thomas_lee15

<p>Ok ive fixed the permissions (hopefully) on the last link i posted.<br> The general concensus here is a light leak but we still have some divided opinions here.<br> @James - yes it has been through an xray machine. In my head im hoping this is the cause rather than the camera.<br> So this weekend i will start testing by doing the following:<br> 1. Exposure with the lens covered and a bright light facing the front.<br> 2. Exposure with the lens covered and a bright light facing the back.<br> 3. Exposure with the lens racked all the way in.<br> 4. Exposure with the lens racked all the way out.<br> 5. Leave some blank film on the end of the roll to compare.<br> 6. Visual inspection of inside the camera with lamp attached to the lens/camera body.<br> 7. Placing lamp inside the camera and inpecting in a dark room.<br> 8. Repeat tests using new film from a different batch.</p>

<p>First of all, thank you for all the responses! As promised, here are some pictures (sorry i took them on a camera phone late last night) of the negatives. I can take more if required.<br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14056872947/sizes/l/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14056872947/sizes/l/in/set-72157644360931249/</a><br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14241226572/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14241226572/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/</a><br> We can clearly see the lines spanning across the negative in both the frame and between frames. The lines repeat throughout the entire role.</p> <p>Eager to get more information for you guys i went ahead an developed film that was still sitting in the camera taking extra care to make sure the reel was tight, and not exposed when removing it from the camera. In this shot, it backs up some peoples theories of a light leak:<br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14216739286/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14216739286/sizes/c/in/set-72157644360931249/</a></p> <p>I have some Ilford film turning up today hopefull so i can shoot a few frames and develop that to rule out the film. Whilst im at it i can check for light leaks. The linear nature of the lines suggests that its coming through the back of the camera where the door meet the body somewhere. I understand how one would test light leaks coming in from the front, but how would you test for light leaks coming in from the rear?</p>

<p>I will see if i can get some pictures / negative scan tonight to show more. Is it possible that this is x-ray damage? Im not familiar with what x-rays woud/can do to film. I ask because some of the rolls would have been purchased from different places and some have also been through hand luggage scanning (Though ASA400 film should remain relatively untouched from what ive read)</p>

<p>Hi Andrew. Its a Rolleiflex Model T. I had a similar thought but a leaf shutter wouldnt produce that kind of pattern, would it?</p>

<p>Good thought Jochen. The fluid levels were at the required 500ml for the 120 reel to be covered. The orientation of the lines on the negative are actually at a 90 degree angle to the level of the soup because the reels are on their flat side during development.</p>

<p>Hi all. Ive developed my first 5 rolls of 120 film. I followed the Ilford developing guide to the letter and whilst the first 2 rolls came out great, the last 3 all have the same stange pattern:<br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14236317545/sizes/c/in/photostream/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/113783075@N04/14236317545/sizes/c/in/photostream/</a><br> The pattern appears as white/clear lines on negatives. They span the entire width of the roll at regular intervals appearing mostly between frames and on the bottom half of the images (as above).<br> As i understand it, a light leak in the camera would show up as a dark area/line on the negative, not white as in this case. It would seem strange that this is a repeated developing mistake especially given the neat uniform lines its producing. What could this be?<br> Its almost as though the top of the image (above the lines) is over exposed, whilst the bottom half (below the line) is "normal".</p> <p> </p>