Artifact (dark ray) on Negative

[Tim Povlick]

Greetings,

Was out hiking this past weekend with a Crown Graflex 4x5 with Schneider 135mm lens. The scan attached shows a ray across the image. I was thinking it was a light leak but it's darker and not lighter as one would expect. The holder is a Toyo. The sun was just over my right shoulder so it would have leaked into the holder at the dark slide. I've checked for bellows light leak and it's 100% tight. Not sure what this is.

There are a lot of problems with dust on this image as the holder managed to drop a short distance into the very dry / dusty ground. I realize the foreground is a bit of waste but walking into heavy brush with rattlers about wasn't a risk worth it.

_ .. --
TiM

[Vaughn]

What is your development process? It is nice to have all the info before we start guessing.

[Tim Povlick]

What is your development process? It is nice to have all the info before we start guessing.

Yes, that might help... I used a Combi tank, this was only negative in tank. Developer was R09 one shot mixed 50:1. Development time was about 10 minutes with agitation about every two minutes. The Combi works well and I've not had this problem with it. Also use a Jobo 3010 but didn't use it for this go.

Thanks

Tim

[ic-racer]

The posted image of the film is showing up as a positive on my screen. Either way it is likely the cable release.

[Tim Povlick]

The posted image of the film is showing up as a positive on my screen. Either way it is likely the cable release.

Interesting... For this image with the Crown Graphic I used the side mounted shutter release. I think the cable is pretty much out of the way but your idea of something in front of the lens makes a lot of sense. Perhaps a small twig was in the way, or something like that.

We'll call this one solved! Thanks very much for your help.

Best Regards,

Tim

[Louis Pacilla]

The posted image of the film is showing up as a positive on my screen. Either way it is likely the cable release.

+1

[banjo]

yes been there done that camera strap or cable release.

[Vaughn]

I disagree -- I think it was a long exposure and a large black eagle diving down to get a rattlesnake on its way to bite Tim. ;)

[John Koehrer]

It just wasn't his time! =)

[jim steines]

sorry for the thread hijack but I also have odd artefacts in my image. This photo, my 2nd ever in LF, was taken at night and developed in the day using a homemade tube. I cant for the life of me understand the light pattern, what could have caused that? The one obvious thing to me is maybe when I swapped from developer to acid stop, but the negative didnt even leave the tube and light was getting in for less than a second, unlike how he does it in the BTZS videos.
I took my watch off and transferred the film at both steps in a dark bag in a dark room.
Maybe the holder is faulty? TR hot spot is a street light.
it's odd how the two horizontal lines both end on the diagonal where the deck ends (this was taken looking off a deck. the silhouette is an off spotlight, the large squarish white thing below is a broken table top).

Also, bottom right, I suspect those are developing marks. Agitation was hard for 10 seconds, then 6 rpm, directions changed every minute for 12 mins, rodinal 1/50.

[E. von Hoegh]

sorry for the thread hijack but I also have odd artefacts in my image. This photo, my 2nd ever in LF, was taken at night and developed in the day using a homemade tube. I cant for the life of me understand the light pattern, what could have caused that? The one obvious thing to me is maybe when I swapped from developer to acid stop, but the negative didnt even leave the tube and light was getting in for less than a second, unlike how he does it in the BTZS videos.
I took my watch off and transferred the film at both steps in a dark bag in a dark room.
Maybe the holder is faulty? TR hot spot is a street light.
it's odd how the two horizontal lines both end on the diagonal where the deck ends (this was taken looking off a deck. the silhouette is an off spotlight, the large squarish white thing below is a broken table top).

Also, bottom right, I suspect those are developing marks. Agitation was hard for 10 seconds, then 6 rpm, directions changed every minute for 12 mins, rodinal 1/50.

"light was getting in for less than a second" There's your answer. Until the film is fixed, it is light sensitive.

[jim steines]

Fred Newman, the guy in the BTZS demo video, removes the negatives from the tubes and places them in a stopbath in light, and says that he has never had an issue, even on the tests he used for the filming of the video with a very bright softbox just out of frame.
The trick is that the developed film loses much of its sensitivity to light, and even if it does get a decent exposure the 1 or less second the developer has to act before the process is halted is not enough time to fog the image. Apparently. Many people claim this to be true.

[E. von Hoegh]

Fred Newman, the guy in the BTZS demo video, removes the negatives from the tubes and places them in a stopbath in light, and says that he has never had an issue, even on the tests he used for the filming of the video with a very bright softbox just out of frame.
The trick is that the developed film loses much of its sensitivity to light, and even if it does get a decent exposure the 1 or less second the developer has to act before the process is halted is not enough time to fog the image. Apparently. Many people claim this to be true.

Yeah. I'll stick to processing mine in the dark.:rolleyes: This is the first I've heard in 35+ years of developing film that it's OK to flash unfixed film.

[jim steines]

From what I've read there is generally an uproar among his students when he first shows them, but they learn its not an issue. The same seems to be the experience of anyone else that tries it. I will of course try it in the dark, but there are just too many variables I'm dealing with given I've just started. So that's not a common light leak pattern?

[E. von Hoegh]

From what I've read there is generally an uproar among his students when he first shows them, but they learn its not an issue. The same seems to be the experience of anyone else that tries it. I will of course try it in the dark, but there are just too many variables I'm dealing with given I've just started. So that's not a common light leak pattern?

I've no idea what it is, actually. I'd have said it was a double exposure of something out of focus and ill-defined, plus someone waving a penlight around. The vertical bands might be fogging/lightleak.

One thing you will learn rapidly is that LF requires a large monetary, temporal, and intellectual investment. If you want to use sloppy procedures, go right ahead.
I would reccomend measuring and controlling everything possible, and taking notes of the process from loading the sheet of film to the final printing. Get and use a proper lightmeter, stick to one film and developer until you are familiar with the basic steps to the point that they are second nature. There is much good information on the homepage of this site.

[Fred L]

looks like some type of processing artifact to me. possible contamination of that part of the negative somehow ?

[jim steines]

I don't want to use sloppy procedures. I've read the majority of the information on this site, and my process is a strickly controlled as I can get it, I'm just learning to work within it. 20 degree water on the dot, equal and constant agitation, everything written down, the whole shebang. A lightmeter cannot be used with light painting I have found.

I would have said random torchlight as well, as thats what it looks like, but the light continues past the frame to the edge of the negative. Next I would say light leaks swapping to stop, but parallel, right angled lines? I just dunno.

fred, possibly. I cleaned and dried the tube beforehand, but maybe some developer splashed up when I was sealing the tube and wreaked havoc in the half minute or so before I began agitation. Wouldn't explain the right angles though.

[Brian C. Miller]

There's a lot in that negative that's odd.

Jim, the problem that you are mainly referencing are the four(?) vertical streaks, top to bottom? It goes outside the holder's frame, so the film was not in a holder when that happened. I'm guessing that it was either when you loaded the film or removed it. That wasn't from developing the film in tubes and then dumping the developer and chucking them in the stop bath. If the film was sensitive at that moment, then you would see a huge amount of fog. My best guess is that your changing bag or tubes have a light leak.

The twirly light bits look like you were jangling a light while you were adjusting something, and the lens was open.

[jim steines]

Brian you must be correct. Its not possible that light was induced either mounting the sheet or placing it in the tube. There is a leak in my tube, I will be examining it very carefully.

Yes the twirly bits are odd. Detail attached (what fingerprint!? I dont see nuthin). No directed light was shone at the exposed film. So probably not a developing artifact?

[blevblev]

Fred Newman, the guy in the BTZS demo video, removes the negatives from the tubes and places them in a stopbath in light

I beg to differ - he takes the caps off of the tubes, dumps out the developer and puts the negatives still in their tubes into a tray of stop bath and rotates them for 10 seconds or so. This is done with dim light, or safelight. He then takes them out of the tubes, puts them in hangars and then into the fixer. I do it in safelight and have never had problems, although it was kind of shocking to find that out...

see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXQO5ATgiY

[Brian C. Miller]

Jim, I do think that's what is in the bottom-right is, in fact, a genuine development artifact. I know that the BTZS tube caps are deep enough to hold the developer on their own. Are your caps that deep? If some developer could be getting onto the film during setup, then you'd get a line like that.

Remember, all is forgiven for the first 1000 sheets. Then we're going to start giving you very cross and mopey looks! ;)

[jim steines]

haha, well considering how much I've learnt 2 sheets in, after 1000 I should be pro! :p

My caps easily hold the developer without it reaching the film. One thing I didnt take note of however is whether the notches were at the 'top' of the tube or not. I will in future, cause its maybe possible that due to the diameter of my tubes, 50mm, that a bit splashed up when I was walking with it. Liquids can do weird things when they're vibrated right.

My mistake on the BTZS videos. Instead of doing it the demonstrated way I just swap caps. I will try that way.

[Robert Hughes]

Nobody is an expert LF photographer at the beginning.

Recently I ran across a series of early photos by one of the more well regarded photogs on this forum. His stuff was completely pedestrian, I've shot better myself. OTOH, he's way beyond that now.

[Just Learning]

Hey everyone. Just had a nightmare day as I collected a large batch of 5x4 film to find that half the batch had been ruined by a really weird light leak. I haven't managed to scan them yet but hope that someone might have some ideas. The edges are crisp, the original image is perfectly exposed and focused but then there is a 2nd exposure of the SAME scene, fainter and less focused but still very discernible. The 2nd exposure is about 1 inch or so above the original image. I've checked my shutters on my lenses (besides I think that i used 2 different lenses in the batch) and checked my bellows for any holes. Any ideas? Thanks

[Robert Hughes]

You may have a light leak in the bellows that acts like a pinhole lens.

[rdenney]

Hey everyone. Just had a nightmare day as I collected a large batch of 5x4 film to find that half the batch had been ruined by a really weird light leak. I haven't managed to scan them yet but hope that someone might have some ideas. The edges are crisp, the original image is perfectly exposed and focused but then there is a 2nd exposure of the SAME scene, fainter and less focused but still very discernible. The 2nd exposure is about 1 inch or so above the original image. I've checked my shutters on my lenses (besides I think that i used 2 different lenses in the batch) and checked my bellows for any holes. Any ideas? Thanks

This is always a pinhole somewhere, acting as a lens and making a secondary image. The location of the secondary image suggests a hole at the edge of the shutter--check again. It should be visible from the front--if the pinhole can record the scene then it's visible to the scene.

For checking the bellows, put a trouble light (bare light bulb on a handle) inside the camera from the rear, with the bellows racked out, in a darkened room. Any holes will literally glow in the dark. These are lot easier to see this way than in trying to look through the back of the camera. You might find a screw hole in your lens board you didn't remember, too. Don't leave the bulb in there for more than a few seconds to avoid heat damage.

Rick "who has a Sinar standard bellows now relegated to compendium shade use as a result of this test" Denney