[rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
What I saw on eroustam's image was even plus density coming in from both
sides. I have seen this many times from development on reels when there
is not even developer exchange across the film. There is more fresh
developer on the outside of the reels after agitation than on the inside
of the reels. It is a very consistant progression of density from outside
to inside. Light leaks would be actually light streaking across the film
and would be very inconsistant due to all the variables. It should be
more on one side than another and you probably could see some paper
texture. Also light leaking in loose rolls is generally located right at
the edges and then falls off really quickly where as on eroustams film it
was a gradual even fall off from edge to center.
But you never know for sure till you fix it.
Dennis
> 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
>>
>>
>
---
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:
