Same roll of film different results

RaglanSurf

RaglanSurf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,477
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
So, I've just finished a roll of ReraPan in my Yashica-44. I started the roll in the Lakes last October and finished it off at the recent F&P in York. Processed at home in a 1+50 solution of Rodinal and the Lake District shots have come out like this

Yashica 44 ReraPan 100 07 by Nick Watson, on Flickr

and the York shots are fine and look like this

Yashica 44 ReraPan 100 04 by Nick Watson, on Flickr

Any ideas? Could it just be reaction to the backing paper on the long exposed Lakes shots?
 
Had that when I was with you in London last year Nick .....you recall the wlak on the thames, I shot the "battleship" with the 6x9 folder along with another couple of frames ....that was in the June iirr ( arrundel meet).....it was a few months late when i finished the roll back here at home ......The exposed frames that had been sat in camera came out like your lakes one, the later frames came out fine like your york shot.

i posted a thread on here ( i can't find it! arghh!) but no one really came up with a reason except that the emulsion didn't like to be sat around after exposure.

I'm not sure what film it was that i used but it wasn't Rerapan
 
It could be the physical evidence of microwave radiation from the big bang.

Or it could be a slight electron plasma leak from a nearby alien matter transporter.

Definitely one or the other.
 
Found the files and the film type ....Rollei Superpan 200

Perhaps they have the same emulsion??

London june
TP2.jpg


Sospel several months later
TP1.jpg
 
@Asha, thanks for that, your post makes much more sense but for the time being I'm going with @simon ess 's explanation.
 
Found a post on APUG that suggests:
Found a match for Rera-Pan 127 film.

The Maco.de website shows developing times for this Rera-Pan 127 film matching the developing times for Rollei RPX100 film.

Mystery solved?
Click to expand...

On the macodirect site, both are shown as triacetate backing, panchromatic, sensitised from 380 to 660 nm at 2,850K, whatever that means!
 
ChrisR said:
Found a post on APUG that suggests:


On the macodirect site, both are shown as triacetate backing, panchromatic, sensitised from 380 to 660 nm at 2,850K, whatever that means!
Click to expand...

It all makes sense to me except the last part about the colour temperature of the light, which I would expect to only affect the effective (and unmentioned) film speed.
 
Actually that battleship shot is sorta growing on me ....It's a bit like a ship that was in a film I saw where people and items passed through time, bermuda triangle ..;well summat like that and it had lightning and flashes and wierd lights going on...in fact I'm sure some alien radiation thingymujig was involved there too,:D i don't take much notice of films ...they 're on but I'm usually fiddling with a camera at the same time:snaphappy::p
 
Asha said:
Cheers John(y)

How come you came across it when i couldn't even find my own thread:thinking:...................alien matter at work again??:D
Click to expand...

Ahh...well

normally I'd have gone through all threads posted by Asha from your profile page since I was sure it was a thread and not just a post, but...since you're a bit of a secret squirrel that option wasn't available, so I searched for the word "London" in the film forum only, posted by Asha only...:)
 
I'm going with the alien thing too. My roll of Pan F from the same morning was also a bit funky.
 
Well, yet again it appears that it is up to the brave heroes of f and c to save the World from alien invasion. Bloo*y digital lot don't seem bothered. :D
 
Andysnap said:
Well, yet again it appears that it is up to the brave heroes of f and c to save the World from alien invasion. Bloo*y digital lot don't seem bothered. :D
Click to expand...

Tell 'em the aliens have made lenses with an extra 4 lines-per-inch resolving power, they'll be all over 'em.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Tell 'em the aliens have made lenses with an extra 4 lines-per-inch resolving power, they'll be all over 'em.
Click to expand...

Or a new even better HDR process....
 
The only time I've had something similar to this it was because I was using very old fixer that I'd been given. I seem to remember it affected the whole roll though.

 
Ruffmeister said:
I had something similar to this with Pan F. I never got down to what it was. It's put me off using Pan F again however haha. I had it with 2x rolls, yet FP4 was fine.
Click to expand...
I think this is the first time I've had different results within the same roll of film that's not the result of a light leak or not enough chemicals in the tank etc.
 
Could it be something like moisture in the camera, settling/condensing on the film in your shots taken in October? Moisture could cause degradation in the emulsion or make bits of it stick to the backing paper?

If you have a frame you don't mind being cut up, I'll pop it in one of the microscopes and have a look at it.
 
robhooley167 said:
Could it be something like moisture in the camera, settling/condensing on the film in your shots taken in October? Moisture could cause degradation in the emulsion or make bits of it stick to the backing paper?

If you have a frame you don't mind being cut up, I'll pop it in one of the microscopes and have a look at it.
Click to expand...
Thanks Rob, if you pm me your address I'll put one in the post.
 
I've just developed a roll of Rollei RPX 100 which had exposures both recent and some latent ones from a few months ago.

The latent ones are stuffed with "measles" like the images already posted in this thread so without doubt the emulsion requires development pretty much straight after exposure.

Basically the film can offer nice results imo however I would advise that after exposing the film, developing is done within 2 - 3 weeks.
 
Asha said:
I've just developed a roll of Rollei RPX 100 which had exposures both recent and some latent ones from a few months ago.

The latent ones are stuffed with "measles" like the images already posted in this thread so without doubt the emulsion requires development pretty much straight after exposure.

Basically the film can offer nice results imo however I would advise that after exposing the film, developing is done within 2 - 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
I'm going to try another roll and shoot and process pretty quickly and see what happens but I think you may be right.
 
Well I can't ever remember having this problem with 35mm or 120 (mostly used FP4) and when you think about it, millions of people have used the same film from christmas even to the next christmas, but then that's 35mm ....is this just a120 B\W thing.for a certain film make...................................
 
My suspicion is that the RPX stuff is based on older tech like Pan F which really doesn't like hanging around. I doubt many consumers would ever come into contact with Pan F in any format.
 
excalibur2 said:
is this just a120 B\W thing.for a certain film make...................................
Click to expand...

actually that's a good question Brian.......I've had two experiences of this problem both with Rollei RPX 100 in 120 format.

I think i have a roll or two left in the fridge of the same film in 35mm format so I'll get it loaded into a camera that I'm not bothered about using for a few months, run off several unimportant frames then look at finishing the film say in August and see if the frames from April are stuffed or not.

Edit, ....appologies, I've just realised two experiences with two different films ...Both Rollei, one RPX 100 the other Superpan 200
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
actually that's a good question Brian.......I've had two experiences of this problem both with Rollei RPX 100 in 120 format.

I think i have a roll or two left in the fridge of the same film in 35mm format so I'll get it loaded into a camera that I'm not bothered about using for a few months, run off several unimportant frames then look at finishing the film say in August and see if the frames from April are stuffed or not.

Edit, ....appologies, I've just realised two experiences with two different films ...Both Rollei, one RPX 100 the other Superpan 200
Click to expand...

Well Asha I'll try and remember this thread as in my rB67 is a roll of colour film (fuji 400 exp in 2001) well I took one shot last spring and when I get around to finish the film up we'll see what the first shot is like.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well Asha I'll try and remember this thread as in my rB67 is a roll of colour film (fuji 400 exp in 2001) well I took one shot last spring and when I get around to finish the film up we'll see what the first shot is like.
Click to expand...

Tbh Brian, I've only ever had this issue with the mentioned Rollei emulsions.......As for other brands, kodak, agfa, ilford, fomapan etc, sometimes the films have sat for a year or more with latent images on them, yet upon developing, all the frames have been fine.

I'll do as I mentioned purely out of curiosity to see if the same thing happens with the 35mm format film.....presumably it will.

If it doesn't, then we go back to the alien theory :D
 
The condensation post is interesting, but we have all taken our cameras (120 and 35mm) out on a very cold day and came back to a warm house and had no problems...and how did they use films cameras in the arctic and came back to warmish huts.
What about alien fungus :eek:
 
You guys with blobs in your older 120 films. Have a look at the backing paper if you still have it, you might find you can see something unusual on the waxy side that comes into contact with the film. It's an age problem and affects bw film a lot. I've had them with a powder on them which I think must be fungus. Shoot fresh and process promptly is the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top