What happened?

[nealjpage]

Not the world's best shot, I know, but it's not the shot itself that cornfuses me. This is Fortepan 100 in 120 size. Shot at 100 with my ETRS. This was souped in Diafine and fixed with Kodak fixer. The sky looks flat in the negative and under the loupe, but once I scanned it, it comes out like this:

The sky, if I remember, was like any other Nebraska fall day: completely clear. What gives? :scratch: Granted, I haven't tried enlarging this one yet since I don't really want to waste the paper!

Oh, and if this belongs in the darkroom forum, please move as needed.

 

[Alpha]

You sure the negative is totally flat?

It's possible that if it wasn't totally flat in the neg holder, a scan could produce those effects.

 

[nealjpage]

You sure the negative is totally flat?

It's possible that if it wasn't totally flat in the neg holder, a scan could produce those effects.

I thought it was, but I can try re-scanning it and double checking. Damn Epson neg holders suck! The MF holder's not as bad as the 35mm holder, though.

 

[Alpha]

well the larger surface of the neg can be harder to keep totally flat across its width. Give it another scan and see how that goes.

 

[ShaCow]

i like the shot, and i like the sky.. why are you so bothered?

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Paper's cheap, print a 4x5 proof and see what happens.

 

[Helen B]

That doesn't look like a film flatness problem. What do the rebates show? Could you scan the bottom edge of the film and show us that. How dark should we expect the sky to be - did you use a filter?

Do any frames show it more than others? How tightly was the film wound onto the take-up spool? What was you agitation technique? Did you do a pre-soak?

It looks very much like a development problem, but there might be a slight light leak as well.

Best,
Helen

 

[Jeff Canes]

-- Damn Epson neg holders suck!---

I agree but my problem is mostly with the 120, I’ve gone to using slide mounts, with glass for 127 and without for 120

 

[nealjpage]

i like the shot, and i like the sky.. why are you so bothered?

I'm just bothered because that's not the look of the negative. It's not bad, per se, just confusing.

Helen, I didn't use a filter--I've been meaning to buy one for the Bronica, but haven't gotten around to it yet, so the sky should look fairly washed. And I'll buy the light-leak issue. I've got a few other frames on the roll that look like light stains. That's never happened to me before, either. But I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

[nealjpage]

Well, no dice. I re-scanned the image and got the same deal. It must be in the image but for the life of me I can't see it with an 8x loupe. I'll have to drag the enlarger out this week and give it a print.

Helen: I looked at the rebate and...nothing. Not a word's printed on it. It's the strangest thing...

 

[Helen B]

Is the rebate black or clear? Or bits of both, probably. In the picture the bottom rebate looks as if it is totally fogged in parts, but we don't see enough of the rebate.

How did you agitate in each bath?

Best,
Helen

 

[nealjpage]

The rebate's clear. No black.

I agitated per Diafine's directions. That's once a minute for four minutes for each bath, I think.

Fixer I agitated once a minute for 8 minutes.

 

[JC1220]

What does the rest of the negative roll look like?