tyler_t.

<p>Unfortunately it's exactly the same, so much so that it's not worth posting a new image.</p>

<p>I did do it with FARE disabled, same results. I don't have access to the scanner right now, so I will try it on more images. Is it possible it could be a developing issue? The photos affected seem to share the same quality with the other images in the roll, though in varying degrees. I had these developed at the local Motophoto.<br>

I read <a href="http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/film-development-problems.html">here</a> that cloudy marks means it is possible it wasn't fixed long enough or the fixer wasn't strong enough. I know this is color film as opposed to B/W, but I can't imagine that would make a difference. A lady at another local photo shop said the negatives look "milky," which <a href="/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00CmKY">apparently can also be attributed to insufficient fixing.</a> (This thread is also about B/W film.)</p>

<p>the cloudiness is better seen here:<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/hd2Ba6a.jpg" alt="" width="1136" height="757" /></p>

<p>Not every scan turns out like this, but a few of them have this distracting cloudiness (image 1, sunpak flash used) accompanied by white specks which would be no good when printing. I'd like to think it is because they are slightly underexposed, but in other dark scans there is no cloudiness (image 2, flashlight used to illuminate).</p>

<p>Scans from Canoscan 9000f, using included scanning software (which is pretty good), all settings turned off (since they didn't make a difference) except dust correction on the lowest setting.</p>

<p>Any ideas?</p>

<p>EDIT: white specks disappeared with dust correction on highest level, but still cloudy.</p>

<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/gItD9pT.jpg" alt="" width="1136" height="757" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/P2mQHpc.jpg" alt="" width="1130" height="760" /></p>

<p>I wish I could try that but it's been returned.</p>

<p>Ohwells</p>

<p>It seemed like the price of just a used body, but unfortunately it didn't come with the factory grip, so I can't try that. But can the grip alone be at fault when it works fine without a lens?</p>

<p>Took it to the local camera shop. Tried another lens, same problem, then tried my lens on their body (t3i, i thinks) and it worked fine. So body's the fault.</p>

<p>Also, maybe a completely unrelated issue, but the 45 red focusing zones sit just outside of the ellipse in the viewfinder. Could the focusing screen be shot?</p>

<p>It only happens when the lens is attached, it works fine without it. Batteries are brand new.</p>

<p>Well, the body and lens came from Montana and Philadelphia respectively, although that is stretching it. I did try and cleaning both contacts with rubbing alcohol and a cleaning cloth, as recommended by multiple google results, to no avail.<br>

I definitely will try putting another lens on there, once I get the chance.</p>

<p>I just bought a Canon EOS 3 (w/ PB-E2 grip) and EF 28-105 USM lens on ebay, supposedly in perfect working order. I am receiving a 'bc' error every time I press the shutter release button, and it only goes away when I press it again. During the error, the mirror is locked up. <br>

However, once I remove the lens, the shutter fires just fine. Also, (lens attached) in Av mode, the aperture cannot be modified (stuck at '00'), and will not autofocus whatsoever. <br>

I've been researching possible causes to the 'bc' error for the EOS 3 (excluding batteries, mine are new). Found this page: <a href="http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=BCerror">http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=BCerror</a>, user named 'James' seems to have identified a very similar problem, but it involves removing the front cover of the body, which I am hesitant to do.<br>

I want to say the lens is my problem, since it seems to function well without it, but am curious to what you guys think the problem might be.<br>

Thanks</p>