brambor Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Hello, Please take a look at this picture. I took it with one of my Konica's. The entire roll besides this one came out ok. I'm wondering whether it is cause of light leak from the back of the camera.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 My first guess is static discharge. Seeing that the boy is in a coat, rewinding film too quickly in cold dry winter weather can result in a static discharge -> spark -> light. Light strikes are more typically golden on color processes. Could also be a chemical spash in processing. Is it on the negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 Yes. This is on a negative. Konica Impresa 50 I think. Interesting observation with the rewinding. Never thought that could be a problem. I will rewind gently from now on. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 No way a chemical splash would produced the jagged, narrowing runners seen here. That's a static arc -- the center is where the discharge started, and the runners are where the charge bled off into the emulsion (or the next layer film base). As someone else said, this probably happened in the camera, but it's also possible for it to occur when the film is unrolled from the cassette for processing -- no way to tell which. I've seen static marks much smaller than these, too, from synthetic fabrics causing discharges in a loading bag or darkroom -- it's less of a problem now than it was in the 1970s, when it seemed you could hardly buy cotton clothing, but it seems rayon, dacron, nylon, etc. don't always get along perfectly with one another in terms of static charge, and if the laundry technician doesn't use a static reducing softener, watch out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 hmm. The job was to take the roll, develop it and put it on a CD right away. Pictures were never made. On another note maybe it was God's way to tell me to stop taking lousy pictures :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc1 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Remember,for any negative thing that happens in your lifetime or mine or anyone else's,,, never include the good lord "God" He should have never been called God, if He ever made mistakes, He's too perfect to make exposure mistakes. anytime shit like this happens,blame it on the camera,exposure,flash,film used,situation,processing,technique,lighting,camera shake,coffee,alchohol,drugs,asshole friends of yours,ME,camera manufacturer, or just something else,,, but NEVER INCLUDE GOD, he has no time for small time mistakes that you'd experienced. IMHO, you should stop taking photos , it's bad for your health...and your future..... pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc1 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 IMO, i like the effect it produced ... but that's just me (weird taste).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Rene- with photoshop and a few hours, the blotch can be removed! Sorry Paul, as a digital photographer (who likes classic cameras mind you), I just could not resist the challenge... Mods: feel free to remove if you feel it's not appropriate, and accept my apology! I sure love the classics, but i certainly do love Photoshop as well! PS- For the sake of staying on topic here i won't go into digital darkroom techniques, email me if you are interested in knowing what i did...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Hey paul, if your theological spout is a joke it isnt particularly funny, and if you're dead serious, please lighten up, by dropping that kind of instruction at the door before entering the forum. Like Tommy Acquinas said, "It's all straw." but then again 2cents aint what it used to be...... BTW I really like the photo, and anno, looks to me like a really nice touch up. regards to all and their cameras young and old, Bill Gibson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 <IMHO, you should stop taking photos, it's bad for your health...and your future...pc> May I ask why? Are you a new prophet? If you are, please, preach to your own flock and don't give us lessons of righteousness. Only God can judge if Rene can, or can not take pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gauthier Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Only insurrance companies are entitled to call anything bad "an act of God". ;-) That said, the look of the blue thing, the fact that it was shot under dry winter conditions and on a mountain top all converge towards the static elecricity discharge explanation. We often hear about this, but examples of pictures are rarely seen. This is a fine example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 10, 2003 Author Share Posted September 10, 2003 Thanks for the tips everyone. I have two T1 Konicas and think that one of them 'acting up'. Because I use them interchangeably I seem to be confused which one it is. The pictures out of this one did not come out particularly well with few exeptions while the other one produces better. I'll find out next week after I get my rolls finished and developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc1 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 so sorry, didn't mean to offend,pls. forgive me,didn't have the right , will not happen again, ..... pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 While it sure looks like static discharge, it might be an example of a UFO: an Unidentified Fuzzy Object! 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