Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Odd Photo Effect

profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/content/pictures/id/374416/

I shot this with a Minolta 110, on TMAX ISO 400 Black and White film, with a 50mm f/2.8 prime at f/2.8. Developed myself.

Anybody know why I got that white vignette? I really like it, wondering how I might reproduce it in the future.
Sep 28 2010 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Is that a print?
Sep 28 2010 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
seriously?
Sep 28 2010 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Scanning and reversing negs isnt that uncommon. In fact most the MF & LF shooters at my old school did it?
Sep 28 2010 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
.
Sep 28 2010 7:56PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
yes
Sep 28 2010 7:58PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I think your  newly developed prejudice against me as blinded you from the fact that you can develop both film and prints. He easily could of developed the film, and scanned in the negs instead of making a print and scanning the print. Now I really feel like you should just go ahead and stop.

OP, since it likely is a print, its called fall off. It has to do with the enlarger that you were using. Take the neg carrier out, open the aperture all the way up and turn it on. You will likely notice that the middle of the circle is brighter that the outside, thus the middle will be perfectly exposed on the print, and the outside will appear dodged. I would first, make sure that the enlarger height is said to 35mm, then if persistent, ask the lab manager to replace the bulb, or learn to burn in the outsides accordingly.

That being said, your fall off does seem overly excessive for most cases and slightly inconsistent, so I may be wrong.
Sep 28 2010 8:07PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
^ That is all based off the idea that your neg is completely fine, which since you didn't say anything about, I can only assume it is.
Sep 28 2010 8:09PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
I think the effect must be coming from the negative. I have printed many photos on that enlarger, and have not noticed that effect. The negative is developed fine as well, so the effect is coming from the photo itself
Sep 28 2010 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Thats why I suggested you should first check that the enlarger bellows height has not been moved from 35mm. Thats a problem that can happen when someone else develops 120 on the same enlarger, so it can happen overnight.

Check the neg, is it really dense, near bulletproof?

If its not, is the fall off consistent on every print? Assuming you made more than one.
Sep 28 2010 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
The enlarger was at 35mm, I'm not sure about how dense the negative is, the fall off is consistent
Sep 28 2010 8:45PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Then it cant be your printing technique, so when you get a chance, check the neg. If there is no fall off as you say, then it almost has to be a neg issue. I still feel like you should check the enlarger. It can be set for 120 film and still be at a 35mm 8x10 height you know that right?
Sep 28 2010 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
kzrstf
Posts: 2778 - Karma: 695
even tho i hate your attitude, i enjoy your post because you know your shit
Sep 28 2010 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
Check your negative density as suggested, especially if you have the machine that does it for you. I'd definitely think that an enlarger issue is more likely, though. Chances are it got bumped out of alignment, you didn't have the negative carrier in right, or the condenser lens was crooked or at the wrong height. I have never seen uneven development like that on 35mm, but I have seen a hell of a lot of enlarger falloff issues.
Sep 28 2010 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
BryantPhoto
Posts: 1574 - Karma: 891
This is the biggest mess of a discussion. The white vignette is due to some older film cameras don't let light in equally throughout the entire negative while inside the camera, thus allowing the normal light in the center, and less and less as you move outwards.
Sep 29 2010 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
That could work, except for the fact that he said this is the first time this has ever happened to him. Meaning all his other negs/prints come out fine. Meaning it cant be a camera issue..
Sep 29 2010 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
BryantPhoto
Posts: 1574 - Karma: 891
Outdated film? Improperly put the film on the sprockets in the camera?
Sep 29 2010 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
That would cause a dark vignette since the negative would be thinner at the corners, I don't think I've ever seen a camera that exposed the corners more than the center. But then again, there's a first time for everything!
Sep 29 2010 1:58PM
0 0
profile picture
BryantPhoto
Posts: 1574 - Karma: 891
One of my Holgas causes a white vignette.
Sep 29 2010 1:59PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Ha enough said dude..
Sep 29 2010 2:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
^That is super weird! We were actually required to shoot a couple assignments with Holgas this semester, and everybody's had a pretty pronounced vignette, with the biggest variance between cameras being how soft they got toward the corners. Do you shoot it with the mask out?

If it's a problem from the film bending, you'd also notice distortion and things going in and out of focus when they shouldn't in that area as well.
Sep 29 2010 2:03PM
0 0
profile picture
gordie.
Posts: 2014 - Karma: 84
holga's shoot so randomly. each one has it's own little discrepancies, to a point

I love shooting with my holga for cool fun stuff, but encountered (and still encounter) many people who claim them to be much harder to use, more professional and more creative. I think they make interesting photo's, but aren't the one and only key to a creative photo.

that's cool you got to do a school assignment with them though, I'll be it was fun
Sep 29 2010 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
I don't really see the appeal for holgas, it seems like everything they produce can easily be done in photoshop in 5 minutes, not to mention the ludicrous film costs
Sep 29 2010 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Yeah fuck film br0. I can do that shit in photoshop in minutes. Theres nothing to learn in shooting film.
Sep 29 2010 9:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
It depends on who your audience is. I'd be willing to bet a fairly substantial amount of money that I would be able to tell a photoshopped digital image from one out of a Holga. There is a reason certain tools exist, otherwise I'd just be using dinky little sliders in photoshop instead of hauling around my big ass studio 4x5 every time I shoot.

But you do have a point on film...eeehhhhhhhhhhhh.
Sep 29 2010 9:49PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Yeah that's a good point, I have put a ton of effort into reproducing lomo photos, and, while my photos are good enough to be convincing, they're just not quite what lomo photos are.

My friend has a holga, and he is paying like 14 bucks for a 16 shot roll of film. Is he a retard or is that actually the going price?
Sep 29 2010 9:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
I guess if he's paying for processing that's somewhere around normal. The color film I like to shoot is about $7 for a roll of 120, and processing at most places is around $5. On the other hand, you can get low-end B&W 120 film for $2-3 a roll and it's super easy to develop yourself.

If you want to get really expensive, I end up paying $7-9 a shot when I do color slides. But they look supa fine!
Sep 29 2010 9:59PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
yeah I think he's just a spoiled idiot. He lost some piece thats important i guess so know hes exposing a larger area than he should be, has to advance the film further, and is paying $1 a shot before getting them printed
Sep 29 2010 10:04PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)