm

Is there a line on the roll of film that everything from that line to the right ( from the girl to the right of the line and all exposures afterwards) is one density, and everything to the left of the line and previous exposures are another density, as on the left of this image?


Neil
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
SerenaWong
Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
Tue, 27, April, 2010 6:44pm

It happened on most of the photos in the roll. There are some that are not affected.

------------------------------
FilmOgraphy Instantgraphy
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit SerenaWong's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Richard Gould
Friend

Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 4,908
Thu, 29, April, 2010 10:04am

It looks like a processing fault, Is it possible that you did'nt have enough developer in the tank, and part of the film got more developer,Richard

------------------------------
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com
This user is online
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
SerenaWong
Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
Thu, 29, April, 2010 7:41pm

Hmmm, I doubt so. I did check the volume before developing. Is there a possibility that I did not reel the film in properly?

------------------------------
FilmOgraphy Instantgraphy
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit SerenaWong's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Mike O'Pray
Friend

Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,445
Fri, 30, April, 2010 8:25pm

If thee are some negatives not affected then I agree with you Serena that it is unlikely to be lack of developer. However I cannot think of what you could do wrong in terms of loading the reel either which would cause this.


What tank did you use? If it was a tank that can hold two reels and you used only one with enough developer to cover the one reel then if that reel was able to slide up and down the spindle so that part of the reel was out of the developer for part of the time then this might explain why part of the film got less development. However for this to be the case all the negatives should show the effect and you say that some don't.


Could it be that all negs do show this effect but to a lesser extent. If that were the case then lack of developer for some of the time sounds like the most likely cause but I am puzzled.


Mike
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
SerenaWong
Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
Fri, 30, April, 2010 8:46pm

I did two rolls together and this happens to be on the lower reel. My camera?

------------------------------
FilmOgraphy Instantgraphy
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit SerenaWong's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Mike O'Pray
Friend

Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,445
Fri, 30, April, 2010 8:59pm

Well your reply rules out my attempt at an explanation. If only the lower reel was affected and the top reel was fine then it cannot be lack of developer. However if both rolls of film were taken in the same camera this rules out the camera, I think


So we have ruled out lack of developer but are no nearer the correct explanation.


Fault diagnosis is frustrating and I sympathise. The worry is that unless we get to the bottom of it then you cannot be sure that it will not happen again.


Mike
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
SerenaWong
Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
Sat, 1, May, 2010 1:38am

Different camera. This roll was shot on a Ricoh rangefinder and the top roll was shot on a TLR. So I guess it's the camera? I am running another roll on that rangefinder. Hopefully I'll find out what happened.

------------------------------
FilmOgraphy Instantgraphy
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit SerenaWong's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Richard Gould
Friend

Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 4,908
Sat, 1, May, 2010 6:47pm

Serena, assuming the TLR was 120 and the ricoh was 35mm what tank did you use?,The only tank you can do this in is something like a Patterson multitank,and with those you need to put more solution in than they say,as it is possible for the reels to slide up the center colum and this effect can happen, I have seen it before in a multitank when deving a 35 and 120 together,I can't see how the camera could cause this if it is a leaf shutter, but it could happen processing 120 and 35mm together,Richard

------------------------------
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com
This user is online
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
SerenaWong
Friend

Registered: April 2010
Posts: 10
Sat, 1, May, 2010 7:47pm

My apologies. I should have clarify. My TLR is one that uses 35mm film (Blackbird Fly). So I was developing two rolls of 35mm film (both were Ilford HP5 Plus, and I bought them together so assuming they are from the same batch).


Are there any other variables that I have not considered?

------------------------------
FilmOgraphy Instantgraphy
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit SerenaWong's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Richard Gould
Friend

Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 4,908
Sat, 1, May, 2010 8:36pm

Serena, Does the ricoh,have a leaf shutter or focal plane shutter?, if it is a focal plane it is just possible that if it is a vertical running shutter then one of the blinds is running slightly slower than the other at times and part of the film is getting slightly more exposure than the other,Richard

------------------------------
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com
This user is online
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
DavidH
Friend

Registered: May 2010
Location: Dengie Peninsula
Posts: 432
Thu, 13, May, 2010 1:56pm

Hello Serena,
When you have a problem of this kind, it is often very helpful to know if there has been any effect on the unexposed areas around the negative. If, for example, there is a light leak in the camera you will see fogging in areas that do not normally receive any light.
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Mike O'Pray
Friend

Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,445
Thu, 13, May, 2010 8:42pm

Serena Let us know if and when you know the answer. If you don't have the means to bulk load film and thereby use only a short length to make any checks on whether the problem is cured then you might want to shoot only a few frames then develop those frames. If the problem is cured then you can shoot the rest of the film with confidence and if it has not then you haven't wasted a whole film.


Mike
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  


Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2007 All Enthusiast, Inc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.