r.m. Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 I, for one, am extremely grateful to all for your time and expertise, and thrilled that you were able to solve the riddle for me. I'm even more thrilled that I don't have to waste 2 rolls of film on my ludicrous test. Again, thank you ALL, and to all a good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 and on and on and on. Just because you don't like that I pointed out that your findings were wrong, for the benefit of other people that happened to read this thread, doesn't mean I'm being uncivil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ant_nio_ferreira Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 At first, it seemed to me it was the shadow of a too large lens for the built-in flash, but it ocurred to me it could be your finger in front of the lens (it occurs more often than you think). The consistency of the problem is not typical of this problem, but it is worth considering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Tom: In one of your earlier responses you implied that plastic tanks(reels) were not conducive to film kinking. This is simply not the case, and so my answers were attempting to make that clear while attempting to find a cause of a problem. Also, the usual film kink produces an appearance of increased density not decreased as you stated, and so I thought that should be made clear as well. I do not mind being told that I am wrong. It is the way you did it that was unnecessary and inelegant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Why do you keep going...? <p> <i>Tom: In one of your earlier responses you implied that plastic tanks(reels) were not conducive to film kinking.</i> <p> My excact comment was "You'd also have to be doing something seriously wrong if you're having a problem with kinks on plastic reels. " And I stick by that. Loading a plastic reel while it's wet would classify as doing something seriously wrong if you know anything about plastic reels. But what's the point? You could have also explained proper agitation methods too. So what? There are clearly no kink marks in the frames, the defect should be obvious that it's not a processing error. The first person that responded probably didn't look at the example image just made the first guess that we all made. But after looking at the negative he came back and corrected his statement. You just kept going on and on in the wrong direction, disregarding everything that was being said. <p> <i>"Also, the usual film kink produces an appearance of increased density not decreased as you stated, and so I thought that should be made clear as well. "</i> <p> Gee... I originally said: "Kinked film results in dark crescent moon shaped marks. These are areas of reduced density in half moon shapes." First sentence describing what kinked film marks look like. Second describing what the example looks like. Dark vs reduced desnity crescent moon vs half moon. Maybe you're not very good with English. There are plenty of people from all over the world that participate in these forums and have every right to and are quite welcome to. But if you're going to keep on spouting wrong information even after an obviously civil request to have another look at the negatives then excpet people to come back with the appropriate answer. For god's sake, you had this poor woman ready to run two more rolls of film as a test based on what you were claiming which would have been a complete waste of her time and anyone else's who saw this in the future and thought just because you were so vocal you were also correct. <p> I still insist I was being civil and it's not fair to judge my civility by the fragility of your ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 C'mon, Tom, Steve...where're *your* sample photos to demonstrate your respective points? I believe my Furby speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Lex, I didn't think I needed my own photo, the images posted with the original question are enough. Plus my furby is incredibly camera shy. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Tom: First, It takes the two of us to keep on going. Secondly: I never recommended test rolls. Finally: You seem to be quite upset. I'm sorry if I have upset you. I believe my suggestions are valid points, reguardless of the fact that they were incorrect speculations and that you don't care for them. They are nevertheless the standard (Kodak Basic B&W Printing, Vestal, Morgan Darkroom) responses to the apparent(to many of us) problem. I know you disagree so don't waste any further effort on that point. Remember the unclear(to many) evidence provided by the scanned image. Thank goodness someone like yourself came to the rescue. I will not be baited with your further comments Tom. My attempts to be helpful were appreciated by Reina and I appreciate her thankfulness. The ATTEMPT is what I believe most here appreciate and it is your failure to capture that concept and your response wording(please review your above replies)that are what I find surprising and uncouth. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 <i>Finally: You seem to be quite upset.</i> <p> Your conclusions as to my state of mind are as correct as your assement of the problem with the negative. So I don't know why you are appoligizing. Read the posts before you chimed in, insisting that the problem wasn't the flash. You'll see that everyone agreed that it was an in camera problem after studying the image. <p> Responding to your posts with an opossing view point isn't baiting. And if someone is going to say something about me personally or make an incorrect statement I have every right to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Everyone agreed it was a flash problem? I believe for some "the jury is still out". Read above. I believe Reina should do the two roll test. Reina. You still there?? Have a nice evening Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 One more point. Is it an in camera or out of camera problem? I thought you were convinced that the cause and effect both seem to take place outside the camera. Maybe we can start a new round? No ill will intended Tom. Just having fun. Goodnight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Shaddap, da bot' of youse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josef_geisler Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Hi I believe since you are using a larger lense,and a built in flash, your knuckles or a finger is in the path of the flash and resulting in the shape of the halfmoon you are seeing on some of your negatives. I dont believe the problem is in the camera or darkroom related. 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