Hot answers tagged

14

The orange veil to the right of the last image is a common effect of light fogging. In fact, I've seen that many times on the first frame of 35mm when I started exposing without winding enough frames first. The white fog might be a different sort of light leak, perhaps due to the shutter not being completely closed when you advance film and cock the camera....


5

No problem printing 35mm negatives using a 60 x 60 millimeter enlarger. The enlarger lens used for the 6 x 6 is usually a 75mm or 80mm. If you choose to use this lens, you might find, the degree of magnification provided is not enough. In other words, when attempting to make big prints, you likely will find the enlarge will be maxed out and thus won't allow. ...


5

Here is a quote from the Kodak publication 'Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials': Once you have exposed your film, paper, or material, it is important to minimize changes in the latent (unprocessed) image. For consistent results, process the film, paper, or material promptly after exposure. This is particularly important with ...


5

Your first image is incredibly underexposed. Grainy + grey/lack of contrast on color negative films is the dead giveaway for underexposure. Your second image looks properly exposed and the color and contrast look to be what I'd expect with Portra 400 shot midday-ish in hard sun. I don't think there is a gear/film issue here. ISO400 film is not fast enough ...


4

Usually an analogue camera does not create a double exposure when pressing the shutter again, without advancing the film. The film advance process also cocks the shutter mechanism. So if the film isn't advanced, nothing happens. There are cameras that have a special feature to do double exposures, by allowing you to re-cock the shutter without advancing the ...


4

The fundamental difference between optical prints ("print from negatives") and digital prints "from scans" is that, with optical prints, as you increase magnification, you start to see film grain, but with digital, as you increase magnification (often not nearly as much) you start to see pixels. Film grain in black and white is most ...


3

There are three likely causes of this kind of mark on the film. First, bromide drag from insufficient agitation. Second, surge marks from excessive agitation. Neither one is very likely for film developed by a commercial lab, though they're certainly a possibility. The third possibility is a light leak -- not in the camera, but in the cassette, ...


3

In general, Color Negative film is designed to be overexposed. Most can handle 1 stop over with no perceptible difference and things can look just fine up to +3 or +4 depending on the film. However, they can also start looking like garbage at as little as -1 under. This is why people say that it "likes to be shot at 200" - doing so forces you to be at ...


3

Well, first up, any film that is not in the can already is now junk. Film is sensitive to light, after all, and we measure exposures in fractions of a second during the day. Cracking the back to see what's going on cannot be done fast enough to not overexpose to oblivion. Any frames that were successfully rewound back into the can will be okay and can be ...


3

This is a known issue when using certain third party lenses with certain Canon cameras that have in camera lens correction enabled. It seems almost totally random which camera and lens combinations demonstrate the issue and which ones do not. As Roger Cicala says in the linked blog entry, some lenses work with some cameras but not others. At the same time ...


3

This camera has a very basic film winding mechanism. My first guess. It could be that the button that you push to release the film in order to rewind the film got pushed while in the bag (releasing the the take-up spool) and this allowed the film in the canister, which is under tension, to pull the film backwards and the counter with it. I believe the ...


3

Assuming you are using a variable contrast paper and a paper developer properly diluted (usually 2:1), likely the bulb in the enlarger is wrong, too high wattage. 1. Install a lower wattage bulb. 2. Install a dimer switch. 3. Procure a ND filter and place over the enlarger lens. 4. Procure a large ND filter or make one using gray glass and install in the ...


3

Before doing anything else, I'd recommend reading the manual to familiarize yourself with the operation of the camera. (Note that there's nothing automatic about this camera! You need to meter using an external meter or sunny 16, set the shutter and aperture manually, and wind manually after each shot.) The Canon III is a beautiful old camera with a simple ...


3

Not a task I've ever needed to do, but why not kill two birds with one stone & just outsource the job to a decent photo lab? They could provide full-scale images & thumbs [contact sheet quality] all in one pass. You could then reference one to the other by filename & keep/discard in pairs. Snapping each one with a phone just sounds like masochism ...


3

I think the artifacts are too vivid to be residue from the rinse agent. If re-washing and re-rinse agent did the trick then OK. If not - re-fix twice normal fix time and wash and rinse. I think the film is properly fixed. If I am right, then this will do the trick.


3

Things to consider… 35mm in a DX body will let you take full body shots from reasonably close. This will, however, give you 'short legs syndrome' if you're not careful. Shooting from any lower than chest height to try balance the leg length starts to get a bit 'up the nose'. Your bokeh will be harder to achieve on a relatively wide lens, even with the ...


2

The point behind shooting a film at box speed and developing with recommended dilutions, agitations, and time is consistency. If your film is properly exposed, then doing everything by the box will yield usable images. Anytime you deviate from the recommended process, you are experimenting. As with all experiments, you should change a single variable at a ...


2

According to the Canon website, the CanoScan LIDE 400 is "made for scanning photos and documents". The type of sensor it uses is not suitable for scanning film negatives or transparencies. (CIS = Contact Image Sensor) Other options include: Flatbed scanner with transparency adapter. Many people seem to get good results with Epson Perfection V### scanners....


2

I would say yes you have made a double exposure, but i am not 100% sure. There is nothing you can do about it if you have, Maybe it will be a happy accident and you will have an interesting image. Because it is a cheep and simple plastic camera it may re-expose the film ( create a double exposure ) but you would be able to hear and feel if the shutter was ...


2

Without empty cores, you're pretty much done before you start. The only real option I see is to take the bulk loader into the darkroom and hand roll a quantity of film that will fit into the loader's supply chamber and thread it in. It'll still work in the loader (I think), though you may find the remjet gets scratched up as it rides on the film's back ...


2

Yes, DG lens serie from Sigma are compatible with fullframe cameras. About the effect seems like you enable in-camera lens correction. And this correct do not work well with 3th party lenses. Check page 200 of the manual of camera and switch off this correction


2

Possible dumb question: because pushing takes place during development, is it impossible for the negatives to be pushed? Push processing must occur during development. Once film has been developed the process is irreversible. You can't go back, un-develop it and develop it again. Once you have a negative, processing is locked in and you can't push it. ...


2

Looks like a light leak. Check your camera for damage, gaps and so on. Also make sure you don't get an exposure of the film in your development process (but since the lines are really straight it should be not the problem.


2

Latent image shifting is not much of a problem provided we are not talking about several months. After exposure, rapid latent image shifting occurs in the first 48 hours and continues at a reduced pace until processed. To mitigate, place film in an air-tight container and place in the freezing compartment of your refrigerator. When ready to process, remove ...


2

The ISO dial indeed gives information to the light meter. If set to ISO 200, the light meter will return an shutter speed / aperture / or both (depending on the mode) that will give a proper exposure at that sensitivity to light. Colour and black & white negative film can handle a decent amount of overexposure. That is because the negatives will become ...


2

You mean this one from 1952? From Canon IIIA, IVF, IVS Rangefinder Cameras of 1952 Batteries in those days would have been nearly the size of the camera. You can be pretty sure nothing of that vintage is ever going to need batteries, except for a flash, which wouldn't really be on rangefinder cameras for another few years.


2

Film simply doesn't perform well "indoors in low light situations". Light levels are measured as an Exposure Value (EV). Home interiors with average light measure about EV 5. With ISO 400 film, EV 5 scenes would require an exposure of about 0.5 seconds at f/8. Was the camera exposing for so long? I doubt it. Even with flash, you may not necessarily ...


2

Those marks run the long way (assuming it's 35mm, which would fit with your 300 ml developer volume). That pretty much means they got there when you hung the film to dry, which means they're most likely due to mismeasuring your wetting agent for the final rinse. Too much wetting agent can leave a residue that dries on the film, rather than running off ...


2

If I understand your question correctly, your camera does not allow for a shutter speed selection and is always on Aperture-Priority? Cool. You've already discovered, it seems, that you can modify the ASA/ISO/FilmSpeed setting to encourage shutter speeds that would normally fall outside of the metered parameter for the film actually in the camera. But, if ...


2

It strikes me as odd that you'd get 31 frames in before a loading issue cropped up...but, I guess stranger things have happened. If you have a professional camera shop and developer in your town, simply take the whole camera to them. They will have a darkroom, dark box, etc. and will be more accustomed to removing jammed up film. They'll get it unwound, back ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible