Weird circle on frame

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,730
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
So, this is the second shot on a roll of Tri-X shot recently in Edinburgh...

1904CPMXBWa02.jpg

As you can see there is a weird circular artefact, somewhat off centre (this is completely as scanned). The previous and next shots show no sign of this. No change in filters, no glass in the way. I have re-scanned it several times, including a test scan with SilverFast demo version (oh dear!). I am at a loss!

Any ideas?
 
What camera? I have had some odd circles on Olympus Mju series where the seal on the lens has gone, oddly more noticable when lit from side.
 
@ChrisR Have you been experiencing "Double vision" recently like @Kevin Allan as it seems that ALIENS are planning a take over the UK this Easter weekend:runaway:

Don''t panic, you still have a chance to evacuate to Europe ( assuming that we'll let you in!!!:police:)

Back on topic.

As it is not showing on the other shots then I'm not yet convinced that it is a lens issue as suggested by David ( although I remain open minded!)

Is there anything on the glass of the scanner?
Have you rescanned the negative but locating it in a different position on the scanner bed?

Is the circle clearly visible on the negative ( check this first cos if it is then it eliminates a scanner issue;)

I'll come back with other suggestions as and if I think of them…..assuming that I'm not abducted by them outer spacers in the meantime!:wideyed:
 
If it's a flatbed... Something on the scanner glass? Have you tried scanning at a different location on the scanner?
 
Nomad Z said:
If it's a flatbed... Something on the scanner glass? Have you tried scanning at a different location on the scanner?
Click to expand...

OMG you're one of THEM!...…….....You've been reading my mind!:runaway: :help::LOL:
 
It's definitely on the negative, I've just checked with a loupe!

Camera was the Pentax MX I use for all my black and white work. No hint on any of the other shots. The previous and next were probably taken within 2 minutes of this one.
 
ChrisR said:
It's definitely on the negative, I've just checked with a loupe!

Camera was the Pentax MX I use for all my black and white work. No hint on any of the other shots. The previous and next were probably taken within 2 minutes of this one.
Click to expand...

That eliminates the scanner then.

Being "on" the negative, is it actually IN the photograohed image or is it actually ON the negative as in a mark on the surface of the film at that particular location?
 
Asha said:
That eliminates the scanner then.

Being "on" the negative, is it actually IN the photograohed image or is it actually ON the negative as in a mark on the surface of the film at that particular location?
Click to expand...

There's no sign of an artefact actually on the surface of the negative. This is part of the image. I'm beginning to get the comments about aliens now ;)
 
A lens artefact would likely have a diaphragm shape! So a wild surmise - a chemical or water mark? But then the film would've had to be horizontal for the perfect circle to form ...
 
One possibility that occured, based on something I've seen before, albeit on a digital image, is an insect flew in front of the lens at just the right distance. Or maybe a bit of dust or something.
 
It does look almost unnaturally circular for anything like a water mark, any possibility of a water droplet on the lens?
 
I'm confident it's not lens flare, completely the wrong shape. Water droplets on the lens surface give a very different effect (local blurring, IIRC). I can't see how a light leak could take that shape, or affect only the second image on a roll where the first 10 frames were shot inside half an hour. It's not like any water mark from processing that I've seen.

All I can think of is :

dmb said:
A [...] coating glitch at manufacture ?
Click to expand...
 
sirch said:
It does look almost unnaturally circular for anything like a water mark, any possibility of a water droplet on the lens?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's occurred entirely at the film plane, hence the sharp edge.
 
droj said:
I'd say it's occurred entirely at the film plane, hence the sharp edge.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what could happening at the film plane to make a circle other than a manufacturing defect. Any ideas?
 
H'mm well for a perfect circle a lens wide open or water droplet seems the culprit, but a water droplet even on the neg would cause fuzziness in the circle, so I'd guess some sort flare traveling down the lens (assuming the lens was wide open).
 
Kevin Allan said:
A manufacturing defect seems the only plausible explanation, apart from aliens.
Click to expand...

Agree, although it's quite hard to imagine what kind of manufacturing defect (in precision machinery running in total darkness) could produce a sharply defined faint latent image on the negative!
 
It's a bit like a refraction artefact from a light off to the side.
 
simon ess said:
A Romulan cloaking device malfunctioned just as you pressed the shutter.
Click to expand...

This!
Sometimes the most obvious solutions get overlooked.
 
Tbh I I think Simon has come up with the mostly likely cause …."Backscatter"
 
simon ess said:
This is why I think it could be a small insect or dust mote in the air.

You weren't using flash but the light may have just caught it right.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the only explanation that seems to have a reasonable chance of being correct.

However, the light to the left wasn't really all that bright. Note that the lighting on the lighthouse is not harsh, but quite soft. I was very drawn to the scene, because of the drama in the passing cloud, and because of that soft light. When I came back a bit later, with the cloud gone, it was much harsher.

Also the Wikipedia article describes it as an un-focused circle, whereas this is quite hard-edged. And most of the Wikipedia examples are really quite different.

IIRC it had been raining quite hard, but had stopped by the time I parked the car a few yards from where the shot was taken, so maybe not a water drop...

All buts and nevertheless aside, though, it seems like the only plausible answer, except of course for...
simon ess said:
A Romulan cloaking device malfunctioned just as you pressed the shutter.
Click to expand...
:D
 
I think it is a monochrome "rainbow" caused by light refracting/defracting/scattering in the low cloud.
 
Any kids around at the time? A very faint possibility might be a soap bubble.
 
john.margetts said:
I think it is a monochrome "rainbow" caused by light refracting/defracting/scattering in the low cloud.
Click to expand...
I wasn't totally sure if you were joking here, John, but assuming you were serious, I've photographed a monochrome rainbow in the Lake District and it was quite different. In particular it is circular (or fraction thereof) round the sun, or possibly opposite. Here the sun is to the south, left side as we're looking west (Forth rail bridge just visible).
 
A bit off topic, but this was the first scan I did of this frame, testing out a trial of SilverFast 8:

1904PMXBWSF02.jpg

This looks considerably better at this size than it does in full size. So, no, I won't be moving to SilverFast!
 
I use Silverfast all the time and find it really good, each to their own I guess :-)
 
My first thought, apart from the fact its 'so' perfectly round, was a drying mark.
Not entirely discounted this idea, when you said the mark was in the grain, not on it, and Nods comment about kids and bubbles resonated.
How was the film developed?
Idea percolates that it could have been a 'bubble' in the dev, possibly from over agitation or lack of, depending on the dev-duration & chem strength; what sort of tank/spirals were used?
Its straws to be clutched at, but you wanted ideas; and if the artefact is in the grain? It's either been created from the scene, or its a process anomoly.
 
If it was a bubble in the tank during development, it would result in a patch that was lighter on the negative due to less development, which would produce a darker feature in the positive. On the other hand, if there was a bubble during fixing, the undissolved halide might cause some light blockage in the scanner, resulting in a lighter patch in the positive.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
My first thought, apart from the fact its 'so' perfectly round, was a drying mark.
Not entirely discounted this idea, when you said the mark was in the grain, not on it, and Nods comment about kids and bubbles resonated.
How was the film developed?
Idea percolates that it could have been a 'bubble' in the dev, possibly from over agitation or lack of, depending on the dev-duration & chem strength; what sort of tank/spirals were used?
Its straws to be clutched at, but you wanted ideas; and if the artefact is in the grain? It's either been created from the scene, or its a process anomoly.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike for these thoughts...

I've never seen a drying mark this big; it must be about 10 mm across. I also used Photoflo and de-ionised water for the last wash. There are no other visible drying marks on the film. As you say, it's very round and sharply defined, with nothing in the way of edge effects visible.

It was developed in a Rondinax daylight tank, with continuous rotation. I've changed my technique fairly recently from 2 partial turns every 2 seconds, to 1 partial turn every second. This seems to reduce bromide drag considerably. The axis of the spiral is horizontal, so any bubbles naturally move up as the spiral turns; the spiral is only immersed about half way in chemicals, so bubbles couldn't really persist. I can't see how any bubble could form in processing.
 
kendo1 said:
I think you have captured an image of Niburu.
Click to expand...
Good grief, is that crap still going round? :facepalm:
I used to work with an otherwise sane and rational guy who prepared for Planet X Doomsday three times in a ten year period. Trying to convince the boss that last time to stock up on survival rations and equipment, and get ready to head for the hills to avoid the coming tsunamis was probably not his best career move...

Post that picture on a conspiracy site; tell them the world needs to know the truth. Say you'll post more later, but there's someone at the door, then never log in again...
They'll eat that s*** up. :LOL:
 
I didn't know anything about Nibiru, but I just had a read. What fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top