odd results on film - help a newbie

[ian_greant]

Hi,

 

<p>

I'm rather inexperienced at this LF thing and could use a bit of help

troubleshooting a photo I had developed recently.

<p>

I've uploaded it <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1245633&size=lg" target="new">here</a> so you can check it

out.

<p>

Here's my little story:<br>

Basic mountain shot. Some rise, a fair bit of tilt.<br>

F22 on a 4x5 B&J press cam with 127mm Ilex. Velvia 50<br>

Problems: Heavy vignetting in one corner.<br>

odd bit of milkiness on right side of image with some image softness

there. <p>

 

Things I could have done to cause this:<br>

When loading the film I wasn't wearing gloves. Was just careful

where I grabbed. Can oil from hands cause this?<p>

This particular film holder went from car to fridge, to backpack, to

car, etc, etc for a couple months before I used it and then it took

me about a month to get it developed. Could that cause any of the

problems?<p>

I didn't see any vignetting when I was composing the image.. of

course there are things in my photos all the time I didn't see at the

time I took them ;) If it is vignetting from too much tilt

wouldn't be on both sides equally? I wasn't using any shift.<p>

Other than the obvious problems and the bad scan the photo is

gorgeous. The detail is purely amazing. There is a fallen dead tree

on one of the slopes and with an 8x loupe you can count the

branches. On seeing it a friend who shoots 6x7 on a Mamiya 7 has

developed a bad case of size envy. ;) <p>

Thanks in advance for any pointers/advice

[skygzr]

Hi Ian �

 

It sure does look like you used too much movement, although it�s odd that the left side is not affected. Is it possible that you were shading the lens and got too close?

[ian_greant]

thanks Kevin, <p>

No.. I was standing behind with my cable release.. ?? <br>

I'll double check but I'm about 98% sure the bellows doesn't droop either

[greg_petusky]

It really looks like the image circle is off-center. My first guess is that the camera wasn't zeroed before this shot, and there was some right shift applied from previous dinkering.

 

Barring that, are the bellows regular? Are you using some cool-looking lens shade? Sometimes an old Kodak shade that fits the threads can made a press camera look more like a Linhof... ;)

 

Anyway, tilt is going to ask way more of this lens than a gentle rise, and you'll hit the limit really quickly with both in combination. The shot shows mechanical vignetting, not any film handling problem.

[thomas_vaehrmann]

Hi Ian,

 

nice picture! You didn't tell wether you tilted front or back, but rise alone could be a reason because 127mm lenses haven't a large image circle. Check out centering first, then first rise, then tilt. Stop down and look for vignetting. It's difficult to see such things out in the field ecpecially when it's in the sky-area.

[pete_andrews]

The vignetting is almost certainly caused by excessive use of camera movements.<p>Your Ilex lens is a triplet design, I believe, and it also has a short focal length of only 127mm to boot! So there's your problem.<br>That lens will only just cover 5x4, with almost no room for camera movements at all.<br>I suspect you inadvertently swung the lens, as well as deliberately applying some rising front and tilt, and this has made the bottom edge of the frame bite into the coverage circle of the lens.<p>I've no idea about the milkiness on the film, except that it's not likely to be caused by contamination from your fingers. I've never used gloves to load a darkslide, and also never had any problem with this sort of film marking.<br>If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the problem was far more likely to be caused by condensation, since you say you refrigerated the film in its darkslide for a while.<p>To get back to your use of camera movements:<br>Any idea why you used rising front?<br>There's very little to be gained by using rising front on a distant and non-parallel subject like that mountain.<p>You say you tilted the lens. I presume you tilted the lens down a little, to get the plane of focus from the grass to the mountain top. If you did this at the lens, and not at the camera back, then you'll have naturally raised the centre of the lens axis relative to the centre of the film. You should have dropped the lens panel downward, or raised the camera back to compensate for this, but instead you applied more rise, to a lens that was already stretched in coverage and pointing off axis.<br>Sounds like a sure recipe for vignetting to me.<p>The lesson to be learned here is to only use as much and as many camera movements as are absolutely necessary, and not to play with the movements just because they're there! Especially if your lens doesn't have the greatest coverage circle in the world.

[brian_c._miller]

Both corners have vignetting, just not as much in the other corner.

 

There is a white streak on the left side, with some white in the lower left corner, and a bit of white on the right.

 

Light leakage??

 

Were you using Quickloads? Or was this in a normal holder, like Fidelity, et al? While the holder may not normally exhibit any leakage, it could be possible that a small amount of light will leak in for the amount of time the film has been sitting in the holder. Since the film spent three months in the holder, I'd bet that at some point it may have been sitting in direct sunlight for a while.

[ian_greant]

wowsers! Thanks for all the input. <p>

 

Based on what you've all said and my own experiences in setting the camera up and seeing how little coverage the lens has it seems most likely the vignetting is (in the words of Jimmy Buffet) "my own darn fault" <p>

Pete <i>Any idea why you used rising front?</i><br>

using rise allowed me to get the composition I wanted without compromising any potential DOF or causing any perspective problems. At least that's been my thinking in how I set my camera up so far. :)<br>I'll certainly try dropping the front the next time I want to use any large amount of tilt though.. thanks!<p>

Brian: I was using standard film holders and I'm reasonably sure I was negligent enough to leave them around in full daylight at some point or another. I suppose I have to be just a bit more careful than with rollfilm cameras <p>

Thanks again all,

[jim_galli4]

The line down the left side appaered immediately to me to be from your folks who did the developing. Whatever they used to hold the film that punched the six holes also interfered in a straight line downward. You'll have to plan on sacrificing that part of your chromes to the developers.

[ole_tjugen]

Let's see - vignetting is covered already.

The streak on the left side looks like processing to me, too.

 

The milkiness in the lower right looks suspiciously like a light leak in the holder to me, I've had the same problem (only more so). New holders are no guarantee either, you have to check every single holder - especially new ones!

[robert_lawrence]

I've seen this streak effect before in a Jobo drum processor where the film has been loaded emulsion outwards instead of emulsion inwards, the shaped clip that holds the film in produces exactly this streak. Worth asking whoever did your processing.

 

Robert Lawrence

[claire_curran]

The line on the left side of the transparency is a processing problem. It normally indicates that agitation is not being done properly during development. This type of processing problem normally shows up in neutral, same toned areas, such as a sky. The problem is frequently seen when film is processed in film hangers, whether processing B&W or color. Sometimes agitation is not sufficient to properly develop the film touching the hanger. Show your transparency to the lab and ask them about their agitation methods. They are undoubtedly using a machine line. If the agitation is done with nitrogen burst, it is rather easy to adjust. There is evidence of a light leak in the lower left corner of your trans. I agree with the other poster that the milkiness is a light leak.

[golliegwillie]

The milkiness could be cause by a light leak in your bellows. Take a flashlight in the dark and shine it inside and see if any light escapes. For three weeks recently I had a similiar problem with my regular Arca Swiss bellows, which up to recently I didn't use very often because I prefered the leather wide angle bellow in most situations- it can handle lenses all the way up to my 360mm Tele Xenar. The recent acquisition of two Fujinons- a 250mm and a 125mm (modern glass finally!!) forced a change in the bellows I use and the lenses carry. Having only four available Arca lensboards, forced me to change my lens kit from a 65mm, a 90mm, a 180mm and the 360mm, to the regular bellows with the 65mm (deep recessed), the 125mm (deep recessed-but not really necessary), the 250mm, and the 360 Tele-Xenar- all shooting 6x9.

 

It's been the most frustrating 3 week period I've had since I took up large format- not because I didn't feel I advanced any as a photographer, but because I felt I had advanced so much and have very little to show for it. I felt I had finally gotten over predisposition toward wide angles and was finally seeing what a longer lens could do for me. I used the 65mm once during that period, the 125mm frequently, the 360mm sparingly- but the 250mm had become my favorite lens- on ground glass at least. I really have come to love the compression that lens gives me. Moreover, movements I had to stop and think about before, I was just doing because I knew the situation already.

 

Alas what do I have to show for it- alot of overexposed film, and 1 Christmas day exposure on the lake shot with 250mm that came out pretty good. The colors are a bit muted however because I had to shoot before the sun came out fully, because I had to be at work at 9:00 (yes, some people actually have to work X-mas day- but I got my Christmas day shot!). Meanwhile the 125mm was the sharpest lens I had used- no exposure problem with the 125mm. If I hadn't had that one Christmas shot that came out okay, I might have believe there was something wrong with the 250mm. I couldn't understand how the 125mm shot were all coming out okay, and the 250mm was coming out way overexposed no matter how much I tried to bias toward underexposure. It wasn't till a few 125mm shots looked fogged that I figured out what was going on. I had a light leak and the only reason the 125mm wasn't as affected was that the bellows were more closely scrunched, and the recessed board was blocking the light. The solution- I drape my BtZ dark cloth over my bellows now.

[ian_greant]

Thanks for all the extra feedback. I'll check with my lab on the processing. <p>

Cheers!

[ken_schroeder]

Ian, vignetting from excessive rise compounded by front tilt looks like the culprit. I agree with the lens comments. I suggest you try to duplicate the condition. Find a similar test location at home. (The mountain is optional) Make a series of exposures starting at dead neutral through full rise (with no tilt). Do the same with tilt. Then with both rise and tilt. Forget back tilt unless you photograph ceilings. You are right on by shooting atf22. Your lens covers better here than at wider openings. If you make careful notes when shooting and look at the results, you will know what caused the problem. You will also know the limits of your lens. You can then create the problem at will--or more practically, know how to avoid it! Incidentally, using back tilt instead of front tilt won't cause vignetting. You say you don't have back tilt? Not so.....just tip the camera up a bit. This causes the back to back away, just like regular back tilt. You adjust the front to compensate. This may mean dropping the bed and using full rise with some front tilt. This is one of those techniques like using double swing to create shift (or double tilt instead of rise and fall). Not the ideal way, but very functional in skilled hands. Not every image requires a plumb back. This technique also gives you the option of making the foreground more looming if you wish. Don't see the vignetting as a failure. See it as a learning opportunity. You have a good eye. Keep shooting.