Strange change in exposure on half of negative

[ped]

Guys

This has happened a few times now, on different types of film. Normally noticeable in lower light where I'm using a slower speed.

See the line on the left??

Any ideas what this could be? Something up with the speeds? Camera is an M4P.

Cheers
ped

 

[ped]

P.s the line is always at the top of each picture (it's on the left here as I rotated the camera)

 

[sleepyhead]

Very strange that it's on the top. Probably not your shutter curtain hanging.

Did you process the film yourself, and if so, are you sure there was enough volume developer in the tank?

 

[ped]

Could be. I really have no idea. It seems smooth but I guess it's a definite possibility. The line is always exactly the sane width and shows under exposure across it's width with slight overexposure shortly afterwards before the rest of the normal negative.

Anyone know for sure? Reckon a general CLA would fix the issue?

Cheers
Ped

 

[ped]

Very strange that it's on the top. Probably not your shutter curtain hanging.

Did you process the film yourself, and if so, are you sure there was enough volume developer in the tank?

Hi

Yes i developed myself and there was nothing wring with the method, other than the fact I dropped the negs! Only a test roll though.

9/10 shots are fine but when this line appears it seems to carry over 2/3 negs consecutively.

 

[mooge]

edit (2017) - pretty sure this is from the light baffle in the lens throat, not a developing problem...

 

[Tim Gray]

Assuming it's not the scanner (it's actually visible on the negs themselves), it could be a light leak. Either in the camera or the canisters. It does NOT look like development to me.

I say a light leak because your shadows are compromised right to the right of the transition. Look at the camera in the background - the black is noticeably weaker.

 

[Tim Gray]

-it can't really be a light leak because the edge of the frame is dark, and then goes bright and fades to a normal exposure.

It's not really dark in the original exposure presented. It just looks that way. For example, the area under the picture frame on the wall on the left (in the 'dark' band) is about the same brightness as the area under the picture frame on the back wall in the middle of the frame. The black on the iPhone is actually lighter than the black surrounding the screen on the laptop, but I have no idea if those blacks are actually the same in real life. I assume the walls are painted the same color and that the lighting is roughly equal.

In fact, in the image you presented, the sky is LIGHTER in the 'dark' band on the left than it is in the darkish spot in the upper center of the frame.

 

[sanmich]

Doesn't look like a sutter problem since the shutter is moving horizontally.
how about not putting enough developper?
Because of the agitation, you still get development, but if the developper is short of covering the reel, you will get partial development on the top of the frames all along the film, leading to a dark band.

 

[Eric L]

Similar dark band on my dear mother's hair. Only on this one frame from the roll. Hasn't happened since. I suspect development is at fault rather than anything from the camera. Though I'm scratching my head as to what as well.

 

[ped]

Thanks very much for the replies. I just poured 300ml into my tank over my reel, as suggested by the tank printed on bottom (though they actually says 290ml) and it JUST covers the reels, in fact leaving one section slightly dry, so I'm going to do this:

Shoot a 24exp roll at all shutter speeds and write these down as I shoot

Develop the roll in 400ml of chemicals to make sure

load the film into the tank UPSIDE DOWN to see if the band moves, if present at all

...and let you know what happens.

Cheers
ped

 

[ped]

OK just develped the test roll, no evidence of banding at any speed from what I can see on the negs, I'll scan them shortly and see if there's anything up close.

Hopefully it was the developing issue as that's something I can work on. Why would Patterson suggest 290ml of liquid though when it barely covers the roll? During inversion the reel could actually move up the central columb a little pulling it further out of the dev during the settling periods in betwen agitation.

It still doesn't really clear up why it's only on some shots but let's see how this test roll comes out...

Cheers
ped

 

[ChrisN]

Similar dark band on my dear mother's hair. Only on this one frame from the roll. Hasn't happened since. I suspect development is at fault rather than anything from the camera. Though I'm scratching my head as to what as well.

Eric - was this photo made immediately after you changed lenses?

 

[sanmich]

OK just develped the test roll, no evidence of banding at any speed from what I can see on the negs, I'll scan them shortly and see if there's anything up close.

Hopefully it was the developing issue as that's something I can work on. Why would Patterson suggest 290ml of liquid though when it barely covers the roll? During inversion the reel could actually move up the central columb a little pulling it further out of the dev during the settling periods in betwen agitation.

It still doesn't really clear up why it's only on some shots but let's see how this test roll comes out...

Cheers
ped

I think you may face another processing issue:
when you process ONE roll in a TWO roll tank, do you put an empty roll above the one with the film?

If you don't, the inversions will most probably make your film roll slip upward a bit and for the rest of the procesing the roll will sit partially above the liquid level.
300cc IS enough if you take that precaution (you can check by filling the tank with water in daylight)

 

[ped]

The lines on mine aren't always after I have changed lenses, though once or twice they might be after I removed the lens and replaced with a body cap.

Interestingly my 4 recent rolls taken in Italy, with lots of lens removal (I shared the same lens with an R-D1) there are no lines on any of the shots, and I often changed lenses in very bright light!

 

[ped]

I think you may face another processing issue:
when you process ONE roll in a TWO roll tank, do you put an empty roll above the one with the film?

If you don't, the inversions will most probably make your film roll slip upward a bit and for the rest of the processing the roll will sit partially above the liquid level.
300cc IS enough if you take that precaution (you can check by filling the tank with water in daylight)

I only have one spiral but think you might be right about this. Strange, though, that the line is so straight and exact (no 'half frames' or anything)

As I use stock concentration I'm going with 400ml from now on but will order a second spiral, too...

ped

 

[MartinP]

A leak round the shutter-track light-trap (sorry I don't know the proper name) across the width of the frame, at the lower side? It might only show up when there is something brightish there or when the camera is carried but not shot for a while, hence being intermittent.

EDIT: Sorry for the brain-fart.... If there was a leak as I described then the result on the scanned-and-reversed image would be lighter not darker.

 

[ped]

Well, a second reel is on the way.

Martin, it could be, but to be honest it's normally not part of the pattern that it happens after shooting in light areas or taking the lens off. A chap on the Leica camera forum suggested the same and it's possible, for sure - but I can test it being a problem by varying the way up the film is developed to see if the banding moves. Something to think about, for sure.

Cheers
ped

 

[ChrisN]

Here's one that I know was caused by a light leak when changing lenses in bright sunlight. (Leica M4.)

 

[ped]

Hm. The plot thickens. One of my shots with the banding is about 5 mins after the previous shot which showed banding too, and I didn't change lenses between the shots at all.

Man It's things like this that make me want to jack it all in, sometimes.