[rollei_list] Re: Neopan 400 in Ultrafin
- From: Jan Decher <jdecher@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:48:42 +0200
Thanks Everyone for your suggestions. Well, its NOT my trusty Rolleiflex 3.5E
causing the pattern, I think, because I just got back a Portra 160 today ,
which I loaded after the last spoiled Neopan picture in Leiden, NL. The Portra
looks perfect !
The airport x-ray suggestion sound plausible to me. This Neopan may have been
x-rayed at least once or twice during the move here to Germany in 2012 and
maybe also last fall during a flight to Italy. I am no longer using the lead
bags after someone told me the x-ray people just crank up the dosage if they
see a "big unpenetrable blob" in the picture (??). So this, and the film being
relatively old & expired could be the problem. To narrow the problem I should
probably shoot a roll of brand new TriX and process with same chemicals i the
same Kindermann tank and see if things are okay.
'Hope to scan some of the Portra negs this week for you to see.
Cheers,
Jan
Bonn
P.S.: What's your thoughts on the best 400 ASA (120) film to replace my
beloved Neopan 400? Ilford HP5, TriX?? I don't like very contrasty negs in my
b&w shots.
On Aug 19, 2014, at 7:10 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
> From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Laurence:
> A five leaves shutter with an oil drop affecting
> two or three or four or five leaves could cause some strange effects
> on the exposure. Anyway, the emulsion does not look good indeed,
> perhaps you are right.
> ISO 400 films are more sensitive to X rays than ISO 50 or ISO 100.
> films. I lost the first three frames during a travel to Brazil in the
> '90s due to X rays in the airport, I did not know at the time about
> the way X rays affected the films in the airports ; it was an ISO 400
> film and the X rays fogged the three first usable frames, X rays are
> widely used today, including land freight transport.
>
> Carlos
Other related posts:
