How is this remotely possible

[Raffay]

What could have gone wrong here, beats me.
108397

The first negative on the left I shot sometime back and it is securely place in my folder. The one on the right I exposed last weekend, when i developed it I thought the negative had been scratched but when i scanned it this negative had double exposure of the briefcase picture, How is this possible?

But I am very happy with the exposure and development of the one on the right, am i rightly happy Bill?

excuse the quality of the picture posted, i snapped it with my blackberry off the monitor.

Cheers
Raffay

[brucep]

Can you provide more facts? What camera did you use? What film?
Was it all loaded at the same time?
Could you have put 2 sheets into one side of a film holder, removed the top one then re exposed the bottom shee

[Raffay]

Polaroid 110B converted 4x5
First negative Rollie ortho second of family kodak t-max
No did not load at the same time
That's the only explanation possible two loaded on top of each other...if not ghosts are in play :)

[mdm]

Not fixed properly, the 2 developed negatives were together with the first on top and exposed to the sun, briefcase burnt into the 2nd negative. This could happen as soon as you turned the lights on, even before they were removed from the fixer tray. Tmax requires a lot of fixing in hypo, apparently 3x the clearing time.

[Darin Boville]

Not fixed properly, the 2 developed negatives were together with the first on top and exposed to the sun, briefcase burnt into the 2nd negative. This could happen as soon as you turned the lights on, even before they were removed from the fixer tray. Tmax requires a lot of fixing in hypo, apparently 3x the clearing time.

But then would the second image be reversed from the first? The case seems match up tonally on both negs.

The only possible answer I see is human error--you simply double exposed the second one in the traditional way. If you look at the carpet in the first neg and then rotate that image to match up with the case in the second neg you will immediately see that in the second neg there is an image of carpeting that *exceeds* what is in the first neg. You don't see the edge of the neg, you just see more carpeting. So that image of the case, in the second neg, must have come from the actual scene vs some sort of darkroom error.

--Darin

[mdm]

That depends which way the top negative was placed, emulsion up or down. I just know from experience with tmax 400 that you can get fogging when fixing in hypo.

[Raffay]

But now I am using kodak fixer.

[AtlantaTerry]

That depends which way the top negative was placed, emulsion up or down. I just know from experience with tmax 400 that you can get fogging when fixing in hypo.

Is that not then a good reason to use a weak acid stop bath? That way no developer will be present to fog the film.

›

May I ask you where Southland, New is?

[mdm]

If it is not a double exposure then what are the options?

[Bill Burk]

mdm,

If it were ghost from exposure in tray due to continued developing while in fixer bath while two negatives were sandwiched... It would be a positive image, and likely blurred. I am sure that can be ruled out.

Raffay,

You probably have standard film holders with two sides. You thought you took one picture of the briefcase, but I think you took a picture of the briefcase, turned the holder over, took another picture of the briefcase to be sure you got it... Then forgot about the second exposure because it "felt" like you only took one shot.

Then one of two things happened... You either exposed again on the same side of the holder (because with these conversions, it's normal to leave the film holder in the camera ready for the next shot)...

Or you flipped the holder to expose the other side, completely forgetting about the fact that you already used it.

There are threads here about whether black or silver side out on the dark slide is standard for telling whether or not the side has been used. No standard exists and there isn't even a clever saying that helps you remember.

So I think you double-exposed the film.

If you like the way it looks you can be happy. Many times a double exposure may not be what you had in mind, but it can still make you happy.

As for exposure/development, it's hard to say because the first exposure added to the second and it makes it hard to evaluate.

[Raffay]

Bill I think your two picture theory seems to be the case.

[Darin Boville]

Hey! That way *my* theory from post #5, and I offered proof!

Grrrr, Bill. I know (sort of, in a general way) where you live!

--Darin

[mdm]

The taliban are coming for you.

[Bill Burk]

Darin, You're right first, and your proof helped the story.

Raffay - to contrast how far apart you and I are on the planet... It must be hard to imagine... Darin and I could shoot spitwads at each other.

[Darin Boville]

Darin and I could shoot spitwads at each other.

Yuk.

--Darin