Author Topic: My Negative Took Some Flack  (Read 1210 times)

Bryan

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,219
    • Flickr
My Negative Took Some Flack
« on: July 19, 2017, 04:26:48 PM »
As you can see in the negative below it looks like the B-24 bomber took some flack during the war.  Trust me, when I took the picture there was no damage to the aircraft.  It looks to me like the emulsion just flaked off.  I don't believe I scratched it or handled it rough.  It was only on the one frame and that frame was in the middle of the roll.  Usually when I damage a negative it happens at the end when I'm loading it onto the reel.  I did find one small flake of emulsion that stuck to another frame after it floated off this one.  What looks like scratches I believe are cracks in the emulsion.  Has anyone seen this before?  Maybe it's just a manufacturing defect.  The shot was taken with an Olympus XA2 using Ilford Pan F Plus 50 developed in Beer.


Kai-san

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,481
Re: My Negative Took Some Flack
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2017, 05:26:57 PM »
That looks like plaster coming off a brick wall! I have a frame with a slightly similar effect shot on Ilford Delta 100. This was developed by a commercial lab. It looks like a cannonball has passed straight through the wall of the boathouse and is seen in the air to the right of the building. If you look closer there are more of these cannonballs up in the air and they are almost perfectly round. Another strange thing about this picture is a motion blur in spite of the camera being on a tripod and triggered with a cable release. A Polaroid 600SE with 127mm lens and a 6x9 film back is not exactly light!
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 05:37:00 PM by Kai-san »
Kai


If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras.

-- Nobuyoshi Araki


http://www.kaispage.net/

Bryan

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,219
    • Flickr
Re: My Negative Took Some Flack
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 06:25:48 PM »
The one on the boathouse almost looks like it's burned.  I wonder if the others would have looked like that if they were in darker areas.  Those could be small droplets that splattered on the emulsion or bubbles.  When you think that a the smallest defect will be noticeable in a photo they must have some impressive quality control during the manufacturing of the film.

SLVR

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
  • 100% Film
Re: My Negative Took Some Flack
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2017, 06:53:10 PM »
I've had this from efke films. The emulsion is very fragile and can be easily damaged and wiped off when you are squeegeeing the film after developing.

Never had it happen in the middle of the film but rather on the sides near the sprocket holes where the film was perforated.

Bryan

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,219
    • Flickr
Re: My Negative Took Some Flack
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2017, 07:21:59 PM »
I've had this from efke films. The emulsion is very fragile and can be easily damaged and wiped off when you are squeegeeing the film after developing.

Never had it happen in the middle of the film but rather on the sides near the sprocket holes where the film was perforated.

I never squeegee my film, I just dip it in photo-flo and hang it to dry. 

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,510
Re: My Negative Took Some Flack
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2017, 10:42:51 PM »
Those defects definitely fall into what I call the weird category.
The cannonballs are usually caused by air bubbles that are stuck on the emulsion during development.
But the scratch thing... sure beats me.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.