What went wrong?

[peter_molettiere]

<p><br />Hi! I've been reading P.N for quite a while, but I don't really post very often. Thanks for all the fish!<br /><br />Here's my question:<br /><br />I just shot my first five rolls of 6x7 with a Mamiya 7ii this past weekend, with somewhat mixed results. The two rolls of Velvia 50 I shot were really excellent, the two rolls of Portra 160NC I shot were somewhat lacking in color, but otherwise mostly OK except where I messed up exposure compensation for the polarizing filter I used, but the roll of Tmax 100 I shot has strange fogging across some of the frames. A friend of mine into large format helped me scan the film, and thought it looked like the lens was fogged, but it was a warm, clear day. The film had been at room temperature for more than twelve hours, too.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll try to post a few scans. Any comments appreciated.<br /><br />--Peter<br /><br /><img src="http://img.santoshima.org/Mamiya7/Mamiya7_001.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img.santoshima.org/Mamiya7/Mamiya7_002.jpg" alt="" width="576" height="466" /><img src="http://img.santoshima.org/Mamiya7/Mamiya7_004.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>Did you say it had the Holga attachment on it?<br>

Just kidding.......did you go from conditioning to high humidity?</p>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>Hrm... you mean I was supposed to take the shower curtain off the front of the lens? ;)<br>

No, that's the thing. It's San Francisco, we don't have air conditioning here. And before you ask, it wasn't fog, either. :) The roll of Portra I took this same morning was fine as far as this is concerned (muted colors aside), and the roll of Velvia I took later in the day was excellent.<br>

The shots I posted above are the best of the roll. The others are almost entirely "fogged" for want of a better word. When I picked up the film, and stuck it on the light table to get a look, the clerk commented that they were out of focus, but that doesn't make sense for the first image I posted above, since there's nothing at a different distance from the lens to *be* out of focus -- I mean, the sharp plants on the left are closer than the close plants on the right, the building in the back is further away, and they're both in focus.<br>

Any other ideas?<br>

--Peter</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Sure looks like a 'smear' of something diffusing light. I agree that it's not out of focus. Just diffused.<br>

Could be condensation on the lens or film. Could be grease (of some sort) on lens or film.<br>

But i can't think of anything else that could produce something like this, except such a smear of condensation or grease on glass somewhere.</p>

<p>Maybe the film and lens were at the right temperature, but when you put on the lens, you blew on the rear element to get the dust off, then locked the thing inside the body?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>The degradation of the image appears to be at different places on different frames. This suggests it is not optical, and it may be a defect or damage in the film emulsion. </p>

<p>Could the roll have gotten wet at some point? Do you do your own processing, so you can be confident that the lab didn't do something stupid?</p>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>No, the film was sent out for development. The film stayed bone dry until I took it to be developed, but as you say, I didn't process it myself, so I suppose something could have happened during processing.<br>

As far as blowing dust off of things, I find it's a great way to make the lens look like it's been lightly rained on. :)<br>

Thanks for all the comments! I was really hoping someone would say something like "You did xyz, do it this other way, and this won't happen." I guess I'll just have to try again and see what happens. :)<br>

--Peter</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If the film had got wet before exposure there would be evidence of that remaining on the film, by way of a mottled or less-than-shiny patchy appearance on the negatives. This looks much more like the effect happened well in front of the film plane, since the degree of diffusion is so severe. Besides, damp film will stick to its backing paper and anything else it touches, making the probability of scratching and other mechanical damage very high. If the negative surface looks in good shape then it probably ain't wet film to blame.</p>

<p>The misty patches look like they were caused by condensation in or on the lens, maybe on the back surface of the lens where you wouldn't notice it (an SLR camera would have alerted you to the problem via the viewfinder). Condensation can move around as different parts of the lens get below the dew-point temperature and other parts of the lens heat up enough to evaporate the condensation.</p>

<p>If you're in the habit of gripping the very front of the lens barrel, then break yourself of it. Evaporation from hot and sweaty hands can easily fog any glass surface in the near vicinity.</p>

[norman_valentine]

<p>Could the paper tape from the film have somehow got inside the camera? </p>

[norman_valentine]

<p>Could the paper tape from the film have somehow got inside the camera? </p>

[bill poole]

<p>I would be interested in knowing whether you took the camera INTO the Golden gate Park Conservatory of Flowers, shown in one of the photos. The humidity in there is intense. If this was the first roll used after you were in there, that might be an explanation. Just a guess, though.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>This really looks like condensation, probably on the film itself. You say the film was at room temperature for 12 hours prior to using it. Where was it before that? Condensation on the film that occured during refrigeration or on opening the package while cold would remain long after the film reaches room temperature.</p>

<p>It is not light fogging - that would have affected the borders as much as the image area. It is not film stuck together during processing - the edges of the stuck portions would be sharply defined. It is not condensation on the lens, because it varies from frame to frame and did not occur with other film. I think condensation because the diffusion exists in the highlights, not the shadows or borders.</p>

[hjoseph7]

Maybe your camera just doesn't like, or is alergic to Kodak film, just kidding. Let's narow it down ! If the lens was fogged then the entire image would have been fooged. The 2 rolls you shot with the Velvia 50 came out ok. However when you stuck some B&W film in the camera, things went haywire. I think it's the film not the camera, you might have left it in the fridge too long. Try inserting a brand new store-bought roll of T-max in there and come back to us with the results.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Condensation on the film would create a different effect, with each tiny droplet acting as a lens. It would not produce a nicely diffused blotch like these. (and it would make the film stick.)<br>

Condensation on the lens is the only thing that could create this.</p>

[polka]

<p>Given that the fogging seems to migrate from one picture to the other, it may be due to a migrant bit of stuff or something loose inside the lens. Did you shoot other films since ?<br>

Paul</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>I don't know that we can conclude that the fogging migrates. It shows up (in different shapes) in the three pictures we have been shown, yes. But does it migrate? </p>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>Thanks for all the feedback.<br>

To answer a few questions:<br>

I'm not in the habit of holding the camera by the front of the lens. Usually I just hold them by the grip, even when I'm just carrying them. Rarely, I'll hold it by the base of the lens, near the body.<br>

No, I didn't go into the Conservatory at all.<br>

This roll was purchased from Adolph Gasser the day before I shot it, along with five other rolls, one of which was shot earlier and another later in the day this roll was shot. All came out of Gasser's fridge about 5:30 Friday, this roll was shot early afternoon on Saturday. I shot two other rolls Sunday, too, which didn't have any problems.<br>

Not sure how to answer whether it "migrates" or not. As you can see, it shows up in different places on these frames. I thought these frames were the most interesting, since the all show it in different areas. The other frames on the roll show the same thing, but with more even coverage over the whole frame, although none completely cover the frame. Most of the others are mainly clear around the edges of the frame.<br>

I certainly don't remember the paper tape coming *out* of the camera.<br>

I appreciate the comments. I think I'm just going to chalk this up to WTF? and see if it happens again.<br>

Thanks again for the feedback everyone!<br>

--Peter</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I stand by my condensation theory. The fact that the film came from a refrigerator the same day, but showed no problems for shots taken on the second day reinforces the theory. I think a dust bunny that size would attract attention when changing the film or a lens ;-)</p>

<p>True, each droplet would act like a miniature lens, but it would take an higher resolution than shown here to see that. Look at a 100% view of the original image file (pixel = pixel), and see if there are round artificacts resembling droplets. The condensation might form inside the camera as the cold film was exposed to the film gate - not enough to make it stick together in the roll.</p>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>Hey Edward, <br>

I think you misread something. All the film came out of the refridgerator on Friday. One roll was shot Saturday morning, and was fine and the above roll was shot in the afternoon. That's part of why this is so weird. Would Portra really be clear in the morning, and Tmax would fog later that afternoon?<br>

I've attached 100% crops from the foggy area of the first image above. One is a reflection of a lilly pad in the pool, the other is the edge of the pool further back.<br>

Thanks again!<br>

--Peter</p><div></div>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>Here's the second 100% crop.</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Sorry! Good luck on finding a solution. If you don't find the root cause, it's going to happen again at the worst possible time.</p>

[vanessa_resler]

<p>Peter,<br>

I've had weird fogging that resembled this somewhat twice - once because there was a big fuzzy piece of flower stuck between my lens and filter (was shooting infrared) and once because I did not fix the film long enough. When I refixed, the "fog" went away.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Here's another possibility.</p>

<p>Look carefully at the film. Is there any milkiness or staining in the emulsion? Worn out fixer or faulty agitation or time in the fixer can cause a diffuse cloudiness like this. Sometimes all you see is a brown or purple cast to parts of the image by transmitted light. It doesn't take much to show up in a print.</p>

<p>Faulty development tends to have different symptoms. Poor agitation can cause blotchiness, often accompanied by local solarization effects. However, any "stains" would be dark on the print, whereas inadequate fixing would produce light blotches. Over agitation in development causes streaks, not large areas like in your examples.</p>

<p>If it wasn't completely fixed, you can redo that step, in a tray if the film has been cut. Drying short pieces and keeping them flat can be tricky, but using Photo-Flo helps a lot in that respect.</p>

[fredscal]

<p>Anyway the 3rd picture in you first post looks GREAT like that !<br>

:-)</p>

[peter_molettiere]

<p>Sorry for the long turn-around to answer some of the questions that have popped up, but I needed to wait to have the time to pull out the negatives again to take a closer look.<br>

@Edward: I don't see any color cast in the negative, no solarization. I'm looking through the whole roll, and most of the fogging seems to be light milky diffusion. Certainly not dark and blotchy. Thanks very much for the detailed description.<br>

@Fred: Yeah, I kinda like it too in that shot -- somewhat dreamy and ethereal, goes nicely with the subject. Not sure I'd be able to replicate the look again, though. :) Maybe that's part of the charm of film? The serendipitous?<br>

Thanks again to everyone who commented.</p>