[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex mystery
- From: John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:11:45 +0000
He does say " There seems to be two dark strips on either side of the
negative." but dark on negative equals light on print - has he actually
examined the negatives for light strips which equal the dark strips on the
print?
The dark bands seem to encroach more at the top and bottom edges of the
image. It is almost as if it is due to some curvature of the emulsion of
each individual frame. This could not be the case if this was on a length of
film.
It does look similar to discolouration / uneven development that I have had
in the past when not quickly or properly immersing the sheet of paper in the
developer or not agitating it properly, hence part of the paper (usually the
centre because it bows due to swelling) comes to the surface and thus gets
underdeveloped...
Did the user go to a small processor, who hand printed the B&W prints,
whence this could be the problem?
Alternatively, could it be a problem with a print processing machine? - I
do not know if they expose-cut-develop or expose-develop-cut.
John
On 10/03/2010 21:30, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sanders@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:15 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex mystery
>
>
> A Rolleiflex T shooter reports a problem over on RFF
> with uneven exposures.
>
> http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87149
>
>
> These marks are almost certainly processing artifacts.
> The poster should find out what kind of processing method
> his lab uses.
> If its the camera shooting a test roll and having it
> processed at a different lab would show up the same marks.
> B&W processing is _very_ easy to do and requires little
> processing. If this fellow has enough of a darkroom to print
> he can also process film for essentially the price of a used
> tank and the developer.
> BTW, I am not sure if the images shown on the site above
> are reversed scans of the negative or are prints. If they
> are from prints the negatives themselves should be examined
> to make sure the marks are really there and are not an
> artifact of printing.
>
> --
> 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:
