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

[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.