[stevebrot]

Sawyer's as in the Sawyer's Mark IV?

I do believe it is the same company. I used to drive by the Viewmaster company, south of Beaverton off highway 217, as part of my daily commute. The building is gone now.


Steve

[jschoonj]

Yeah, unfortunately the iSRD in Silverfast is acting up and reinstalling didn’t solve the issue. I’ve put in a service request.

I've contacted the lab since my Kodak film doesn't seem to have the problem. They noticed problems on scanning some rolls also.

I checked the negatives themselves, and when held at an angle it appears as if the image is present in BW-positive.
So maybe a bad batch of film, or some reaction to the developer specific to Fujifilm that causes this (their 4th layer acting up?).
Gonna check by having some of the same batch developed elsewhere.

Anyone else ever have this problem?

[dsmithhfx]

[dsmithhfx]

I've contacted the lab since my Kodak film doesn't seem to have the problem. They noticed problems on scanning some rolls also.

I checked the negatives themselves, and when held at an angle it appears as if the image is present in BW-positive.
So maybe a bad batch of film, or some reaction to the developer specific to Fujifilm that causes this (their 4th layer acting up?).
Gonna check by having some of the same batch developed elsewhere.

Anyone else ever have this problem?

Attachment 505587

Looks like a mechanical issue to me.

[jschoonj]

Looks like a mechanical issue to me.

you mean in development?

[Jonathan Mac]

The other day I accidentally poured in a bit of stop bath instead of developer. I poured it out again as soon as I realised and washed the tank out with water about eight times to clear any stop bath before development. A quick look at the negs seem to indicate it's fine and the stop bath didn't do any damage. I think that's the first time I've come close to a major mishap when developing.

[dsmithhfx]

you mean in development?

At some point the film was dragged across something intermittently. It could have been during mfg, but (IMO) more likely during development or handling. In the case of the one you posted, it looks like it would be relatively easy to clone it out.

[jschoonj]

At some point the film was dragged across something intermittently. It could have been during mfg, but (IMO) more likely during development or handling. In the case of the one you posted, it looks like it would be relatively easy to clone it out.

Oh but I'm not referring to the damage due to dragging.
It's the positive B&W image that appears at an angle.

I think it's proof of some error in development since I don't have any such effect on previously developed film of the same type.

[dsmithhfx]

Oh but I'm not referring to the damage due to dragging.
It's the positive B&W image that appears at an angle.

I think it's proof of some error in development since I don't have any such effect on previously developed film of the same type.

Oh, ok, I see similar damage from time to time on the odd negative, can't be too bothered about it, it comes with the territory.

[jschoonj]

Yeah, problem is it’s on 6 individual rolls so far.

It wasn’t for a paid shoot or anything so it’s okay but I would like to avoid stuff like this happening at this scale in the future.

For now I’m just happy the image is still salvageable with some extra color balancing though.

[dsmithhfx]

Yeah, problem is it’s on 6 individual rolls so far.

It wasn’t for a paid shoot or anything so it’s okay but I would like to avoid stuff like this happening at this scale in the future.

For now I’m just happy the image is still salvageable with some extra color balancing though.

Were they all put through the same camera?

[jschoonj]

Were they all put through the same camera?

No, some were on the RB67, some on the LX and I’ve now discovered the issue on a roll of Portra 400 apart from the Fuji 400H. Only constant seems to be they were all developed in one go at the same place.




---------- Post added 14-08-20 at 16:01 ----------

No, some were on the RB67, some on the LX and I’ve now discovered the issue on a roll of Portra 400 apart from the Fuji 400H. Only constant seems to be they were all developed in one go at the same place.

Now scanning some Portra 800 without issue. Infrared channel works fine and color balancing is quite a bit easier. It was shot and developed at the same time as the others.

I know P800 is based on the vision2 emulsion and therefore a less modern stock than P400 & 400H.
Maybe these newer emulsions are more affected by an issue that occurred during development?

[dsmithhfx]

No, some were on the RB67, some on the LX and I’ve now discovered the issue on a roll of Portra 400 apart from the Fuji 400H. Only constant seems to be they were all developed in one go at the same place.

Ok, still looks mechanical to me, dirty or damaged roller or squeegee?

[edom31]

OM1 Fuji Superia (Multiple OM Lenses)

Zuiko 70-150/4:





Zuiko 28/3.5 - I believe






Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro

[dsmithhfx]