[pure-silver] Re: Overcoming backing paper info coming tnrough
- From: "bobkiss @caribsurf.com" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:06:21 -0400
DEAR MARTY,
Don't forget that you can use ND (neutral density) filters (glass or
gels) to further reduce the light for your pre-exposure if you need.
I remember shooting a test in the mid 80s using some film Ilford had
given me to try to convince me to use it instead of Kodak. (120 shot in my
'Blad) The numbers had printed through onto the film and were very visible
in the processed negs. When I complained to Ilford they said they
discovered that some effluent from the inks with which they printed the
back paper desensitized the film in areas with more ink. To me this was
yet another example of why I stuck with Kodak...quality control...rather
than use other materials, some of which I liked better than the Kodak I was
using. I just couldn't afford reshoots!
All this to say that you may be experiencing something similar,
effluents or differential diffusion of humidity or some other
desensitization of the film by the backing paper. Not sure how to over
come it except with some serious Frotoshop work.
Please keep the list informed of what you discover.
CHEERS!
BOB
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Martin magid <martin.magid@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It was Snoopy I believe who gave me many rolls of outdated Agfa 25 120
> film. This is a great film and the right speed to use in my 100+ years old
> No. 1 Kodak Panoram. The exposures in bright daylight are right on,
> developed in Rodinal. The only problem is that the numbers, circles and
> lines on the backing paper come through to the exposed negatives and show
> up on the print. Sometimes I'm able to delete the unwanted info with
> Photoshop, sometimes not, depending on the background.
>
> In order to minimize or eliminate that problem, I'm thinking of
> pre-exposing each exposure against a white wall in dim light using the
> cameras faster speed. There are only 2 choices of speed for the rotating
> f/13 lens, but I've made inserts for the lens up to f/32, and I think I
> should use the f/32 insert because the unwanted images come through very
> lightly.
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on this problem or my proposed solution?
>
> Marty
>
Other related posts:
