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 > >