edward_gabriel Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Anyone ever had this happen? Recently I shot an assignment - on film no less - with my trusty M6. The piece was shot on Tri-x, with the last roll being pushed a couple of stops. I processed the pushed roll and what did I get . . . . Nada, zilch, zero. No I didn't load the film incorrectly. It actually came out completely barren and clear - not even the frame numbers or KODAK TX stamps were on the roll. Looks like I got a roll from a bum batch of emulsion. Has this ever happened to anyone? I just found it rather interesting. Cheers, _Gabriel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 You sure you didn't put the film straight into fix? (Seriously- I'm not trying to be a smart-alec...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Oh dear. Wouldn't happen with dig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_kirkwood Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Really? Flash memory never fails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I can't imagine this, given the quality control that goes on. As a test, can you develop part of another roll in the batch to see if you get frame numbers? Did you develop it or a lab? I've seen some stupid things done from even good pro labs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_a._junker1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Per Andrew, been there, done that. But it is possible you had a roll of film base with no emulsion. If you still have the box, mail it back to EK with the film, aftre a while you'll get a new roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS1664879711 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "Oh dear. Wouldn't happen with dig..." Not necessarily true. I once had a digital camera that seemed to have all "ZEROs" and no "ONES". ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_unsworth1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The fixer went in first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 <<Nada, zilch, zero>> What you get when you look for someone with a vestige of humour on this forum these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 It reminds me to the XTOL failure from years ago... which developer have you used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I have not got one single emulsionless film from Kodak in over forty years, and neither did you. Post the batch number. It's on the package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfe_tessem Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 What Steve said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_lehrer Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 EDWARD,-- You saw the leader of the film when you loaded it, didn't you? Or did you have your Seeing Eye Dog load the film for you? There is NFW that you could have missed that. Emulsion is very visible on the leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "Oh dear. Wouldn't happen with dig..." Hahahahaha...part of my job includes data recovery from corrupt memory cards. Christmas is the time many people shoot the bulk of their images...for the last week I've been averaging 12 or 13 data recoveries a day...with sophisticated data recover software I'm averaging less than 50% recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_gabriel Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 It didn't go into the fix first - I especially know this since I was processing in two-part diafine - i could see that possiblity if i had been using another developer, a "single-chemical" for development and another for fix but, I had to go through diafine a, difine b and then fixer. then there's the fact that the film had no number stamps, etc. really weird. . . . thanks for all the amusing responses! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsr Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I'm afraid I agree with Jerry on this one. You'd most certainly see when loading that the film had no emulsion; it's quite visible. Good luck, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_gabriel Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 I was loading in a rather dark bar but I can tell you that the film did appear normal when I loaded it. However, any other ideas? This is killing me - loaded correctly, processed correctly - what on Earth could have happened. LOL. I guess I'll chalk (is that how you spell it in this instance) it up to a bad day in the quality control room over at Kodak. Best, -G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_jeanette1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Loading in a "dark bar" HMMMMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_gabriel Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 LOL - I could see enough to note that the winder was turning as I advanced the film and that I had tension while rewinding the film - it was loaded correctly. Now, if you had said "Loaded in a dark bar" . . . LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_suarez1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 My guess: 1) Fixer first or 2)A problem with local water supply. Develope another roll of Tri-X, from the same batch, but this time mix all chemicals with destilled water. Best of luck, Jose Suarez, Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prime lens Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Loaded in a dork bar? Sorry, somebody had to say it! (Edward -- this is an old chestnut. One may search PN for Leica forum threads conatining "dork bar" ...) -- Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prime lens Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Oops, threads _containing_ "dork bars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I would bet processing error, not bad manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_gabriel Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hey Steve, I'd be inclined to agree with you if it hadn't been for the fact that the film lacked any markings - i.e. frame numbers, "KODAK" or "TX" . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_b. Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The same EXACT thing happened to me. Everyone made fun of me for putting it in fixer first - but I didn't do that. What I did do was use a bottle of rodinal that had been sitting half empty for a year. No developer no pictures and no edge print (which by the way eliminates a loading error - you would still have edge print). It is probably your diafine, or maybe you missed a bath in the dark. Don't feel too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now