Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Now X-Ray damaged film (was well said, Skip...)

Subject: Re: [OM] Now X-Ray damaged film (was well said, Skip...)
From: Skip Williams <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:17:33 -0500
What was the recommended way to prevent it from happening again?  

Does bold "Photographic Film, Do Not X-Ray" help?



>
>Subject: Re: [OM] well said, Skip...
>   From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>   Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:57:10 -0800 (PST)
>     To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Skip wrote:
>>Yes, I sent some film to Ken for processing and somewhere
>>between NJ and Iowa it got X-Ray'ed, which increased the
>>background by about one stop.  Interestingly enough, another
>>set of rolls sent the exact same day to Arizona had no damage. 
>>This leads me to believe that it's somewhere outside of NJ,
>>since all my mail goes through Newark.  Or I was the
>>unfortunate recipiant of a random x-ray
>
>I had a brief "sit-down" with my postmaster about this.  We
>calculated that it was one, or a combination, of the following:
>
>-Newark center nuking in/out first class mail.
>-Chicago center nuking in/out first class mail.
>-Airline baggage X-ray damage for the transit between Newark and
>Chicago or Chicago and DesMoines.
>
>We suspect that this particular shipment MAY have been damaged
>by the airlines.  Of course, the postmaster will blame somebody
>else.
>
>Now, how extensive was the damage?  Compared to a "control" roll
>processed at the same time, the film was damaged, yet usuable. 
>Test prints showed that even the D400 pushed to 1600 was
>acceptable with additional contrast control.  If I was fine-art
>printing anything off of it, I would use split-grade printing. 
>Scanning and "photoshoping" is a non-issue, except for a
>grainier scan.
>
>That said,
>
>The apparent "grain-structure" was altered.  Skip's rolls of
>Delta 100 looked more like Plus-X or FP-5.  Not the normal
>creamy look you expect with D100.  It wasn't my chemistry,
>because my own rolls of film processed simultaneously were OK. 
>There was no apparent increase in base-fog, but the emulsion was
>noticably coarser than what I'm accustomed to seeing.
>
>The Delta 400 (shot and processed at 400) had the same
>grain-altered effect, but had a noticable base fog.  The roll of
>Delta 400 pushed to 1600 had at least a Zone II base fog.  At
>least there was shadow detail!
>
>Yes, these rolls exhibited all the standard traits of X-Ray
>damage, such as sprocket holes, increase in density and the
>classic--film exposed outside the sprocket holes for the first
>part of the roll.
>
>AG Schnozz
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
>http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [OM] Now X-Ray damaged film (was well said, Skip...), Skip Williams <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz