jp zorn

<p>Hi - After a long lay-off I'm back to wanting to give B&W developing another try. My concerns are the same though as before. I did try some of the suggestions mentioned above but still have had very inconsistent results - to the point that I could not get myself to continue messing up my pictures anymore. I started using C-41 B&W film and having a lab develope it. Now I would like to give traditional B&W another try. Along with the problems with the edges (as seen above) I have also experienced a certain amount of streaking in my skies on a semi-regular basis. Again I have to ask if there is a more fool-proof method of developing - some developers that are more forgiving, some agitation methods that provide more smooth, consistent results, etc. - that can provide me with a greater degree of reliability?</p>

<p>I'm doing it.</p>

<p>This is a scan of the actual negative. The camera I used is a TLR camera. No pressure plate.</p>

<p>I've gotten a diagonal, almost checkerboard pattern on color negatives recently. It is more easily seen in blue skies and has appeared on the last two rolls of color film that I have had developed. I'm trying to figure out whether it is coming from the film itself or somehow from the lab processing. I've only started using this lab fairly recently but have been happy with the results of the processing of the Ilford XP2 film that I have taken there on a regular basis. No signs of any patterns on those rolls of film. The color film I've had the problems with are two rolls of Kodak Portra 400NC (both from the same box). The camera I used is a Minolta Autocord. Could these patterns be the result of a bad batch of film (it is not expired)? Or is the problem more likely with the lab (in which case I should find somewhere else to take my film)? Anyone see anything like this before? Thanks for any thoughts on this. </p><div></div>

i've been at Photo.net for about a year now and have accumulated many 3's and 4's (i mean 1's and 2's). i don't know where they are coming from but i do know they have won.

The roll of film I just got back had what looks like a light leak in the same

place on 3 different pictures. The camera used was a Minolta Autocord TLR and

I've seen this problem a couple times before but was never sure if it was a

processing problem or a lens problem or something else. Now I have to believe

it is a leak of some sort. I would appreciate any help in trying to identify

where the leak is coming from and any possible solutions that I might be able

to do on my own to fix it. I've included one of the pictures that shows

exactly what it looks like. It is the same in all the pictures.<div></div>

just odd i haven't received a single 1 or 2. my rating scale begins at 3. maybe people think they'll get in trouble with the admins if they give them out. they're obviously not going have a problem with me since it's all anonymous.

all the 3's i'm getting makes me wonder: why no 1's or 2's? i've got to think

more than a few people wouldn't mind giving me some of those. have 1's and 2's

been banned? if so, why are they still listed as an option? does that mean 3's

are really 1's and 4's 2's?

i just think the first logical interpretation of "Views" would be to think that people had actually viewed the individual pictures that many times.

thanks. this method of counting "views" creates very big numbers and seems to me somewhat deceptive.

once a picture is submitted for critique and receives a certain understandable

number of views and ratings/comments - then where do these other huge numbers

of views come from? i've been here a couple of months and have photos that

have been "viewed" going on 4000 times. generally these extra looks don't

result in many more comments or ratings. and since it would take a lot of work

to track down and actually look at my stuff i'm wondering how these extra

views get generated? i can't imagine people just digging around randomly

through photo.net photos could create such numbers and i know i don't have

that many fans here.

yes, but you can still leave your name behind if you want to so people can still trade high ratings. just makes it easier to leave a lower number without much thought (very quickly) or accountability.

never seen this before. seems to make it very easy to not think much while

rating. i've posted many pictures that get rated within seconds of being

posted. just someone clicking on numbers very quickly. with no name left.

polaroid is going, going, gone... not worth the financial or emotional commitment at this point.

Thanks for all the great thoughts on this. I may try the pre-wash idea. And I will also give the idea of not inverting the tank a whirl. The challenge is to find a consistent method of moving the developer around without getting the foam and bubbles. In the end, doing it yourself has got to be the best approach to B&W processing. I just have to get better at it.

Tank and reels are brand new.

Yes, it probably is bubbles stuck in the reel. Problem is I'm hitting the tank a couple times pretty hard after every inversion already. I could hit it harder I guess and see what happens. I moved from the SS steel tank to plastic because I was messing up a frame or two just getting it on the reel with SS. Now I've got this problem screwing up my shots with plastic. Maybe I need to just find a good lab to mail out to. My patience is wearing thin. Thanks again for all your good advice.

Yes, I'm a little suspicious of it happening right after changing to the Patterson tanks - but tons of people use them without problems. So I don't know. And when I put the roll at the bottom of the double roll tank I put 700 ml in the tank just to be sure there wasn't a problem with the developer not completely covering the film. But the round stuff does look like foam or bubbles. Thanks for the suggestions. I might go back to my SS tank. Or fill the double tank to the top with developer.

I'm getting odd round irregular marks on my last 2 rolls of

negatives I've developed. They are on the edge and although fairly

new to processing my own negatives I've never seen this kind of

thing before. I recently switched to the Patterson tanks and did one

of the rolls in a double tank (with 1 full roll at the bottom and an

empty on the top) and plenty of D-76 1:1 and another in the single

roll tank and both rolls had the same problem. The film was Ilford

FP4 125 (120) and was both times developed in D-76. I'm getting a

little frustrated trying to get good evenly developed negatives in

general. Is there a combination of 120 film and developer that is

the most reliable and goof-proof?<div></div>

Just got a 3170 and am having a problem scanning my B&W negatives in

normal mode. When I preview and scan in thumbnail mode the exposure

is right but some of the 6X6 gets cropped. When I switch to normal

mode the whole negative is scanned correctly but the image is real

dark and underexposed. Why would there be a difference in the

exposure and does anyone have any ideas how to resolve this? Much

thanks.