mascarenhas
Established
On my first try at bulk loading tri-x I accidentaly loaded the film "upside down" (with the base side facing down, and the emulsion side up). The fool here wasn't sure which was which, and was in too much of a haste to try his new toy to look on a roll of tri-x he has in the fridge. Loaded about 12 shots, put the film in the camera and snapped pictures around the house.
Loaded the film in the tank, set up dev and fix, but for some reason I decided to check the roll of tri-x on the fridge, and end up discovering I exposed the wrong side of the film. Dismayed, I decided to develop the film anyway, as I had already diluted the developer and didn't want to just throw it away. I didn't expect anything good would come out of it, but to my surprise, the negatives seem fine! They are drying right now, and scanning them will be the final proof of the pudding, but visually they look ok (apart from the fact that when you see the picture right-side up the frame numbers are upside down and reversed). Doesn't seem to have affected the sensitivity of the film, too, as the density is ok. That was quite a surprise! Did anyone here have a similar experience? Maybe just for the fun of it?
Loaded the film in the tank, set up dev and fix, but for some reason I decided to check the roll of tri-x on the fridge, and end up discovering I exposed the wrong side of the film. Dismayed, I decided to develop the film anyway, as I had already diluted the developer and didn't want to just throw it away. I didn't expect anything good would come out of it, but to my surprise, the negatives seem fine! They are drying right now, and scanning them will be the final proof of the pudding, but visually they look ok (apart from the fact that when you see the picture right-side up the frame numbers are upside down and reversed). Doesn't seem to have affected the sensitivity of the film, too, as the density is ok. That was quite a surprise! Did anyone here have a similar experience? Maybe just for the fun of it?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I know you can expose 35mm film through the back ("halation," or appearance of halos around bright areas of the image, happens when bright light goes all the way THROUGH the film, bounces off the pressure plate, and re-exposes the film from the other side! Most films have a dye in the film base to reduce this.) But I've never done it intentionally!
My guess is that you'll find your results aren't as sharp as they would have been if you had exposed the film right-side-up (since the lens would have been focused on the film base rather than the emulsion) but other than that you'll probably get away with it. In fact, when it comes to photo technique I'm convinced that with Tri-X and a little luck you can get away with almost anything!
My guess is that you'll find your results aren't as sharp as they would have been if you had exposed the film right-side-up (since the lens would have been focused on the film base rather than the emulsion) but other than that you'll probably get away with it. In fact, when it comes to photo technique I'm convinced that with Tri-X and a little luck you can get away with almost anything!
Bryce
Well-known
Please, please post the results! This sounds interesting, maybe a way to defeat the anti halation layer for seriously blown highlights. Obviously not what you'd want all the time, but another tool in one's arsenal for the right time? Could look good in nightlife settings...
Anyhow, please let us know how the "happy accident" plays out.
Anyhow, please let us know how the "happy accident" plays out.
mascarenhas
Established
So I guess the emulsion layer is equally sensitive from either side of it. I guess the light punched thru the base side and anti-halation layer and exposed the emulsion layer thru the other side. From the look of the negatives I guess not more than one stop of light was lost. Well, the negatives are already dry, later I will scan them and post a couple of shots.
jlw said:
mascarenhas
Established
Here are a couple pictures from the roll. Just auto-levels by the scanner software, and resize to 1024 pixels width (no sharpening). I am not familiar with tri-x, but the results looked good. And I had a nice surprise, my new Jupiter 8 seems to focus perfectly. I didn't notice any halation, but then I didn't shoot any seriously overblown highlights (this was at night, under fluorescent lighting. Wide open at 1/30). Well, just shows that you *can* expose film from behind!
I didn't notice any halation, but then I didn't shoot any seriously overblown highlights (this was at night, under fluorescent lighting. Wide open at 1/30). Well, just shows that you *can* expose film from behind! Attachments
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
jlw said:
There shouldn't be any visible blur with a 50mm or longer lens, except maybe for a Noctilux used wide open. But don't try this with a wider angle lens, because you'll end up with a blurred picture as a result of the narrower depth of focus.
Cheers,
Abbazz
Bryce
Well-known
From the looks of things, anti halation layers are overblown...
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!