CafeenMan

I just posted some photos on my site to show what airport x-rays will do to unexposed film. Those guys are never willing to hand inspect my film but will usually do it if I argue with them long enough. In this case I didn't win. You can see what actually happens to your film in these photos.

Edit: Pages are gone so link is removed.

Dusty1

If you were to mail the film back home using Federal Express, would they x-ray the package?

CafeenMan

Dusty1 - I don't know, but I'm sure they'd tell you if you asked. I'm guessing yes considering what's going on in the world nowadays. But what should happen, is they should hand inspect the stuff. Either that or get it developed locally. Problem I had was that I wanted some photos of my models before movers destroyed them all. I should have taken photos sooner, but I waited til the last minute.

Ben Diss

My Feedback: (23)

I don't think your damage came from an x-ray machine. Typically, x-ray exposes the film evenly. Take a look at this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=005dEg

-Ben

SaviCatses

I also don't think that's x-ray damage. In the canister, the film is rolled up and the right-center of the frame will not line up perfectly with other frames (exactly like the 'rip lines' don't line up on toilet paper or paper towel rolls).

I'd think this damage was either done when taking the pictures by the camera, or when the film was unrolled by the film processing store and it might be static discharge.

from a kodak website (but about x-ray film): On another website I also saw that if pictures are taken when the camera is cold, or when the film is cold, this can also happen.

edit: I never had problems getting the film hand inspected so long as the film is in clear plastic containers. My camera bag has a seperate small bag where I can store all the film canisters, and I can just give them the small bag unzipped. But well, I have to say this was pre-obsession-with-inspections.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

We ship film just about every day to the processor via fedex. The rolls are 10 inches wide and 250 feet long. They are a grand a roll. We put labels on them stating they are film and "DO NOT XRAY". Never had a problem with it. They are pretty good about that. They do throw stuff around a bit too much. We used to park the plane next the the airborne terminal. The only packages they didn't throw were the ones marked "human blood" or "Bio Hazard"

Everything else pretty much gets thrown and bounced.

Sux that your pix got toasted. Look kind of like a cool affect though. Look more like static, but it was probably caused from the xrays.

GrnBrt

My Feedback: (5)

In the 70's I did a lot of free lanch work and traveled and never had a problem. When a X-Ray does the damage it will be fogged and what you are seeing in these shots look like static electricity. I had my own color darkroom and has a problem once with static and that's exactly what it looked like on the negative.

CafeenMan

So the general conscensus here is that this is not X-Ray damage, correct? I guess I should take that page down then. Still, the *******s never hand inspect my film and I've always had it in my hand in cannisters that they can look at it. It's not like I stand there making people wait while I dig it out. *******s. [:@]

SaviCatses

Well, I've had filmed X-Rayed at the airport before (film that was forgotten in the camera body) and never had any problems.

But anyway, aside from the electrical storm coming from the right, your models really look great

CafeenMan

Savi - Thanks. If you look at the gallery on my site you can see the hoops I jumped through to fix some of those photos. OK, looks like I'll have to take the page down. I'm sure this was caused by x-rays - I flew in January following 9/11 and they went through probably a dozen different x-ray machines.

runover1

My Feedback: (10)

I have a different thought. Everyone of the photos of the models has this and it is always on the right. I would really guess that you might need to look at your camera for a very small piece of fuzz either in the camera or on the lens. The fact that it is very close to being the same shape too goes with that arguement. But all that aside, give them new federal employees hell, they need it, but be careful or you may become a yellow or red category individual and not be able to travel at all. Keep in mind, when they pull your license, ss info and other stuff now at the counter, they are also storing your biometrics into a computer via the cameras. Pretty scary huh?

CafeenMan

If it were something on the lens, then it would be black - not white - due to it not being exposed. It's a mystery to me.

4*60

My Feedback: (41)

I had a similar thought. There is fuzz/lint in the processing equipment with the negatives.

SaviCatses

I pretty much read your website from end to end... except I spent a bit less time reading the static models section (only looked at pictures). It's mostly due to your website that I want to fiberglass the next kit I'm going to build.

I still think it's static discharge. When you forward to the next frame after taking a picture (or completely rewind), the film will rub inside the body, probably against whatever material that lines the outer edges of the opening (where the film lays flat). A static discharge can occur there.

[link=http://nicephotostudio.com/tips/tipsindex.htm]photo examples[/link] shows some examples of x-ray film damage.

CafeenMan

SaviCatses - I think you're right. Unfortunately, of all the examples, the example they don't have pictures of are the static photos. I'll bet that's what it is though. Nothing else really makes sense. I've shot dozens of rolls of film since then and they all came out fine so I really doubt it's the camera.

Fortunately, I packed all these models myself and didn't let the movers touch them. It's the first time I've had a model survive a move and they all survived. So I'm in the process of shooting them all again. I don't know a lot about lighting though. I built three studio light stands that I'm trying to learn how to use. I shot new pics of the Corsair that you can see in the thumbnails at the bottom of the page. Those were taken with two lights because I didn't have the third one finished yet.

Just about everything I have learned to do has come from model building - photography, computers, computer programming, etc. Well, I can't say I never learned anything.

CafeenMan

PS. I'm taking the page down. I don't want to misinform people and at this point I'm convinced the damage is not from x-rays. Here are the photos so you can see what I was talking about since that page in the first link won't be there any more.

CafeenMan

The rest of the photos...

CafeenMan

Looks like the Emporer is ticked off at Luke

aimmaintenance

I vote for lint. As runover1 mentioned the shape of the distortion is to repetitive. Static would change it's shape much more I would think.
If nothing else try a little compressed air and blow the hell out of the inside and out. (use the cans of air that are used for computers and such) It is cleaner than what comes out of your home air compressor. If nothing else that should either remove or change the shape of the distortion if it is lint.

Ben Diss

My Feedback: (23)

Here's a great book for you to learn lighting techniques.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...%3D1074090023/

-Ben

SaviCatses

It can't be lint as the lines would be black:

1. As light hits the film, a reaction happens with the chemicals.
2. When developing a negative, there are two main parts (a) the film is bathed into a solution causing the areas of chemicals where light hit the film to harden. (b) the film is then bathed into another solution where all the areas of chemicals that did not get any light get washed away.
3. Therefore, on a negative, areas where light hit the film are opaque, areas where no light (or less light) hit the film are clear (less opaque).
4. When creating a print, light is shined through the negative which hits the photographic paper. The paper is white, and where light hits the paper, it darkens (after being subjected to another chemical bath).

Lint would block light from reaching the negative, therefore creating clear 'tree branches' on the negative, and then on the actual photographic paper, these translate to dark or black lines.

Static discharge is actually discharge of light. Therefore creating dark (or black) 'tree branches' on the negative, which translate to white lines on the photographic paper.

Well, anyhow, that's the general concept anyway, been a while since I developed any negatives or prints. And back in photography class, I remember the professor always telling us to slowly review the film when finished, going too fast could cause static discharge. It never happened to me though, the worse that ever happened was while in a dark 'closet' loading the film into a development tank. I had forgetten about the lock and another student opened the door. OOOPS!

edit: As for a book, I recommend 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams (second of a three part series), more information on the negative than you'd probably ever want to know, my girlfriend gave it to me as a gift two years ago, and loved it.

CafeenMan

aimmaintenance - I do not believe it's lint because it would be unexposed = black. Also, I've shot a lot of film since those pics were taken and the problem has never been duplicated. I'm leaning toward it being static, but not for sure about that. I am convinced it's not the camera and also not x-rays.

I actually have several good photography books. I just need to open them.

kdheath

That looks all the world like lint in a printer. Here's my thought process. Were the original images slides or prints? If they were slides and the lint was in the camera, they would be black, as noted above. If the film was print stock, and the lint was in the camera, the image would also be black. If you were shooting with an SLR, I think the fuzz would have been visible in the viewfinder. Only if the lint was in the film holder of a printer would the image of the fuzz be white and sharp. Does the fuzz image appear on the negatives? I would expect not. Were the images processed by a garden variety photo lab? In a pro lab, QC would have caught these and redone them.

I did commercial photography, commercial lab work and managed one-hour labs for over ten years, in another life.

CafeenMan

kdheath - the Camera is a Nikon N90s SLR. The printing was done by garden variety. Normally I take my film to a pro-lab, but at the time I was just getting out of the service and broke, so I paid 6.99 to Eckards instead of $15.99 to Harmon's (who does outstanding work, btw).

shenion

Is the garbage on the negatives??? If not then reprinting with a good lab may be the fix.