Bad film or bad photographer?

[Kenj8246]

Not much, as shots go but was wondering what could be the difference between these two frames. Both TriX 320 @ 200, Cambo 45 view camera. Minimal processing, levels and a little brightness/contrast. The first was shot in portrait orientation then I flipped to landscape and shot the second. Didn't change the exposure at all. Both souped in the same can using D-76.
#1
Lee County courthouse by kenj8246, on Flickr
#2
Lee County courthouse by kenj8246, on Flickr

Kenny

 

[Jan Pedersen]

A wild guess, is it possible that you put the film in the holder with the back facing the lens exposing the film from the wrong side?

 

[rogue_designer]

I agree with Jan - probably shot through the backing, if it is just evenly underexposed (though would that have reversed the image? unclear)... though to be sure, it would be helpful to see the frame edges, to see both the exposure, and if maybe there is fogging across the whole thing, which would similarly reduce the contrast.

 

[jsrockit]

Looks like it's fogged...

 

[sevo]

The upper right corner on the upper image might have traces of a light leak too...

 

[Kenj8246]

A wild guess, is it possible that you put the film in the holder with the back facing the lens exposing the film from the wrong side?

Oh wow! Entirely possible. I always wondered what that would look like. I guess I need to redouble my efforts in the changing bag.

Thanks all.

Kenny

 

[jschrader]

A wild guess, is it possible that you put the film in the holder with the back facing the lens exposing the film from the wrong side?

It was also what I thought as the only possible explanation. But I never thought that the film back shows such a structure, just like coarse textile.
This must be washed off in the process, because otherwise it would show also in correctly exposed films.

 

[sevo]

It was also what I thought as the only possible explanation. But I never thought that the film back shows such a structure, just like coarse textile.
This must be washed off in the process, because otherwise it would show also in correctly exposed films.

Nope, there is nothing like that on any film I have ever used, the back coating is dyed gelatin, with less texture than the emulsion itself. If that structure is really on the film itself, it either got there via a second exposure (the texture suggests exposure through the cloth of a changing bag at some stage in its life?), in the lab (dropped onto a towel?), or it is a production fault. Of course, it might also be the scanner struggling with under- or overexposure.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I have no idea what is wrong with No. 2 but it is the one I like best of the two. I feel the first is just average but the second has a truly unique vintage look. Maybe try experimenting to see if you can do it again. IMHO.

 

[Kenj8246]

I have no idea what is wrong with No. 2 but it is the one I like best of the two. I feel the first is just average but the second has a truly unique vintage look. Maybe try experimenting to see if you can do it again. IMHO.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing but I doubt I can do it again since I wasn't trying the first time. 🙂

 

[wblynch]

Wild ass guesses...

Both sheets from the same box?

Could it be a sticky shutter staying open too long on the second shot?