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?

Lee County courthouse by kenj8246, on Flickr

Lee County courthouse by kenj8246, 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?