hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (04/20/85)
Question for all those darkroom wizards out there. Just got prints back from Kodak/Fair Lawn. On print # 32, there is a vertical whitish line about 1 cm from the right edge of the picture. It begins faintly about 2 cm from the top, and pro- gressively becomes whiter towards the bottom of the picture. The left edge of the line is rather pronounced, the right fades off in almost dis- crete gradations to the background color. The right three centimeters or so of the print are somewhat foggy. Looking at the negative, we see that the line continues out of the 35mm frame, beyond the sprockets. Anyone know what happened? I didn't open the camera before rewinding or take the film thru any x-ray machines or anything like that. -r-
cushner@ttidcb.UUCP (Jeffrey Cushner) (04/22/85)
>Question for all those darkroom wizards out there. > >Just got prints back from Kodak/Fair Lawn. > >On print # 32, there is a vertical whitish line about 1 cm from the right >edge of the picture. It begins faintly about 2 cm from the top, and pro- >gressively becomes whiter towards the bottom of the picture. The left >edge of the line is rather pronounced, the right fades off in almost dis- >crete gradations to the background color. The right three centimeters or >so of the print are somewhat foggy. > >Looking at the negative, we see that the line continues out of the 35mm >frame, beyond the sprockets. > >Anyone know what happened? I didn't open the camera before rewinding >or take the film thru any x-ray machines or anything like that. What may have happened is that light entered the film case through the film exit slit. Most people rewind the entire length of film back into the canister. What I do is wait for the film tension to slack, usually around the "s" counter index, and then open the camera back to remove the canister. With the leader sticking out, this effectively blocks any light from entering the inside of the canister. This problem, if I was right in my hypothesis, could also have been avoided by keeping the camera in deep shadow when removing the film. If I was right, I hope it helped. If I was wrong: "Never Mind!" {^: -- ============================================================================== Jeff Cushner @ Citicorp-TTI Santa Monica CA 90405 (213) 450-9111 x2273 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (04/23/85)
> > This problem, if I was right in my hypothesis, could also have been > avoided by keeping the camera in deep shadow when removing the film. > They warned you to subdue the light before loading your camera.
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (04/24/85)
Thanks for the responses, but durned if I know how that ornery light was able to snake in through the slit, slip by all the frames up to frame #32 near the core of the roll and plaster an inch long line across it. -r-
wunder@wdl1.UUCP (05/10/85)
If you bend a negative sharply enough, the acetate gets a stress mark of some sort. This makes a light mark on the print. Normally, though, the mark is sort of crescent-shaped, at least in my clumsy hand-processing. wunder