Claw marks in 4x5 processed images?

[Paul Kent]

I took my first images recently with a 4x5 Tachihara camera, on Kodak E100VS positive film. I took the film to Chrome Imaging in Northwest Washington, D.C. When I received the images, I noted all of them had four sets of eight pin holes, confirmed by Chrome to be holes made by the clip jaws used in dip and dunk processing. I was concerned, because the holes effectively reduce the useable image area. How much is normal? Is there an alternative?

[Michael Kadillak]

Most current dip and dunk process utiliz the perforated clips. Competent lab techs can minimize this effect to a minimum, but the process is inherently prone to the clip marks invading the image area.

If you want to have image to the very edge of the chrome with no perforations, the only alternative I can think of is to process your own chromes with a JOBO CPP2 and a 3010 drum (1 to 10 sheets)or 3006 drum (1-6 sheets). That is what the units were designed for and they work with absolute precision.

If you shoot enough film OR if the problems with the perforations get under your skin enough, you can easily justify acquiring a used JOBO and going for it. The thought of having to frame a photograph on the ground glass to leave a bit of edge to accomodate holes that are added in the processing is not a good feeling.

Cheers!

[Michael S. Briggs]

This is normal.

An easy solution that will be acceptable to some is to place some marks or thin tape to slightly reduce the size of the image visible on the ground glass. This will ensure that the image you intended will be in the usable area of the film. It will also give a small safety margin for problems like a slight shift in the camera, or slight errors in the framing of the ground glass vs what appears on your brand of filmholder.

[Doug Dolde]

I have had this problem as well. But my lab in Phoenix http://www.photoconcepts.net never uses clips so no marks.

[Peter Witkop]

We're told in class that the acctual image area of a 4x5 sheet of film should be considered 3.5x4.5, to allow for the rebate edge, the clip marks from the processor (the lab techs at my local lab are very good at keeping the clip marks very close, if not inside the rebate edge though), and for fingerprints from handling.

Peter

[Leonard Evens]

As others have noted, this sort of thing is unavoidable with most labs. Some do a better job than others in minimizing the extent to which they intrude on the image area. I use Lab One in Chicago, and while they are not perfect, they are pretty good. Since I scan the negatives anyway, I can recover the entire image area by "spotting" the marks using the clone tool.

[Andre Noble]

I agree with Michael above. Once you pull a perfect E-6 sheet out of your 3006 or 3010 Jobo drum, you will truly wonder how any exacting photographer could ever have allowed clip marks in his image.

But on the other hand, printing a clip-marked sheet 4x5 printed full frame with the marks showing may lend itself to expression in artistic type prints.

[jantman]

I've shot less than a dozen sheets of chrome film, as I'm relatively new to 8x10 and beyond the great deal I got on a box of 50 sheets of outdated 100D, can't justify the expense.

However, I'm lucky in that my lab usually has the same guy working in the lab, and he knows me (probably because I'm in high school and shoot 8x10). I guess it's an advantage to a small lab, but I just remind him to place the clips as close to the edge of the film as possible, and he usually just perforates the rebate.

[Brian Kennedy]

You can try Positive Image Photo Lab in Tysons Corner (http://www.positiveimage.net/ and (703)734-8600). Ask for Diane, one of the owners, and you can tell them I recommended you -- maybe they'll give me some free processing ;-). They do a good job with my 4x5, and process E6 in 3 hours. They don't use dip & dunk, so no clip marks. The down side is that dip & dunk really is better because there's no risk of scratching that way, but PIPL has never scratched my 4x5.