Is this a lab issue ?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by adrian bastin, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. The vertical stripes corrispond to the sprocket holes. The film (Reala) is developed at a pro lab and I scan the negs on a flatbed. This shot is # 37 and several adjacent frames have similar markings. Incidentally, what are the reddish bands down one side or other of a frame? They show up more when scanning poor exposures I think. The picure below is large to show off the 1930 Leica...and the said stripes, to advantage. Thank you for your help. Adrian.
    00G1Pj-29383584.jpg
     
  2. Sorry, but the "vertical stripes" are not visible.
    Subhash
     
  3. I see the general changes in what would be the sprocket openings as opposed to the previous poster - not sure what to say on this one.

    Either there's a light leak in the body/fogging during loading for processing (I doubt)/a scanning issue is my best guess. Do you also get prints made? If so do they have this issue? Is your scanner set up for film scanning or a normal flatbed?

    Almost looks like there is light bouncing of the openings of the sprocket holes which is causing this - does your scanner's light source move in the same direction as these bands?
     
  4. They're subtle but quite visible on my monitor, in all of the the sky. Maybe a smaller version will show it up better.
    00G1Rb-29384084.jpg
     
  5. I'd be more concerned about the church. The tower looks like it's about to topple over.
     
  6. bands well seen here. consider analyzing the negs first w/ 10x loupe, before going to the scanned image. yes, could be lab issue, but critically check the neg first.
     
  7. Is that Burnham-on-sea?
     
  8. if you are seeing vertical lines on the left to middle and past the middle, as I am, I'd say there was a chemical issue at the lab. depending on the type of equipment they use it could be roller marks, too. i don't think it's a light leak.
     
  9. My guess is badly replentished chemistry on a roller-transport processor (mini-lab).
     
  10. Lee, The scanner moves horizontally and this only occurs on some frames near the end of the film. It's a flatbed with back lit film attachment. HP 1457, or something.
     
  11. I think the tower has been like that for about 600 years so not to worry.

    Trevor, it's not so far from Burnham; maybe 10 miles NE. Its Puxton, on the North Marsh. I cycle there very often so the church is used to test lenses one against another.
     
  12. No prints - I'm a cheapskate, but I'm sure the marks are also on the negs. Yes, I was thinking it was a chemical cause, or lack of agitation.
     
  13. There was a village in the field once. (oddly, I mentioned lost villages in a thread yesterday, I think)
     
  14. jtk

    jtk

    The stripes are very obvious on my monitor (Samsung Synchmaster LCD).

    It looks like roller transport processing (eg Kreonite machine). It's not the scanner.
     
  15. Thank you, all. I think the vote goes to chemical causes.

    Do all the films go through this machine or would special orders be treated differently.
     
  16. Why not run another roll as a test and take it to a different lab? Try an amateur mini-lab. You only need a few exposures with some sky. That should let you know if it is the lab or the camera. You can do that and get your answer within a few hours.
     
  17. In a professional lab, I mean.

    Thanks again.
     
  18. Todd, I have dozens of these scenes taken at different times with different cameras and lenses and these few are the only ones like it. The pinkish bar down the side I take as normal everywhere, though.
     
  19. Adrian:

    The pinkish bar you say is normal for all of your shots?

    I may be off base here but it seems like when you're scanning that maybe the light source is moving transversely to your negatives & may be casting a light band across the negs.

    What scanner are you using & are what are the neg holders like?
     
  20. Lee, I think you're right; that makes good sense. Perhaps the curve of the negative is throwing light back against the glass. I will try turning the negs the other way up and reversing them in the program - which I do sometimes, anyway. That stripe has bugged me for years !
    Tah!
     
  21. Adrian - just a question about the unstandardised Ic. How or why is it unstandardised?

    Rob
     
  22. The early interchangeable lens Leica's did not have a standardized film-to-flange distance. The lenses were matched to the distance on the particular camera they were made for, and engraved with the last three digits of the serial number.

    Standardized means that they were measured for the 28.80mm standard distance. For a while, all standardized cameras and lenses had a 0 engraved at the top of the lens mount.

    I do find it rather amazing that they ever made non-standardized cameras. What a bad idea. Really dampens the ability of customers to order additional lenses...
     
  23. John - thanks for that about the Standardized Leicas. Now I remember something about that - and yes - what a bad idea to start with. I have a 1929 Leica I - just the fitted lens. Still works well.

    Thanks again

    Rob
     
  24. Hi Rob. The first 2,295 cameras with intercangeable lenses didn't have a standard lens-mount to film distance so lenses were dedicated to specific bodies and given the last 3 letters of the body serial #. The buyer had a choice of 3 Elmars - the 50, 135 and 35. The next year, 1931, The flange to film distance was set at 27.7mm so enabling any lens to be used on any body. I only have the matching 50 but have bought a 1930 135mm which I will match up for use. The camera has the bracket for a mask that flips over in front of the VF to make it 135. So I'm making one; a bit squinty but a very compact settup and beautifully ballanced in the hand.
     
  25. John, we were writing the same thing at the same time. Someone else can fight over the measurements. Maybe my memory brain-cell count is going down !
     
  26. Don't know where I got 27.7mm from. That's about what my I(C) would be but I'm sure I have not measured it that accurately. Sorry about the disinformation!
     
  27. Or misinformation. (didn't get a chance to sleep last night)
     

Share This Page