How stupid am I, where did I go wrong?

Edge markings can vary in density a lot. Different films and manufacturers print these latent umbers different. I e seen very faint markings as well as very dense. The fact that they show up is the indicator development took place. Your camera would be the first place I'd look.

You didn't indicate what camera you're using. Ive seen Barnack style cameras where the film didn't get on the sprockets good and it not advance past a frame or two.

Also if you were using flash you may have used too high a sync speed.

Most likely guess, A shutter problem.
 
SaveKodak said:
p

Thin negatives with clear edge code would indicate to me under exposure.

Your development technique is an "experimental" one. My advice would be to standardize your process in camera and in tank. Stand development is one of those techniques that magic bullet chasers tend to adopt when they could be focusing on the content of the photographs themselves. Getting a solution to 68F is not difficult, and standard times for 400 speed films are generally short. If you want sharper images, shoot TMAX or Delta (especially if you're scanning).

Here's an essay that I tend to think of when I hear about stand-dev: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html



That was probably off topic anyway because my back-of-napkin prognosis in this case is still under exposure.
Click to expand...

Edge codes have nothing to do with exposure. They're imprinted at the manufacturer.

I do agree, skip the stand development and use the manufacturers recommended development.
 
Highway 61 said:
HP5+ and Tri-X can be said to be the same stuff. Very clever is the experienced photographer who will be able to say which is which if exposed properly and developed as they should in a suited developer. The best film of the two is the one you can buy for less pesos at the moment.
Click to expand...

Not intending to be snooty here but I can tell HP5 from Tri-x, when developed and shot fairly consistently, without a second glance. I'm always a bit stumped when folks say they are so similar, as to be indistinguishable. The current version of HP5 has a much flatter tone curve, in my opinion. It's why I switched to it... far better for scanning.
 
I can't believe in a photography forum we don't get a picture of the offending film strips :D
A quick snap of the first film strip with the leader, first 1 1/2 images and then blank would tell an awful lot.
But without that, it sounds like the problem is the camera - shutter or advance. All this talk about consistency with development is fine and dandy, but you have to work really hard to get absolutely nothing.
 
SaveKodak said:
I didn't say they did man, don't come after me.
Click to expand...


Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
p

Thin negatives with clear edge code would indicate to me under exposure


Ok then you're trying to say distinct edge codes? Clear could indicate there was none. That's how I took it. In that case where the edge markings are distinct and the image density is thin it would be under exposed. I had another person read your statement and they interpreted it the same as I did.
 
x-ray said:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
p

Thin negatives with clear edge code would indicate to me under exposure


Ok then you're trying to say distinct edge codes? Clear could indicate there was none. That's how I took it. In that case where the edge markings are distinct and the image density is thin it would be under exposed. I had another person read your statement and they interpreted it the same as I did.
Click to expand...

I read his statement as "clear" = "easy to read" as opposed to "unclear". I see you read it as "clear" = "transparent" = "not there". Either way you're both talking about the same thing - the edge markings are there, but the negatives are thin or non-existent.

Language is a b!tch, especially on the internets...
 
Camera not winding the film? I have had this problem before, enough that I watch the rewind knob to make sure it's turning when I shoot.
 
michaelwj said:
I read his statement as "clear" = "easy to read" as opposed to "unclear". I see you read it as "clear" = "transparent" = "not there". Either way you're both talking about the same thing - the edge markings are there, but the negatives are thin or non-existent.

Language is a b!tch, especially on the internets...
Click to expand...

Yes, clear as in "clearly visible". I should have been more...clear, in my language. :)
 
Camera is fine. Just developed another roll of Tri-X according to someone else's specifications - turned out fine. I think I just played it fast, loose and stupid with my assumed Development. Mistakes are learning experiences, I guess!


thanks to everyone for their suggestions, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom