Stearman 445 tank

Attached fomapan 200 rated at 200. The issue of side fogging has disappeared. I developed with 2 images only pre-soaked for 5 mins and vigorously agitated in fix. There was no blue staining (or green?) at the 3 min. check. The pre-soak waste was green in colour. The image attached is suffering from inconsistent dev. at 2 inversions every min. so I will try Ian's recommend of 4 per min. 200 needs to be rated at 100. I developed for 7 mins. When replacing the dark slide I did so it went in straight. I had read that putting it initially at an angle can lead to slight fogging which may explain my issues on the 3 out 4 previously. Foma seems much less stable than T-max with some edge scratching detectable.
 

Attachments

  • Image (31) copy.jpg
    Image (31) copy.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 44
The image above looks like a double exposure, one of the sitter and the second of a roof light.

Glad to hear the AH layer is finally washing out.

Mike
 
mpirie said:
The image above looks like a double exposure, one of the sitter and the second of a roof light.

Glad to hear the AH layer is finally washing out.

Mike
Click to expand...
That look is the dev issues, I'm hoping. It can't be a DE.
 
That's very odd.
I was going to ask if, by chance, you might have bent the previous lake-image films sharply, while loading or unloading. Sometimes, mechanical stress can have an effect on film, although I don't know the mechanism.
The portrait looks as if some developer was poured in, then stopped, then a little more and finally the tank was filled. It seems unlikely. You'd know about this if your hands were doing it, but are you loosening the opposite cap when you pour the dev in?

And yes, you are right about putting the sheath in at an angle. It can, if the light seal springs are weak or worn, open a little gap. This is when you use a sharp angle. A small deviation from parallel should cause no problem. You'll have observed that the ends of most sheaths are gently curved so that the leading edge is always at a slight angle and "strokes" the light seal open.
On the other hand, if the light seal springs are strong, you can inadvertently move the whole holder away from the camera back. Yer pays yer money...
 
Last edited:
David M said:
That's very odd.
I was going to ask if, by chance, you might have bent the previous lake-image films sharply, while loading or unloading. Sometimes, mechanical stress can have an effect on film, although I don't know the mechanism.
The portrait looks as if some developer was poured in, then stopped, then a little more and finally the tank was filled. It seems unlikely. You'd know about this if your hands were doing it, but are you loosening the opposite cap when you pour the dev in?

And yes, you are right about putting the sheath in at an angle. I can, if the light seal springs are weak or worn, open a little gap. This is when you use a sharp angle. A small deviation from parallel should cause no problem. You'll have observed that the ends of most sheaths are gently curved so that the leading edge is always at a slight angle and "strokes" the light seal open.
On the other hand, if the light seal springs are strong, you can inadvertently move the whole holder away from the camera back. Yer pays yer money...
Click to expand...
On the portrait, the vent cap is always off when pouring which I do rapidly, then immediately close the vent, squeeze and turn the fill cap.
 
My apologies if these seem to be excessively simple questions. I'm trying to leave no stone unturned. I hope you don't mind.
 
Looking again at the portrait, there are several interesting features. I was wrong about the staggered pouring as any marks from that would run right across the sheet, from side to side.There's no evidence in the wall on the left.
As mpirie says, it looks more like a double exposure.
Examining the wall shows an unusual distribution of sharpness. The top and bottom are distinctly blurred and the corner seems to be sharpest next to the fingers. Is this intentional? I'm curious.
It's possible to get double exposures in several ways. The shutter could be misbehaving and occasionally leaving a tiny pinhole when it should be shut.
There was once a case of "spirit photography" where the photographer was working in a cold church with very long exposures. To keep warm, he wrapped himself in his darkcloth and stood to one side. An unnoticed pinhole in the bellows projected his image onto the film, producing a convincing ghost of a monk. I wish I'd kept chapter and verse of this.
A pinhole in the bellows is a possibility. Its effect would vary with the bellows extension. It might even be producing the effect of developing marks on the original lake pictures.
Some part of the camera may be reflecting into the lens.
...and it's very unlikely, but you may have inserted the dark slide for a different image, opened it, then changed your mind.

There are marks on the image that might be air bells or dust on the scanner. That would be a subject fo a different post.
 
David M said:
Looking again at the portrait, there are several interesting features. I was wrong about the staggered pouring as any marks from that would run right across the sheet, from side to side.There's no evidence in the wall on the left.
As mpirie says, it looks more like a double exposure.
Examining the wall shows an unusual distribution of sharpness. The top and bottom are distinctly blurred and the corner seems to be sharpest next to the fingers. Is this intentional? I'm curious.
It's possible to get double exposures in several ways. The shutter could be misbehaving and occasionally leaving a tiny pinhole when it should be shut.
There was once a case of "spirit photography" where the photographer was working in a cold church with very long exposures. To keep warm, he wrapped himself in his darkcloth and stood to one side. An unnoticed pinhole in the bellows projected his image onto the film, producing a convincing ghost of a monk. I wish I'd kept chapter and verse of this.
A pinhole in the bellows is a possibility. Its effect would vary with the bellows extension. It might even be producing the effect of developing marks on the original lake pictures.
Some part of the camera may be reflecting into the lens.
...and it's very unlikely, but you may have inserted the dark slide for a different image, opened it, then changed your mind.

There are marks on the image that might be air bells or dust on the scanner. That would be a subject fo a different post.
Click to expand...
Hi, in terms of sharpness I pulled back on the front standard and focussed on the eyes. Fully opened I wanted to see the reduced DOF. the Exp was f5.6, 1/60. In terms of DE, yes it could be the shutter although with previous shots with this lens I haven't noticed this issue. There was no error on darkslide as I only took two shots and the other one came out as attached with a different lens(300, f9, 1/30). I've taken another photo this morning and will process this afternoon. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Image (32) copy.jpg
    Image (32) copy.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 21
Looking at the latest one there is still a problem. Look at the bottom of the wall on the LHS and the skirt, there are similar straight marks on that area as there are in the first shot. May be a processing problem or a scanner issue? The previous comments about bellows are also worth considering. The other thought is film QC issues.

Another thought is where do you load your holders? If in a dark room is it possible that it is not as dark as you think and that the marks are caused by the film sheets lying out overlapping so some are getting some pre-exposure as you are loading others? If you use a changing bag, as I do, are the zips light tight or is the bag worn in any way?
 
Last edited:
Bill Martindale said:
Looking at the latest one there is still a problem. Look at the bottom of the wall on the LHS and the skirt, there are similar straight marks on that area as there are in the first shot. May be a processing problem or a scanner issue? The previous comments about bellows are also worth considering. The other thought is film QC issues.

Another thought is where do you load your holders? If in a dark room is it possible that it is not as dark as you think and that the marks are caused by the film sheets lying out overlapping so some are getting some pre-exposure as you are loading others? If you use a changing bag, as I do, are the zips light tight or is the bag worn in any way?
Click to expand...
Hi Bill
the new photo is from the same shoot and dev as the first portrait so issues likely to be the same. I'll present a newly taken and dev'd image this afternoon. I load in a dark bag which has produced good results - double zipped. The scanner is fine. The negs have the marks on them.
 
I wonder, would it be worth setting up the camera as for the portrait, with the same lighting, but photographing a large flat blank area of something?
As a way to check and eliminate the scanner you might try turning the film through 90° and scanning again.
You are certainly giving us something interesting to think about. Thank you.
 
OK so that has eliminated the scanner and the bag should be fine. Will be interesting to see what today's shoot has produced.
 
So today a new image. Developed at 12.5 mins, 18 degrees. Agitation 4x every min. as per Ian Barber's procedure. There's no evidence of banding although the sky needs careful work in Silverfast as it looks to be uneven. As you can see the edges are fragile in the 445 holder as discussed elsewhere and there appears to be a number of scratches on the film surface which may be down to washing with our well water supply which is roughly filtered. I wash with imported tap water for T-max and the negs are fine. Foma looks to be a rougher kind of film in design but maybe suitable for a project I have in mind in a run down part of town.
 

Attachments

  • Image (33).jpg
    Image (33).jpg
    152.7 KB · Views: 25
That looks OK. Fomapan in my experience is a delicate film when wet and need careful handling to avoid damaging the emulsion.
 
Yes, it seems fine. The problems are gone. As you say, there seem to be UFOs in the sky, but that's a different matter.
You mention the lugs on the holders damaging the emulsion. My solid Stearman holders have very narrow lugs, so they don't intrude beyond the blank margin. That's with Toyo holders. Your hardware may be different.
Out of curiosity may I ask if you're agitating four times at the end of each minute, twice every thirty seconds or once every fifteen seconds? I'm not suggesting that you change.
Best of luck with the "rough" project.
 
Thanks David. 4 times at the end of each.. I'm using a Toyo 45A with Fidelity Elite holders.
 
Another thought which reverts back to why the original T-max looked to have been fogged in some way. Working in bright sun would you recommend loading and unloading the darkslide under the dark cloth. Typically I remove the cloth to load after final focus.
 
A light leak through the seal would give fogging at the insertion end. That would be at the top of the screen and the bottom of the subject, which is what we are seeing. Or correspondingly left and right, but the horizontal shot seems to have no problem. Some people do keep the dark cloth over the camera back, so I might be worth a try.
In bright sunlight, If I'm not using the slide as an impromptu lens-shade, I sometimes balance it over the opening. I have no idea if it helps or not. This assumes that I'm not distracted by anything else.
Nothing for it really, but to go through all the potential sources and test them one-by-one. Sorry to deliver the bad news.

Further possibilities might be the attachment of the bellows to the camera and the seating of the back to the camera. There's information on how to test bellows elsewhere on the web. It's quite easy and modern LED torches make it even easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top