[rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: Peter J Nebergall <iusar4s@xxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:07:38 -0700
Test it. Duct tape over the doubtful seal, and shoot another roll....
PJ Nebergall
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:53:06 -0700 "Richard Sintchak" <rich815@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
So it seems from comments in this thread that I may be completely wrong
about light leaks from a loose roll or from the camera's edges allowing
light leaking in? That's what I always thought it was since I got this
problem on negs with my 2.8E Planar and 3.5E3 Xenotar (both real ugly
users) but negs from my pristine 2.8C Xenotar and my Hasselblads do not
have this....thus I thought it must be a camera issue and not processing
since I often process negs from a mix of cameras and do not see this
across all the negs. But people seem pretty set that it's a processing
issue. But my facts seem to fly in the face of that.....
Comment anyone? Is there a reason it's NOT a loose roll or edge light
leaks in the camera?
Richard S.
San Francisco
See my Commute Photo Blog!
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/
My Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/
On 10/3/07, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx >
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:05 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
> Thanks! This was my first roll in Rodinal, and since
> Ilford's spec sheet gave one time, and Rodinal gave
> another, I split the difference, so maybe not enough
> time. and maybe back to 5 seconds every 10 minutes. I use
> a stainless steel tank, agitating for the first 10
> seconds of each minute. Ilftoec HC never gave me this
> problem, but the grain is much much finer with Rodinal.
>
> I wonder though about how tightly the camera is holding
> the film. This is the same roll that gave me the strange
> light leak across frames.
>
> Thanks again all.
>
> Elias
>
Curious about the grain. I've never used Ilfotec HC,
which is similar to Kodak HC-110 but would expect it to have
somewhat finer grain than Rodinal. I've used Rodinal mostly
for sheet film and have never had any problems with it but I
generally use finer grain developers in tanks. I think the
main thing with tanks is to have a long enough development
time to average out irregularities in agitation. However, if
there are surge effects in the tank they are likely to be
the same even if the time is increased. The most common
surge marks in inversion type tanks are increased
development at the edges of the film due to turbulent flow
in the interstices of the reels, and sprocket hole marks due
to turbulent flow through these holes, also causing a
localized increase in development.
If you find the problem _is_ due to surging I can only
suggest using a different type of reel or rotating the tank
along with inverting it. I was taught this trick long ago
and its become a habit.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
