Coloured streaks on some frames

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>hi, I just started to process my colour films a few days ago. it's going well, but I noticed that one of the films from the last set has got bands on it.<img src="C:\Users\Miss%20C\Pictures\00%20inverts%2000\negscolourdev" alt="" /> The film is HG 1600. I'm not sure if I can upload a photo here, so I will describe it in case. There are blue or dark bands/streaks going fairly regularly in the first 16 frames. The rest of the film is fine, and the other colour film I did at the same time turned out fine.<br>

My camera doesn't leak light (it's a Minolta X300s.) and I didn't notice any irregularity when putting the film on the reel in the changing bag. It felt smooth. The HG1600 went on the bottom of the tank and another reel went on top. I developed for 3:45, agitating first ten sec then four times every 30 sec (agitation guidelines aren't clear for C41, they're not even in the Tetenal instruction book!). For blix I decided to try the agitator stick because it's so messy when I invert it - that stuff really manages to leak out!<br>

After a good wash I used the stabiliser. (It's a shame I can't wash it after because stabiliser leaves a LOT of marks. I tried using a sponge but I noticed a few scratches after)</p>

<p>any ideas why there are streaks?</p>

<div></div>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>It won't let me edit the post, even though I left a little detail out: I did not use the film in one go; I took it out and later put it back, several times, so I could also takes slides and bw photos. I'm assuming that the camera doesn't leak light because I developed a test roll with very recent photos, which turned out fine.</p>

 

[john_shriver]

<p>Well, I suspect that's faster film than your test roll, so it would be more sensitive to a small light leak. A camera of the age of your Minolta can almost be <em>expected</em> to have a light leak, due to decomposed light seals. If they are at all "gooey", they're shot.<br>

I presume you used your changing bag to remove and put the film back in the camera.</p>

 

[Bill C]

Hi, not much doubt in my mind that you fogged the film somehow. Note in your attached image that on the second strip down, lower edge,

6th and 7th sprocket hole from the left, there are dark "shadow" edges showing. This is most likely light coming through sprocket holes

above that were not perfectly aligned. In other words, the fogging occurred while the film was at least partially rolled up. I'd be suspicious of the changing bag.

[Keith S in Arizona USA]

<p>I totally agree with Bill's response. Your issue definitely appears to be light-fogging.</p>

<p>BTW, how old is your changing bag, and what type? There are posts (reviews, actually) at Adorama and B&H concerning various models of changing bags that, over time, have developed pinhole leaks. The reviewers have returned to buy new/ replace their bags, and have mentioned the problem occurring.</p>

<p> </p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>hah, I never used a changing bag to swap films! the camera itself has very few light seals - one around the window and another at the hinge, I think.<br>

that's very attentive of you to notice that - I didn't spot it! If I remember rightly, I had the film curled up at one point inside the bag, so then ... would it be a tiny amount of light that caused that? since it's blue then it would have to be orange light which would come from a bulb. your theory makes a lot of sense to me. <br>

I should have known that this could happen; because once it happens photos are 'damaged'. is there any way to correct the colour casts? <br>

for now I will use the bag in a dark room or under the duvet. can you recommend any reliable ones? I would actually like a changing box (haha, if it exists) so that my hands have more room.<br>

----<br>

about blix, how do you agitate it? I feel like inversions would be best, but so messy..</p>

 

[AJG]

<p>I have used a PhotoFlex changing bag for years--I bought it because it has an internal frame like a tent to keep it off your hands. Calumet used to sell one like this also, and if you can stand the price, Harrison still has them listed on B&H's website. You could probably get a sturdy cardboard box that is big enough to be comfortable and then cover it with a couple of layers of heavy opaque fabric and use the arms from your current changing bag. <br>

A good stainless steel tank and reels would also be a good investment--look for a used Kinderman tank and Hewes reels, I've used them for 20+ years and no leaks.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I just got a large Changing bag and put a box inside it. It holds the bag up and allows me to work with breathing room and a hard surface where I don't lose things.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I would suspect light leaking into the cassette when loading/unloading or just carrying it around. (Who had the idea of transparent film cans?)</p>

<p>That explains why it is worse at the beginning. It might be that the film lets more orange light through, so blue negatives. Multiple load/unload makes more chances for light to get in. Also, high ISO would make it more likely.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I did not use the film in one go; I took it out and later put it back, several times, so I could also takes slides and bw photos."<br /><br /> Don't do that!<br /><br />People do occasionally take a roll out and put it back in later but even that is risky in exposing frames that have already been shot. Swapping back and forth multiple times is an invitation to disaster, as you've discovered. It's a false economy -- if you've wasted 16 frames because of fogging etc, you might as well have just shot half the roll and not bothered with reloading.<br /><br />IMHO, I don't see the need to swap between rolls. If you use 24 exposure rather than 36, by the time you've "worked" a subject from multiple angles and compositions and maybe bracketed exposure, it's very quick to fill up a roll.<br /><br />Simplest thing is to shoot color slide film. That way you've got your color slide to start, you can make a print from it either in the darkroom or by scanning, and you can scan and print in B&W. All three with no need to change film. <br>

If you do want/need to use different types of film, now that the bottom has fallen out of the market for most film cameras, it's cheap enough to have a second body.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>Hm, I'm surprised that could happen. and you're right about the see-through cans! /// if you're wondering about my method: I use a permanent marker to draw a guideline on the film when it's reeled in, so I can always line it up exactly in the future. The first frame needs to be skipped/taken twice. It's useful for when I just don't have room for three+ cameras, or for when I don't want to look like a tourist :D The disadvantage is that you waste the battery. setting to 1/1000 and f/22 and covering the lens does the trick when advancing. The other important thing is to write the frames down when you take a roll out!<br>

I just noticed this (see picture).<br>

I don't know when it happened. might have been before the faulty roll (would I have noticed a change when loading?) or recently. I'd say it dropped since the grooves are straight, but the edge is still curved. how bizarre!</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>I really like slide film. I got some actual slides back to me when I got a roll processed, it felt great to hold and look at the things. (Last time I just got the film back curled up). Shame it's damn expensive! <br>

I'd like to know what slide film(s) has the most saturated colours. There are actually aren't many different types, sadly. I will try Velvia, I think that is supposed to be saturated?<br>

Say you were exposing a landscape, how would you do it? would you meter for the sky?<br>

I'm just a little confused about the whole 'dynamic range thing'. is it to do with the response to light? like some sort of exponential response in which the lighting at a bit less or a bit more than the right level will affect the film more (highlights) and less (shadows) than negative film.<br>

does it mean, for example:<br>

an subject of mid brightness is in environment of low brightness, while the sky has high brightness. Exposing for the environment makes the subject too bright and the sky blank, exposing for the subject makes the env' dark and the sky too bright, and exposing for the sky makes the env' blank (black) and the subject too dark . ?<br>

Sorry for sounding like an amateur. I just want to understand <em>why </em>negatives can 'catch' the various levels of light, while slide is selective. what's the science behind it?</p>

[Bill C]

[Ciaran] "I just want to understand why negatives can 'catch' the various levels of light, while slide is selective. what's the science behind

it?"

 

It has to do with the way we see. Slides, viewed in a darkened room, seem to require a pretty high contrast to look "normal," and this high

contrast uses up the density range of the film pretty quickly. I don't understand why our vision works this way, but it's a pretty well

established principal.

 

In the case of negative film, it's just an intermediate recording medium, and has a rather large "luminance recording range." But when

making prints we have to select a more limited range of tones to print. But this is done later in the proces, whereas with slide film the tone

range has to be selected right at the beginning by the use of a precise exposure. So the slides are not very forgiving of poor technique.

[donald_miller5]

I also just started my own color processing and had similar problems and found to resoason for this. I use vuescan and

canon 8800f scanner. The first time I was scanning and I "THINK" the software retained dome artifacts from previous

parameters. The proof was when I scanned with the driver from the scanner and the defects were absent. I. Loses out

vuescan and reopened and chose default settings and proceeded from there and everything was perfect. The second

time the film detached fro the canister and I opened the back and let in light. Again I got an almost straight line of different

effects which I could do nothing for.

[glen_h]

<p>I always liked slide film. For one, processing is cheaper if you don't need prints. I think that is still true, but maybe not so obvious. There are still places around here that do E6.</p>

<p>C41 films have a lower gamma, such that they compress the dynamic range. When printing, the printing papers have to undo that, which makes print exposure, and color balance, more sensitive. The rule for printing filters is to use half the complementary color that the print looks right when you look through.</p>

<p>I have unloaded a partial roll and used it again later. I usual shoot off one or two extra frames to be sure.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> Slide film was meant to be projected. No scamming can do it justus. </p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>what you mentioned about contrast and density actually makes some sense to me, thanks! I will have to read about that effect. so when you print negative film, do you increase the contrast and decrease the density of the final picture?<br>

anyone have any advice for exposing slides perfectly?</p>

[James G. Dainis]

A friend asked me to make a print from a slide he had of giant redwoods. A made a Cibachrome print and even used a red filter to burn in some more red on the tree trunks. He said it was nice but with the slide the trunks seemed to be actually glowing. That is what he wanted in the print. Of course the projected slide seems to be glowing, it is the light glowing off the screen thar does that. In a totally dark room the glow from the screen will lighten the room. In a totally dark room there is no glow off of a print and the room remains dark. I told him if he wants glow to put the print in a light box with a light behind it.

[Bill C]

[Ciaran] so when you print negative film, do papers increase the contrast and decrease the density of the final picture?"

 

The systems we generally use have a fairly low contrast in the negatives. The print materials (paper) generally have a

much higher contrast. The net result is that a print ends up with a "contrast" similar to the original scene, and this

generally gives a good looking result. Regarding "density" of the final print, this is up to the judgment of the printer. The

paper's brightness range is very limited compared to the typical original scene, so the printer tries to get the most

important parts to fit near the center of the paper's range, more or less. Often we have to let specular reflections "blow

out" white on the print. You can look up "tone reproduction theory" for more info on the subject.