Mysterious curved lines in image

**Leonard Evens** · 26-Apr-2006, 07:36

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="content-type">
<title>question</title>
</head>
<body>
Can anyone explain what the curved lines below are?   They
definitely appear to be in the image and not a surface imperfection on
the negative.   What you see is a small section taken from a
4 x5 negative which was shot with a 90 mm lens at f/16,
1/60.   Note the blurring of parts of the curves.  
My first thought was that perhaps there were cables attached to the
structure blowing in the wind,  but there wasn't that much wind
that day, and in any case I took another picture of the same scene
several minutes later which doesn't show even a hint of these
curves.   Another possibility is fuzz of some sort in the
film holder.   The section is close to the edge of the frame
on the far side of the slide away from the slide handle.

<div style="text-align: center;">

</div>
</body>
</html>

**Walt Calahan** · 26-Apr-2006, 08:13

The little white spots are from dust when you scanned.

The big black line is a hair or other stringy bit to stuff on your film when you made the image. The object on your film blocked the light thus creating a shadow on your film which appears as a black irregular shape going in and out of focus. The further the object was from your film the more out of foucs it is.

Clean clean clean, but it still happens to almost everyone from time to time.

Hey that's why the invented the cloning tool and healing brush in PhotoShop. Grin.

**Al Seyle** · 26-Apr-2006, 08:30

I agree with Walter. But why does the sky change color around the subject(s)? Is this something in the scanning process?

**Leonard Evens** · 26-Apr-2006, 09:16

Thanks for the comments.

I know what the white spots are. I am very careful about dust, and my b/w negatives require very little or no spotting. But I have my color negatives done at a commercial photo lab, and while they are pretty good, they don't do as well as I do. Still, if you magnify enough, which was the case here, you are bound to see some spots. It is just not worth the effort to remove them all if they won't show up in any plausible print.

I know all about cloning, and I've already removed the offending material from the full image.

One of my first thoughts was that the extraneous lines were from hairs in the film holder, and I suppose that must be the explanation. But I always follow the same procedure, checking my holders caerfully before loading, and I've never seen anything like this before. Although extraneous hairs is the most plausible explanation. I wondered if anyone could think of another possibility.

The halo that Al noticed results from sharpening. It is not in the original scan which was done with an Epson 3200 scanner. The section shown is about 10 x 20 mm from a 96 x 120 mm full frame. I applied an unsharp mask without too much care to empahsize the extraneous curves. Usually I don't bother to apply any sharpening or I do so very carefully. It is also possible to remove the halos, if absolutely necessary, by careful cloning. I have sometimes done that in cases where you couldn't see it at any reasonable magnification for a final print but where it still seemed to have a subtle effect on the image.

**Walt Calahan** · 26-Apr-2006, 09:26

We all try to clean clean clean, but some times the simple act of removing the dark slide can dislodge a loose hair into the air and have it settle on the film.

Also the film can get a charge, so when the dark slide is removed, the film attracts dust and hairs floating into the camera. Good to vacuum out the inside of one's bellows from time to time.

Then there is simply bad luck. The story of my life. HA!

**steve simmons** · 26-Apr-2006, 09:37

I would agree that the black is casued by that area of the film not being exposed. Something was in front of the film but close to it - otherwise the lines would be more diffuse.

On another note, Leonard, I sent you a private e-mail. Did you get it?

thanks

steve simmons

**GPS** · 26-Apr-2006, 09:44

It's definitely not hair in the image. It's some kind of a cotton or textile fibre. It could have come from where you place the film holders or just been blown into it.

**Patrik Roseen** · 26-Apr-2006, 09:50

If it is like you say that you had this developed in a lab ...the 'hair' could have come from the developer tank. If it sticks to the film during development the negative will not get developed in this area which means it will look as if the underlying film did not receive any light during exposure. It could have come off later in the process (in the rinse). The fuzziness in the top of the picture could be the 'item' moving, i.e. not attaching as firmly as the other parts. Is this 'hair' close to the markings where the film was held during development.

I myself give my development tank some extra shake now and then to make sure that any particles attaching to the film, from the time I take the undeveloped film out of the holder until it get's into the developer, don't stay there during the full development cycle.

I also carefully vacuum my camera bellows and try to make sure that 'things' do not enter the front of the bellows while changing lensboards.

**Wilbur Wong** · 26-Apr-2006, 11:05

I agree with hair or some kind of fiber. Where it is fuzzy is probably the fiber being further away from the film surface thereby being out of focus.

I have to admit that the particular location of these "lines" look very suspiciously emanating from the top of this building. (I am guessing that I am seeing glass cleaner platforms etc. and that this isn't really a dedicated transmission tower with ufo type transmissions)

In a side note, I once had a series of jagged light streaks across color slides from a 35 mm and motor drive. I finally figured they were static electricity discharges during low temperature low humidity conditions with a rapid film movement.

**Leonard Evens** · 26-Apr-2006, 12:43

After reading all your answers, I've decided it must have been a fine "net" of fibers or hairs which somehow got between the flap of the film holder and the film. But it is surprising how thin it must have been. At 3200 ppi, which is about 125 pixels per mm, it is about 5 pixels wide. That means the debris, whatever it was, was about 0.04 mm or 40 microns wide. That seems more consistent with very thin human hair than with thread.

Another interesting note. The tower from which the threads seem to emanate is part of new construction in our downtown, and it seems to produce some quite high winds. At various times, they do have cables flying about in the wind, so at first glance, it was not inconceivable that what I saw was actually in the scene. Given that the wind was not specially high that day and it was missing from another exposure taken minutes later, that possibility was excluded. But it does emphasize that sometimes it may be difficult to distinguish something in the scene from an artifact produce in this or another way.

Thread: Mysterious curved lines in image

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display