What happened?

[kenj8246]

Overlooking the quality of the images, has anyone seen anything similar? Two sheets of TriX 320 from the same box shot one behind the other with same exposure, just flipped the orientation. A suggestion over on rangefinderforum was that I may have put the sheet in the holder bassackwards and that's entirely possible. What say you?

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8647/16694362222_085f8b3a30_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rrdYgq)Lee County courthouse (https://flic.kr/p/rrdYgq) by kenj8246 (https://www.flickr.com/people/26579173@N08/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8598/16073088504_60db06d4d6_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qujMeA)Lee County courthouse (https://flic.kr/p/qujMeA) by kenj8246 (https://www.flickr.com/people/26579173@N08/), on Flickr

Kenny

[diversey]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/mistakes.html#9

Once you have shot your film backwards, it will appear underexposed by 2 or 4 stops, and if you are shooting color it will have a predominant red color cast because it has been filtered by the base. Color film is ruined. B&W can be salvaged: " Develop in a very active developer such as Xtol or Microphen -- use a concentrated dilution, not a weak one, particularly with Xtol -- and add 30-40% to the standard development time for your film. It'll be okay. Thor Lancelot Simon

[Lachlan 717]

How do the film notches compare?

[Doremus Scudder]

I take it you are referring to the overall grey cast and the lack of contrast in the second photo.

You may have a light leak; more specifically, a pinhole in the bellows toward the front of the camera or a leak in/around the lensboard or front standard. Leaks like these cause overall fogging which can be mild to severe depending on light intensity.

If you had loaded your film backwards, the image would be reversed.

Good luck,

Doremus

[Bernard_L]

If you had loaded your film backwards, the image would be reversed.
Can't conclude from posted image, which may have been flipped again when scanning.

Anti halation layer for b/w film should normally be so opaque that a reversed image would be more severely underexposed than what is posted; but then again, it is seen only "as-scanned".

[koraks]

Scanners tend to auto-adjust exposure, so it's hard to judge actual negative density and contrast. But the second image does look similar to the scans I have seen and made of extremely thin negatives. The banding pattern is generally the result of a very weak signal (low negative contrast) being amplified in post processing, bringing out the imperfections of the scanning process. Visual inspection could confirm or disprove if this is indeed a very thin negative.

[kenj8246]

How do the film notches compare?

Wasn't paying attention as I unloaded the holder, I'm afraid. As I mentioned in the OP, it is possible that I dropped the sheet while in the bag and put it in backwards.

[kenj8246]

I take it you are referring to the overall grey cast and the lack of contrast in the second photo.

You may have a light leak; more specifically, a pinhole in the bellows toward the front of the camera or a leak in/around the lensboard or front standard. Leaks like these cause overall fogging which can be mild to severe depending on light intensity.

If you had loaded your film backwards, the image would be reversed.

Good luck,

Doremus

Actually I was thinking more of the regular 'pattern' in the sky portions, particularly, of the developed negative. The grey cast and lack of contrast are part of it, for sure.

[kenj8246]

As I took the negative out of the tank, it was so dense--I should probably say dark--I had to hold it up to light to even see if it had anything on it. Was thinking briefly that I'd forgotten to remove the slide when I exposed it.

[Jmarmck]

Scanners tend to auto-adjust exposure, so it's hard to judge actual negative density and contrast. But the second image does look similar to the scans I have seen and made of extremely thin negatives. The banding pattern is generally the result of a very weak signal (low negative contrast) being amplified in post processing, bringing out the imperfections of the scanning process. Visual inspection could confirm or disprove if this is indeed a very thin negative.
+1

If the sheet was in backwards, put the two negs side by side with the same visual orientation. Are the notches in the same corners?

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps it is gross overexposure due to a sticky shutter. The texture in the sky might be digital artifacts from the scanning process.

[ic-racer]

The lower print lacks contrast. Are they printed with the same exposure and paper grade? What do the negatives look like?

[kenj8246]

The lower print lacks contrast. Are they printed with the same exposure and paper grade? What do the negatives look like?

These are scans, not prints. I described the negative a few posts up.

[koraks]

Given the description, it sounds like gross overexposure. Since there is no evidence of light leaks, it could be one of the following options:
* Shutter didn't close properly
* Shutter is way off calibration (unlikely due to the huge amount of overexposure)
* You mistakenly opened the shutter into preview mode before re-inserting the dark slide.
My money is on option #3.

[djdister]

These are scans, not prints. I described the negative a few posts up.

Here's a thought - scan both at the same time, side by side on the glass. Adjust scanning parameters for the "good" negative, which will then show how the bad neg compares to it. Then there will be less guessing going on...

[kenj8246]

Given the description, it sounds like gross overexposure. Since there is no evidence of light leaks, it could be one of the following options:
* Shutter didn't close properly
* Shutter is way off calibration (unlikely due to the huge amount of overexposure)
* You mistakenly opened the shutter into preview mode before re-inserting the dark slide.
My money is on option #3.

I think we have a winner! I DO have a bad habit of not closing the shutter after preview and focus but inserting the filmholder just the same. Very highly likely, indeed.

Kenny

[djdister]

I think we have a winner! I DO have a bad habit of not closing the shutter after preview and focus but inserting the filmholder just the same. Very highly likely, indeed.

Kenny

If the shutter had been left open then exposure would have been controlled by the removal and reinsertion of the dark slide, usually resulting in some visible side to side unevenness in the negative. Also, exposure by dark slide removal has a tendency to be show some camera movement in the subject due to the pulling/pushing of the dark slide, but none of that is obvious in the bad shot.

[Jmarmck]

It would also have been blurry as a drunk's vision on New Years Eve.

[Vaughn]

Or forgot to close lens down after composing for the horizontal. That would take care of camera shake that happens if one does not close the lens (preview). I tried to see if the DoF changed, but could not.

[Jim Jones]

It would also have been blurry as a drunk's vision on New Years Eve.

One of the flags at the lower left might be blurred out. That's assuming that a tripod was used. That seems likely, seeing how well the photo is composed.

[Doremus Scudder]

Kenny,

A couple of things:

First, the pattern you see in the sky on the bad negative is a scanning artifact. If you examine the negative, you'll see it's not there.

If your negative is as dense as you say, then, yes, it's overexposed. However, in contrast to many of the above posts, I'm still going to have you look for light leaks at the front of your camera (bellows corners, lensboard, lens, etc.). I had a similar problem a couple of years ago: the odd negative would come out grossly overexposed and fogged. I, too, thought it may have simply been a mistake like not closing the preview before exposing, etc. However, the culprit turned out to be a couple of small pinholes in the corner of my bellows that didn't leak light till I had a lot of rise applied to the front standard. Looking back, all the bad negs over a couple of years were shots with lots of front rise. After the repair, no more problems.

Extend your bellows fully, mount the lens, take your camera into the dark and put a light inside it. A bare light bulb works best, but a flashlight will work too. Examine front corners and the lensboard/mount.

And, yes, it could just be that you forgot to close the preview lever, but better safe than sorry.

Best,

Doremus

[kenj8246]

Thanks for all the interest, folks. Much appreciated. This Cambo 45SR looked to be almost unused when I got it from KEH last year. To be honest, I have not checked it for light leaks but, given circumstances and Doremus' last post(I tend to use front rise often with this Fuji 90 because I can and because it has a generous image circle), I will do so now. Ounce of prevention and all that. :) Thanks, Doremus.

[kenj8246]

Curiouser and curiouser. I tested my Cambo for light leaks and was unable to discern any, even with varying degrees of rise and fall. The thing seems pretty darned light tight. Guess I'll file this one away under 'WTF' and keep an eye on it. Thanks again, folks, much appreciated.

Kenny

[Fred L]

can you post a picture of both negs ?

[kenj8246]

can you post a picture of both negs ?

Not easily, Fred. While I'm still curious, my level of curiosity is waning somewhat. :)

[Fred L]

fwiw, it doesn't look like the result of any bellows leaks I've ever had. Was it ever determined if the film was inserted flipped (i.e.-notches don't match up with picture).

[kenj8246]

fwiw, it doesn't look like the result of any bellows leaks I've ever had. Was it ever determined if the film was inserted flipped (i.e.-notches don't match up with picture).

I don't know how to determine that. Didn't pay any attention to where the notches were when I unloaded the film; where the emulsion side was, I just don't know.

[Jmarmck]

See post # 10 of this thread

[Tim Meisburger]

It doesn't matter that you did not pay attention to where the notches were when you unloaded the film, if you still have the negatives. You can check them any time.

I think you forgot to stop down after focusing.

[kenj8246]

+1

If the sheet was in backwards, put the two negs side by side with the same visual orientation. Are the notches in the same corners?

No, Marty, they are not where they are supposed to be. They're in opposite corners, meaning, I think, that I did indeed load--and expose--the sheet assbackwards. I wonder now, if anyone has made a habit of doing that. Shooting on the other side of the film, I mean. Neither shot is anything to crow about but, to be honest, I actually like that sheet better.

Kenny

[kenj8246]

It doesn't matter that you did not pay attention to where the notches were when you unloaded the film, if you still have the negatives. You can check them any time.

I think you forgot to stop down after focusing.

The only difference, other than shooting on the wrong side of the film, is that after exposing the first, I just rotated the back, slapped the holder again, cocked the shutter and pressed the cable release. No further focusing or anything.

[djdister]

Its real simple - if the negative is really thin density, then you loaded the film backwards and tried to expose through the back. But, you said the neg is really dense, so instead you overexposed the heck out of it by forgetting to stop down or giving it way too much exposure time.

Its certainly not a bellows leak - that would show up as an obscuring streak of density without detail, and it would destroy your image detail.

[kenj8246]

...you said the neg is really dense...

I didn't specifically say the negative was dense, I said it was so dark when I pulled it from the tank that I couldn't tell whether I had an image on it. If that's dense, then yeah, it's hellaciously dense. When I scan it(using Vuescan) with its' mate--the shot before it--its' preview doesn't even show until I drag the selection over it.

Kenny

[Jim Andrada]

Regardless of the F. U. I kind of like the pictures. But I'm a bit puzzled by the perspectives which seem different for theTower and the building proper.

[kenj8246]

Regardless of the F. U. I kind of like the pictures. But I'm a bit puzzled by the perspectives which seem different for theTower and the building proper.

It do look funny don't it? All I can say is that this was a Fuji f5.6 90SW up pretty close with, at least, some front rise.

[Jim Andrada]

I sort of thought it might be a wide angle up close - looked like a bit of fish-eye effect. Wouldn't have expected it with a 90mm though.

I still rather like the picture though.

[Jmarmck]

The perspectives changed when the back was rotated. To me the second image has too much tilt making the top of the building wider. I can see this happening when setup for landscape then rotating the back.......and loading the sheet backwards.