Reappearing line in my photos
Joseph Hopton
your opinion. They are at http://thunder.prohosting.com/~apple12/
(67kb)
Pic #1 was shot and developed today (the 25th) while the other two
were shot and developed on the 18th. The lab lady commented on the
18th how much lint they have in her area, so I dismissed those prints
as her problem...but I'm concerned now that I also see the line on my
marina photo taken this morning. Only the marnina picture was taken
since dropping my new camera.
Joseph Hopton
the developer has a problem in her landscape setup.
I'll take the next roll elsewhere just to be sure.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:08:02 -0500, Joseph Hopton <hop...@aol.com>
wrote:
StillMan
camera. If this shows up on every roll, at different labs then that is
probably where you will find the problem.
If it is just on the prints, and you are using the same lab, there is
probably a problem with their equipment.
All your prints come through the same way, there is no landscape / portrait
setup. It's just the way you turn them when they are in your hand. If the
scratch is there it will run from top to bottom.
--
"Joseph Hopton" <hop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:r84kru07494ahrb9i...@4ax.com...
mike II
>
> All your prints come through the same way, there is no landscape / portrait
> setup. It's just the way you turn them when they are in your hand. If the
> scratch is there it will run from top to bottom.
Funny you should say that. My Pentax booklet says to tell the developers
that a roll of film has been taken with the 'Panoramic' mode of the
camera. The Panoramic mode seems to be used exclusively for landscape
shots. Why would they need to know this if the development process was
the same?
mike II
Al Denelsbeck
mike II <ow...@look.ca> wrote in message news:3DBA2D82...@look.ca...
Well, yes and no.
In processing the film to a negative (or slide), there is no difference.
And there is no relation to the above issue of landscape or portrait mode,
which is landscape on its side.
To be specific - landscape orientation, for standard 35mm film, means
the pic is wider than it is tall, the way most cameras take the pic.
Portrait orientation means holding the camera rotated 90 degrees, so the
frame is taller than it is wide, the way that a portrait or a magazine is.
That's all they were referring to.
But to explain what the Pentax instruction manual is referring to...
When making a print, first off, many people want a panoramic print,
which is 4 x 11" I think. The printers aren't set up to do this
automatically, and some line printers can't do it at all, since it requires
printing the negative 11" wide, or a much bigger enlargement (thus more room
between lens and paper) than the standard 5 or 6" prints.
Second, panoramic mode usually just masks the top and bottom of a
standard 35mm frame. Same width, less height. You can accomplish the same
thing by cutting the top and bottom off of an 8 x 12 print (or 7.33 x 11 if
you prefer). *But*, the print machines are made to meter off of the entire
35mm frame. The masking of parts of the frame, which occurs in the camera
when you use pan mode, reduces half of it to black, which messes with the m
eter on the enlarger. In trying to compensate for all this darkness, the
printer often over-exposes the print, unless they know to use the panoramic
mode on the enlarger.
So, you tell the printers ahead of time, lest you get an overexposed 4 x
6 print with black bars at top and bottom.
- Al.
--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Tony Spadaro
Landscape and portrait merely refer to the orientation of the camera when
the shot was taken - for 35mm that's horizontal for landscape and vertical
for portrait. Panoramic mose is produced by having two shutters that block
off the top and bottom of the film during shooting. this produces a negative
with 4x10 proportions instead of the standard 2x3 of the 35mm frame. You can
actually use panoramic mode for vertical shots as well as horizontals.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"mike II" <ow...@look.ca> wrote in message news:3DBA2D82...@look.ca...
StillMan
but it probably masks off some of the negative so that the image has a
panoramic aspect ratio. Take a photo of a tall building or a tree or a
standing friend in pano mode, with the camera turned on its side. Shoot some
horizontal landscape shots on the same roll - the camera doesn't know which
way it has been turned.
You only need to tell the lab you shot in pano mode because Pentax assumes
that the lab tech will not be paying attention and will make your prints
with a wide border on the top and bottom (or left and right if you shot
verticals.)
Machine prints are made from a roll of paper, not individual sheets, so the
orientation of the print is not determined until you look at it and decide
to turn it one way or the other.
--
"mike II" <ow...@look.ca> wrote in message news:3DBA2D82...@look.ca...
William E. Graham
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RXqu9.20503$ku2.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Panoramic mode is completely different from landscape format.
> Landscape and portrait merely refer to the orientation of the
camera when
> the shot was taken - for 35mm that's horizontal for landscape and
vertical
> for portrait. Panoramic mose is produced by having two shutters that
block
> off the top and bottom of the film during shooting. this produces a
negative
> with 4x10 proportions instead of the standard 2x3 of the 35mm frame.
You can
> actually use panoramic mode for vertical shots as well as horizontals.
My wife uses it for waterfalls........
Joseph Hopton
wrote:
>Is the scratch on the negatives? If so, check for grit or a burr in your
>camera. If this shows up on every roll, at different labs then that is
>probably where you will find the problem.
>
>If it is just on the prints, and you are using the same lab, there is
>probably a problem with their equipment.
>
>All your prints come through the same way, there is no landscape / portrait
>setup. It's just the way you turn them when they are in your hand. If the
>scratch is there it will run from top to bottom.
Yeah, you're right. The developer changes contraptions between glossy
and matte and I was thinking that one contraption could be dirty and
the other one clean, but she would not change paper mid-roll, would
she?. Still, I cannot find one portrait shot with the (vertical) line
and I have several that are dark enough that I should see it.
I *do* find a bit of garbage, in several shots from each roll, on the
CD's the lab made for me. These CD's are supposed to come directly
from the negative. I do not think I am allowing such things to be on
my lens. I have a really soft brush, a blower and a cloth and I keep
both caps on the lens when not in use and inspect them just before I
shoot when possible.
Thanks for your input, I'll try another lab today.
Jim Christensen
had this problem.
jimc
>
StillMan
The problem is not dust in the lens, it would be dust in the film path.
Since the scratch was in the same place on all the pictures, it appears that
the film is moving something that is stationary. This stationary object
could be any number of places, but your camera is the only one you can check
(well one other, the felt trap on the film canister itself, but it has been
discarded by now.)
In a regular lab you film gets run through several procedures that could
cause this scratch:
1. The roller transport processing machine has several places it could
happen
2. The printing machine, where the person feeds it into the machine
3. The cutter where they slide your film across the flat surface and over
the blade, then into the sleeves (although his process would not hurt your
first set of prints.)
In addition to these things, your film gets dust on it when they leave it
hanging a the end of the processing machine and on that little rack next to
the printer.
Checking your camera and trying a different lab are the two best things you
can do. BTW, do not touch the shutter curtains or blow compressed air on
them!
--
"Joseph Hopton" <hop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2r7lru0io67988map...@4ax.com...
Ramón G Castañ
10/25/02 22:52:
> ...
> Funny you should say that. My Pentax booklet says to tell the developers
> that a roll of film has been taken with the 'Panoramic' mode of the
> camera. The Panoramic mode seems to be used exclusively for landscape
> shots. Why would they need to know this if the development process was
> the same?
>
>
> mike II
That's because the lab needs to know to print those panorama shots on paper
suitable for the format. Otherwise you'd get a print with blank (white)
bands on the top and the bottom, since all the camera does to take a
panorama shot is simply block a strip of the negative on the top and another
one on the bottom. One of the dumbest features I can imagine.
That's why.
---
Please remove NO SPAM to reply privately if you are so inclined,
ramoncNOSPAM at NOSPAMsurewest dot NOSPAM netNOSPAM.
Otherwise, replies to the Newsgroup are always welcome.
mike II
> The Panoramic mode .....
Thanks to all for the clarification. I knew about the mechanical
shutters masking the exposed portion of the negative, but didn't have a
clue about the printing process and required exposure changes.
mike II
Joseph Hopton
wrote:
>Hi Joseph,
>
>The problem is not dust in the lens, it would be dust in the film path.
>Since the scratch was in the same place on all the pictures, it appears that
>the film is moving something that is stationary. This stationary object
>could be any number of places, but your camera is the only one you can check
>(well one other, the felt trap on the film canister itself, but it has been
>discarded by now.)
>
>In a regular lab you film gets run through several procedures that could
>cause this scratch:
>1. The roller transport processing machine has several places it could
>happen
>2. The printing machine, where the person feeds it into the machine
>3. The cutter where they slide your film across the flat surface and over
>the blade, then into the sleeves (although his process would not hurt your
>first set of prints.)
>
>In addition to these things, your film gets dust on it when they leave it
>hanging a the end of the processing machine and on that little rack next to
>the printer.
>
>Checking your camera and trying a different lab are the two best things you
>can do. BTW, do not touch the shutter curtains or blow compressed air on
>them!
Thanks, StillMan! I went to a different lab yesterday and no more
line, I am so happy!
Bill Hilton
>>cause this scratch:
>From: Joseph Hopton hop...@aol.com
>Thanks, StillMan! I went to a different lab yesterday and no more
>line, I am so happy!
If you're sure the first lab was at fault I'd say take the prints or film back
to them and tell them they had a problem (take a couple from the new lab too).
At a minimum they should give you new film, maybe even refund the processing
charges.
Alan Browne
mechanism in your camera? Did you inspect the negs under an 8x loupe?
Alan
Joseph Hopton
wrote:
>If you're sure the first lab was at fault I'd say take the prints or film back
>to them and tell them they had a problem (take a couple from the new lab too).
>At a minimum they should give you new film, maybe even refund the processing
>charges.
>
Thanks, I visitied them today and we had a nice chat. I realized this
morning that the line was present on the CD, but not on the prints.
She really appreciated my bringing the problem to her attention and
she gave me two free 8x10's.
Joseph Hopton
<alan....@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Could your negs be getting scratched by the film canister or the take up
>mechanism in your camera? Did you inspect the negs under an 8x loupe?
>
>Alan
Dunno, Alan, I'm too ignorant to know, but will sure find out
tomorrow. Thanks for the tip!
Dooey
> and matte and I was thinking that one contraption could be dirty and
> the other one clean, but she would not change paper mid-roll, would
> she?.
Most labs change paper type and size mid roll. I have missed the rest of
this thread so this point may not be applicable but I'll make it anyway.
Matte or lustre paper can withstand roller or guide damage much better than
gloss.
--
Dooey.