Unidentified Problem - Need Help!

[Robert Kalman]

In a sequence of four, Ilford hp5plus 8x10 negatives I have a weird, ghost like pattern on 3 of them that I can't explain. (see photos)
All of the portraits were made in the same spot, same time of day. No other negatives from that day have any defect

> When I saw the first negative in the sequence, I thought perhaps the film holder was faulty, or that I had some kind of light leak in the holder.
> The second negative in the sequence does not have the defect
> The third and fourth negatives show the same defect and are almost identical to negative #1. (The 4th negative was made because I thought the person blinked when negative #3 was exposed).

I have ruled out that the problem was introduced during film processing because the sawtooth pattern is absolutely the same in Negs 3 & 4. A chemical problem would look different.
I believe the problem was introduced at the time of exposure, like something was obstructing the lens. Could it be bellows sag? But if that's the case, why is Negative #2 okay?

The images have been scanned at 1200dpi, but they have not been edited. So what you're seeing is an unmanipulated, uncorrected image.

I'm really stumped and could use your help in figuring out what caused the defect.

Thanks!
Robert

230634 230635 230636 230637


230638 230639 230640 230641

[Joshua Dunn]

Robert,

The third and fourth photographs most clearly demonstrate what's going on. The "sawtooth" pattern you are seeing is a tree line in the distance. The objects below it are parked cars. That means it had to have happened in camera, most likely during the exposure. I'm not exactly sure how, the subjects are in shade. Was there a reflective window nearby (reflecting the cars and tree line) that could have been causing some flare on the lens?

-Joshua

[koraks]

Well spotted, Joshua.

My bet is on a pinhole in the bellows or somewhere else close to the front stand/lens board, on the right-hand side of the camera if you stand behind it. It effectively created a pinhole camera that overlayed an image on top of the regular exposure.
Why #2 doesn't have it can have several explanations; perhaps the pinhole was sufficiently obscured (photographer standing beside camera?) or the dark slide was out of the film holder for a shorter period of time. Even a passing cloud could have made the difference.

[Robert Kalman]

Robert,

The third and fourth photographs most clearly demonstrate what's going on. The "sawtooth" pattern you are seeing is a tree line in the distance. The objects below it are parked cars. That means it had to have happened in camera, most likely during the exposure. I'm not exactly sure how, the subjects are in shade. Was there a reflective window nearby (reflecting the cars and tree line) that could have been causing some flare on the lens?

-Joshua

Actually, you may have hit upon it, Joshua. My assistant was holding a silver reflector just to the person's right. There was a parking lot in bright sunlight off to the person's left. I think the parking lot got mirrored off the reflector and onto the dark pants of #3 & #4 and the dark skirt of #1. The reflection off the pants/skirt bounced itself into the lens. It didn't show up in #2 because her pants are white. Seems logical now. Thanks!!

[Joshua Dunn]

Robert,

I thought of that however given that the image (meaning the cars and tree line) has some definition I didn't think it was a pinhole. It's possible but the hole would have to be very small and at the right distance from the film plane to be that focused.

-Joshua

[Robert Kalman]

Well spotted, Joshua.

My bet is on a pinhole in the bellows or somewhere else close to the front stand/lens board, on the right-hand side of the camera if you stand behind it. It effectively created a pinhole camera that overlayed an image on top of the regular exposure.
Why #2 doesn't have it can have several explanations; perhaps the pinhole was sufficiently obscured (photographer standing beside camera?) or the dark slide was out of the film holder for a shorter period of time. Even a passing cloud could have made the difference.

Seems like a reasonable explanation. No other negatives taken after these have any evidence of the same ghosting effect. So I think I can rule out a pinhole. Thanks for reasoning it out and helping me eliminate the presence of a pinhole.

[Robert Kalman]

Robert,

I thought of that however given that the image (meaning the cars and tree line) has some definition I didn't think it was a pinhole. It's possible but the hole would have to be very small and at the right distance from the film plane to be that focused.

-Joshua

I have no experience with pinholes, but if there was one present wouldn't it need an exposure in minutes to register an image on film? I would have thought a pinhole would have simply introduced a light streak or flare.

[nolindan]

I vote pinhole (or some other lens-like exposure). The reasons I discount the reflector theory are:

1) The image on the subjects' legs does not follow the contours of the legs;

2) The image from negative-to-negative is always in the same place, something that would not happen with a hand-held reflector;

3) If the reflector was the source of the imaging then the image on the subjects' legs would be upside-down.

4) The ghost only shows up on dark clothing and is not present in image #2 where the clothing is white. If this were a projected image it would show up on white clothing and not on dark clothing. The reason it doesn't show up in the second image is the light colored clothing has overpowered the ghost image.

The problem can't be in the film holders as the problem is identical in all the examples.

That leaves a pinhole in the camera. Did anything in the vicinity resemble the ghost images' tree-line and sky? There was a case similar to this that was the result of a pinhole in the lens mount, but in that case it caused a ghost of the subject. In this case the pinhole would have to be in the bellows. Pinhole images are 'in focus' independent of pinhole-to-film distance.

There are other possible reasons - somehow the film was exposed to a projected image in processing. Not sure how that would happen - does the ghost image resemble the environs of the darkroom (I admit that is quite a stretch)?

[koraks]

Indeed @nolindan, I agree with your analysis. I don't think a reflector image would turn up like this; for starters, the reflector would have to be a mirror like you'd typically find in a telescope. And then there's the other arguments against it.

[ic-racer]

If you shutter speed for the exposure was, for example 1/125 of a second, the pinhole exposure would need about 10 seconds.

[Robert Kalman]

I vote pinhole (or some other lens-like exposure). The reasons I discount the reflector theory are:

1) The image on the subjects' legs does not follow the contours of the legs;

2) The image from negative-to-negative is always in the same place, something that would not happen with a hand-held reflector;

3) If the reflector was the source of the imaging then the image on the subjects' legs would be upside-down.

4) The ghost only shows up on dark clothing and is not present in image #2 where the clothing is white. If this were a projected image it would show up on white clothing and not on dark clothing. The reason it doesn't show up in the second image is the light colored clothing has overpowered the ghost image.

The problem can't be in the film holders as the problem is identical in all the examples.

That leaves a pinhole in the camera. Did anything in the vicinity resemble the ghost images' tree-line and sky? There was a case similar to this that was the result of a pinhole in the lens mount, but in that case it caused a ghost of the subject. In this case the pinhole would have to be in the bellows. Pinhole images are 'in focus' independent of pinhole-to-film distance.

There are other possible reasons - somehow the film was exposed to a projected image in processing. Not sure how that would happen - does the ghost image resemble the environs of the darkroom (I admit that is quite a stretch)?

This is persuasive, Nicholas, particularly because I checked the bellows and found a few pinholes. Needless to say, I'm all set to repair them. Thanks!!

[Bernice Loui]

Suggest replacing the bellows with pin holes. Patch-up is temp band-aid at best. Bellows patches can fail when least expected causing more ruined images, wasted resources, time and LOTs more.. Patching up leaky bellows is very much "penny wise, pound foolish"... false economy in the bigger picture.


Bernice




This is persuasive, Nicholas, particularly because I checked the bellows and found a few pinholes. Needless to say, I'm all set to repair them. Thanks!!

[Robert Kalman]

Suggest replacing the bellows with pin holes. Patch-up is temp band-aid at best. Bellows patches can fail when least expected causing more ruined images, wasted resources, time and LOTs more.. Patching up leaky bellows is very much "penny wise, pound foolish"... false economy in the bigger picture.


Bernice

Thanks for this. I agree with you in principle, but I have no idea where I can replace an 8x10 Ebony bellows since the company no longer exists. Any suggestions?

[mike rosenlof]

I partially, but not 100% agree with Bernice. A small number of holes can be patched, but in a perfect world, replacement is the way to go.

Richard Ritter or Keith Canham might be able to help you out with replacement bellows. Maybe, but not for sure. Canham does a fair bit of custom work for various ULF formats and so on, so I would be surprised if he wouldn't handle this.

[chaspics]

The pinhole explanation does seem plausible, but the exposure between open shade and direct sunlight could explain how you could have reasonable exposure from both. The pinholes would need to be a pretty large diameter. The extra image is not as in focus as I would expect from a well made pinhole. If you can fit the thickest part of a toothpick in the hole, it could be large enough to create the exposure, and would explain the very soft focus.
As for repairing the pinholes (though I agree replacing the bellows is the best course of action), I have some that have lasted decades. I used the black liquid rubber used for dipping tool handles in. Today I'd try one of the new flexible seal products available. Flexseal and Rustoleum are two I think of. Applying inside or out won't make much deference, just make sure that the product is COMPLETELY DRY before compressing the bellows. I'd give it a couple days. If it is at all tacky, it will stick to itself and could cause a bigger problem.
Best of luck. No one wants to admit a re-shoot is needed.
Chas

[Bernice Loui]

Custom Bellows in the UK:
http://www.custombellows.co.uk

e-Tone in China. Had them make a Linhof TK23s bellows some time ago, it has been absolutely problem free and does what a good bellows should.
https://www.etonephoto.com/collections/camera-accessories

Long as the bellows frames are good, replacing the bellows is not too difficult and the proper course of action.

Circa 90's ruined a set of images due to trying to patch a 5x7 Sinar Norma bellow past it's service life. The patch-up failed, ruined 6 sheets of Agfachrome RS100.. never again at ANY cost. Sinar was easy as there were plenty of complete replacement bellows available back then.

Might cost a few hundred U$D to get a proper replacement bellows for your 8x10 Ebony.. consider the cost of wasted film/processing and all related. Top of all that images ruined by light leaky bellows. Patch might work, unitl that patch fails when least expected and least wanted.. followed by utter and total frustration..


Bernice







Thanks for this. I agree with you in principle, but I have no idea where I can replace an 8x10 Ebony bellows since the company no longer exists. Any suggestions?

[Willie]

If you do go the patch route it would pay to learn "The Morley Baer Wrap" for the camera. Baer was using an older 8x10 with a lot of light leaks in the bellows. He would focus, compose and before exposing the film wrap the camera with his dark cloth. Apparently this worked for him for a few years.

Custom Bellows in the UK is top notch. Good quality and easy to work with.

[Joshua Dunn]

Robert,

If you want to eliminate pinholes as a possibility, setup you camera in direct sun. Focus on something close (you want a fair amount of bellows extension) but flat and a darker color, like a brick wall. Use your smallest aperture to increase the exposure time. Make one exposure, then cover the bellows entirely with something. If your dark cloth is large enough use it. Just make sure the bellows don't sag enough that it obscures the lens. Make a second exposure. Process both and see if there are any differences in the negatives.

-Joshua

[esearing]

I'll throw this out there - hole in the reflector projecting a sharp image onto the person in the same way that trees create bright circles during an eclipse, but that would likely be upside down. Or some other reflective object doing it like the glass face of a watch or cellphone or even mirrored sunglasses.

If a pinhole, You can put a flashlight inside your bellows in a darkroom and check for pinholes.

[koraks]

I'll throw this out there - hole in the reflector projecting a sharp image onto the person in the same way that trees create bright circles during an eclipse, but that would likely be upside down.

Not only that, there's no way a pinhole projection would ever come even close to matching the scene's brightness.

[rjbuzzclick]

With a pinhole in the bellows, the pinhole portion of the exposure would start when the dark slide is pulled and is independent of the actual shutter speed used. If there was less time between pulling the dark slide and making the exposure for shot #2 than the other shots, that could explain the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ic-racer]

Not only that, there's no way a pinhole projection would ever come even close to matching the scene's brightness.
Just like any other light leak, a pinhole will expose to the film from the moment the darkslide is removed. Could be hours or seconds. The camera's shutter has nothing to do with it.

[koraks]

@ic-racer my post was in reply to the one above it. Read it in its context and it does make sense. Have a look.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have no idea where I can replace an 8x10 Ebony bellows since the company no longer exists. Any suggestions?

The sources others have mentioned, especially Custom Bellows, will probably be your best bet. Nonetheless, given how supple and aromatic Ebony leather bellows are, I made an attempt to contact Hiromi and find out how you might get replacements from his bellows supplier in Tokyo. My message to Ian Wilson went unanswered. Richard Sexton replied that he didn't have any means of reaching Hiromi, but mentioned that Jeff at Badger might. Finally, Jeff said he was told that Ebony didn't have an actual bellows supplier. Rather, it was explained to him that Hiromi bought the leather and had an older Japanese gentleman fold it into bellows.

Based on all that, I cry "uncle." I'd go with Custom Bellows.

[Rick A]

Reflection from the rear window of my Expedition that wasn't visible with lens wide open to focus, it happened when I stopped down. Wide open the lens angle of view is 90 deg, stopped down it's 100 deg.
Wollensak ExWA 8x10 1/50@ f 32

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49688178423_f7bdcf2c58_w_d.jpg