Pentax 6x7 spots on scans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 95430
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 95430

Guest
Bought a Pentax 6x7 from a secondhand camera shop. 30 day returns so ran a test of HP5 through. First two frames are fine then some weird marks appear on all of the frames. They are not uniform but consistent along one edge. They were developed by a small lab in London and they said it was on the negatives. Ive not had chance to get the negatives back yet. Is this an issue with the camera and would I be wise to return it or should I change lab? I have started my own developing so hope to test some more. Would these show easily on a negative since I dont have a scanner at the moment

Scroll to see the marks at the top edge of the images

https://imgur.com/a/AN2muXs

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot depends if the camera is in good general condition and if you paid a decent price for it.

If you want to hang onto it you could contact the sellers and ask them to stump up the cost of a CLA.

As you're in London you could get it serviced at Asahi Photo in Brentford, I've used them to look after my 67 gear.
 
Took me a minute to see the issue, shoot a bit wider and crop ? ;)

If it hadn't been done by a lab I would have suspected a handling problem or an issue with loading on to the spiral and it could still be that. Have you closely examined inside the camera and checked if there is anything untoward in the film path?
 
RaglanSurf said:
A lot depends if the camera is in good general condition and if you paid a decent price for it.

If you want to hang onto it you could contact the sellers and ask them to stump up the cost of a CLA.

As you're in London you could get it serviced at Asahi Photo in Brentford, I've used them to look after my 67 gear.
Click to expand...
Apparently it had been recently CLAd but foolishly did not ask for proof. It was £1k from Real Camera Store in Manc - bit steep but peace of mind I can return if a couple more test rolls dont turn out
 
joxby said:
Well, you did better than me... :hungover:
Click to expand...
You need to click through to imgur and then scroll down on the later frames there are some small marks on the top edge. TBH if that was all that was wrong with my negs I'd be happy :)
 
sirch said:
Took me a minute to see the issue, shoot a bit wider and crop ? ;)

If it hadn't been done by a lab I would have suspected a handling problem or an issue with loading on to the spiral and it could still be that. Have you closely examined inside the camera and checked if there is anything untoward in the film path?
Click to expand...
Ha I didnt spot it till later at night probably after turning up my brightness. Film path looks fine. It just seems odd that its not on the first two and if it it was the film path id expect it to be more uniform. In a panic ive just p***ed a roll of Portra 800 on test shots to make sure I can dev in time and send back if required
 
I think you need to get the negs back from the lab and have a close look at that edge but see how it goes with the Portra. May be try another lab as well,
 
My thoughts are that it's more likely to be a processing issue, subject to examining the negatives. If it's something in the light path inside the camera, remember that the image is upside down, so any obstructions/detritus will be at the bottom of the mirror box.
 
StephenM said:
My thoughts are that it's more likely to be a processing issue, subject to examining the negatives. If it's something in the light path inside the camera, remember that the image is upside down, so any obstructions/detritus will be at the bottom of the mirror box.
Click to expand...
Thanks, what am I looking for when I get the negatives back in particular?
 
I'm an innocent. But in image 1 there's a smudge (upper middle). In image 2 there's the same smudge but in a different place - so that's a an odd thing! Then different smudges along the top start to appear, but they vary ...

I can't imagine that they're a product of the camera, in that variety.
 
I think it's a developing issue rather than a camera fault. See this thread for similar examples:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Spots on edge of negatives

So I noticed these spots on the last set of negatives, thought maybe it was a development issue, same marks again on this set from today, doesn't appear to show anywhere else. Can see them on the negs itself, so not a scanning issue. GW690 so its 120 roll film, HP5 devd in Patterson tank with...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Looked like quite some dust relaxing on the bottom which I gently removed with a blower and micro fibre cloth else the path to the film looks good from my perspective
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1994.jpeg
    IMG_1994.jpeg
    98.3 KB · Views: 18
  • IMG_1996.jpeg
    IMG_1996.jpeg
    123.6 KB · Views: 18
droj said:
I'm an innocent. But in image 1 there's a smudge (upper middle). In image 2 there's the same smudge but in a different place - so that's a an odd thing! Then different smudges along the top start to appear, but they vary ...

I can't imagine that they're a product of the camera, in that variety.
Click to expand...
Me neither which is good news!
 
FishyFish said:
I think it's a developing issue rather than a camera fault. See this thread for similar examples:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Spots on edge of negatives

So I noticed these spots on the last set of negatives, thought maybe it was a development issue, same marks again on this set from today, doesn't appear to show anywhere else. Can see them on the negs itself, so not a scanning issue. GW690 so its 120 roll film, HP5 devd in Patterson tank with...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
Click to expand...
yeah this looks like exactly the same issue and the same film as well!
 
Having seen those photographs of the camera, I'm even more leaning towards processing faults. It could be something you can easily spot (no pun intended) if you look at the edges obliquely. The emulson side is the less shiny one.

Development issues will depend on the processing equipment; there are things that can happen with small tanks like I use that wouldn't happen with a dip and dunk line, or a continuous line. The converse is obviously also true.
 
StephenM said:
Having seen those photographs of the camera, I'm even more leaning towards processing faults. It could be something you can easily spot (no pun intended) if you look at the edges obliquely. The emulson side is the less shiny one.

Development issues will depend on the processing equipment; there are things that can happen with small tanks like I use that wouldn't happen with a dip and dunk line, or a continuous line. The converse is obviously also true.
Click to expand...
Thats promising cos I dont wanna return it I LOVE the quality you get from it
developed my first roll of 35mm this week and it was so much fun
 
6x7 is a nice format - I use Mamiya 6x7s.
 
I'm looking at it thinking light leaks through the traps at the top of the camera back cover..
I've never owned a pentax 67 but assume it's similar in design to 35mm cameras.
 
Surely light leaks would be lighter, not darker?
 
Tbh I’m struggling to see where the problem lies.
Are we zooming up to 10000% and peeping pixels within pixels? Lol

There could well be an issue , be it on the positive scans ( not that I can see it), on the negs , with the processing , or even with the camera.
My advice would be to see what the negs show , if anything!
Then try another roll of film ….. develop at a different lab and compare the results.

Edit, I see something that resembles mild bromide drag .
I suggest following my advice stated above.
 
Last edited:
If it had been 35mm, I'd have thought bromide drag as well.
 
So I am sure you are all very engrossed in my problem. Well the evidence for a lab dev issue is beginning to mount. I developed my own roll tonight of hp5 and managed to re create the issue! Luckily I did it only on 1 neg (the geese) and the rest came out great. Labs make mistakes so no harm done, I'd prefer though if they just did not automatically deny it. Cant wait to take more great shots and still annoyed and shot a roll on portra 800 on test shots lol

Second time developing with Adoral 1:50 11 mins at 20C, water stop, adofix plus and ilfords conservative washing method ( 5, 10, 20 inversions). Also took me forever to get the 120 on the reel fml
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2004.jpeg
    IMG_2004.jpeg
    100.3 KB · Views: 21
  • IMG_2003.jpeg
    IMG_2003.jpeg
    91.1 KB · Views: 22
  • IMG_2002.jpeg
    IMG_2002.jpeg
    91.9 KB · Views: 20
  • IMG_2001.jpeg
    IMG_2001.jpeg
    97.6 KB · Views: 20
acrobatic_Citron said:
So I am sure you are all very engrossed in my problem.
Click to expand...
We like a good film conundrum, especially when its not our own.

The fact that it is restricted to the edge of the frame does make me a bit suspicious about something in the camera. The frame is defined by the camera, not the processing. If it was on most of the film I might have suspected some sort of contamination, such as oil on the film gate but it being only on one frame that seems unlikely.
 
Asha said:
Does a lab deving method differ for the larger 120 format?
Click to expand...

In principle, no. But I was looking at the "short runs" that usually come from the sprocket holes with 35mm.
 
sirch said:
We like a good film conundrum, especially when its not our own.

The fact that it is restricted to the edge of the frame does make me a bit suspicious about something in the camera. The frame is defined by the camera, not the processing. If it was on most of the film I might have suspected some sort of contamination, such as oil on the film gate but it being only on one frame that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
Argh, back to square one then perhaps - do I accept it as a quirk of a 50+ year old camera or return and look for a "better" model. Thank you all for your help as well
 
Honestly I don't think it is that bad and it is better on this film than the last, my comment above about shoot a bit wider and crop wasn't entirely in jest, I often crop in a little. If you want a Pentax 67 there is no saying that you are going to find anything better
 
Purple marks at top of goose negative look like poor removal of anti-halation layer which usually mostly gets taken off by developer, so areas of underdevelopment, hence dark areas on positive. Could be down to ruckles while loading.
 
dmb said:
Purple marks at top of goose negative look like poor removal of anti-halation layer which usually mostly gets taken off by developer, so areas of underdevelopment, hence dark areas on positive. Could be down to ruckles while loading.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well. I've had similar issues on 120 after having problems loading the film into the reel.
 
Well the Kodak 800 Portra camera tests were not a waste after all. As you can see they are all fine so all evidence now points to processing issues. Its a shame since the lab did some really good C41 processing but now they wont even admit it was possible they could have done it ( cos we will never know really) I'll be looking for a new lab.
I got these done(c41) at Kodak Centre Camden and I was after a roll of hp5 (35mm) that they wanted £15! for which I swiftly declined
Now its time to go out and shoot with this very heavy bad boy

thanks everyone for your help!

https://imgur.com/a/S4rnZqe
View: https://imgur.com/a/S4rnZqe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The marks along the top of the first film look like they could be the result of bubbles in the developer after not quite enough was used in the tank or the spiral (if it was done on a spiral) was held up from the bottom of the tank slightly.
 
StephenM said:
6x7 is a nice format - I use Mamiya 6x7s.
Click to expand...
Indeed. There's a reason 6 x 7 has been called the "ideal format." Though I generally crop to the scene rather than to the format, I crop less with 6 x 7 than any other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top