101 ways to ruin a roll of film

StephenM said:
I know this isn't a thread for comments/suggestions, so I won't expand on my reasons; but try cropping the top to a little below the "crows' nests" and see what you think.

I'm more likely to spend an age setting up my camera on a tripod and then walking away without an exposure than I am to make one. I'll never know how many "keepers" I failed to make, but that's the way I work. Except when I have a digital camera; then I may make as many as 100 exposures in a day (although usually more like 10).
Click to expand...

H'mm really it's trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..there is nothing to focus on or anything interesting other than photo shopping the royal family all in the crow's nests o_O
 
Sometimes a leather purse can be more useful than a silk one... I'll leave it there, but I will admit to have a slight smile on my face as I type this (quite literally a smile) as I contemplate what I could pick up on and dispute in your post above.
 
Shooting a roll of Ektar. Carefully metering for incident light using a Sekonic L-208. Not checking that the lumisphere is slid across. Actually spot metering the sky behing me. :banghead:

Thankfully, they've not come out too bad - not that there's anything Earth-shattering amongst them - but they look sort of ok after a bit of Lightroom TLC. The shadows look a little washed out but, hey! Lomography!
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Shooting a roll of Ektar. Carefully metering for incident light using a Sekonic L-208. Not checking that the lumisphere is slid across. Actually spot metering the sky behing me. :banghead:

Thankfully, they've not come out too bad - not that there's anything Earth-shattering amongst them - but they look sort of ok after a bit of Lightroom TLC. The shadows look alittle washed out but, hey! Lomography!
Click to expand...
Ektar seems to be one of the least exposure-tolerant print films out there (but gives such lovely-looking results if the exposure's right that I can forgive it that), so you would choose that one to cock up on! :facepalm: Never mind, look on the bright side, it could have been an £18 roll of Ektachrome you'd done that to! ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
Ektar seems to be one of the least exposure-tolerant print films out there (but gives such lovely-looking results if the exposure's right that I can forgive it that), so you would choose that one to cock up on! :facepalm: Never mind, look on the bright side, it could have been an £18 roll of Ektachrome you'd done that to! ;)
Click to expand...

I've got a roll of Ektachrome and a roll of Velvia sat in the fridge. I think they'll both get shot with the Nikon F80 for peace of mind.

I've also ordered a 5-pack of Provia in 120 format on a whim, so that'll be the one to look out for. Especially now I've realised that FilmDev don't process E6, so it's likely going to cost me £15 a roll for processing and scans! :runaway:
 
FishyFish said:
I've got a roll of Ektachrome and a roll of Velvia sat in the fridge. I think they'll both get shot with the Nikon F80 for peace of mind.

I've also ordered a 5-pack of Provia in 120 format on a whim, so that'll be the one to look out for. Especially now I've realised that FilmDev don't process E6, so it's likely going to cost me £15 a roll for processing and scans! :runaway:
Click to expand...
I've got my eye on some Ektachrome (once 7 Day Shop get the twin packs back in stock) for my new purchase, which should be arriving around lunchtime today. I'll test it with a roll of Gold 200 first though.

Once I try some I'll be sending mine to AG Photolab as they've done me proud so far with developing and scanning. I've had some good 120 E6 scans from my Epson V600, so once 120 Ektachrome becomes available I'll probably just go for a 'develop only' on that, with any 6x6 shots mounted as well. Who knows, I might buy an old 6x6 projector in the fullness of time, before demand for those takes off.
 
I got great results when I recently scanned some CT-Precisa on my Plustek and Silverfast, so I don't mind doing 35mm stuff based on that. I always seem to have issues getting the colour right on the V550 though, which I'd need to use for 120 (although maybe I'll have more success with transparency than colour negative, given there's no colour mask). I might give the trial version of Vuescan another go to see if that makes a difference.
 
I've found earlier Kodachrome slides from the 60s and early 70s are hard to get right on my Epson flatbed, but ones from the 80s onwards seem to scan OK, so it's probably down to the individual make and model of slide film?
 
FishyFish said:
I got great results when I recently scanned some CT-Precisa on my Plustek and Silverfast, so I don't mind doing 35mm stuff based on that. I always seem to have issues getting the colour right on the V550 though, which I'd need to use for 120 (although maybe I'll have more success with transparency than colour negative, given there's no colour mask). I might give the trial version of Vuescan another go to see if that makes a difference.
Click to expand...
It can be a bit hit and miss depending on the film, but I find it worthwhile trying the Auto Colour option in Photoshop just to see what it comes up with. It's sometimes not very good, but it's a very quick alternative view for comparison.
 
My Dad's Kodachromes didn't scan well on the Epson V700, using Epson Scan. Hugely contrasty and difficult to post process especially those which were slightly underexposed, most of them, in fact. They projected nicely though. I should work through them again using Vuescan, which I didn't have at the time, but there may be 3000 slides in total!
 
PeterSpencer said:
My Dad's Kodachromes didn't scan well on the Epson V700, using Epson Scan. Hugely contrasty and difficult to post process especially those which were slightly underexposed, most of them, in fact. They projected nicely though. I should work through them again using Vuescan, which I didn't have at the time, but there may be 3000 slides in total!
Click to expand...
The most important thing to remember is to turn off the ICE anti dust feature if trying to scan Kodachrome.
 
Well IMO if you want to ruin a roll of film then take shots using this film for about £9 plus del a roll.
Hover the cursor over the film to see the effect h'mm how do they ruin film to get that crap unless they supply a filter...oh wait some lomo guys like it.
https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/yodica-film
 
Last edited:
PeterSpencer said:
My Dad's Kodachromes didn't scan well on the Epson V700, using Epson Scan. Hugely contrasty and difficult to post process especially those which were slightly underexposed, most of them, in fact. They projected nicely though. I should work through them again using Vuescan, which I didn't have at the time, but there may be 3000 slides in total!
Click to expand...

When I scanned my Kodachromes, I'd just bought the Plustek 7500i and was using the copy of SilverFast SE 6 that came with it. They make a point that Kodachromes are more difficult to scan than E6 slide film (which I've seen elsewhere on t'internet), and provide a specific workflow to do so. It seemed to have worked out very well for me. I've just checked with my Vuescan Pro copy and there is a setting for Kodachrome (K14) under the "Color" tab; however, I don't think I have used that.
 
I don't know if this has cropped up before, or it may even be unique to my Minox 35GT. :thinking: Anyway, the Minox has a slider for the self timer and I used it yesterday for this very purpose. What I then didn't notice is that the self timer slider does not cancel after the shot, so the following 10 or 12 fantastic possible entries for this month and next month's FPOTY were taken with the self timer as well. Except they were taken as normal and I would have closed the front cover before the shutter actually tripped a few seconds later. :eggface: :asshat: :banghead:
 
Peter B said:
I don't know if this has cropped up before, or it may even be unique to my Minox 35GT. :thinking: Anyway, the Minox has a slider for the self timer and I used it yesterday for this very purpose. What I then didn't notice is that the self timer slider does not cancel after the shot, so the following 10 or 12 fantastic possible entries for this month and next month's FPOTY were taken with the self timer as well. Except they were taken as normal and I would have closed the front cover before the shutter actually tripped a few seconds later. :eggface: :asshat: :banghead:
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
I was about to click "Like", @Peter B , but it doesn't really convey the right message. It's these unusual situations that catch us all out.
 
G
Peter B said:
I don't know if this has cropped up before, or it may even be unique to my Minox 35GT. :thinking: Anyway, the Minox has a slider for the self timer and I used it yesterday for this very purpose. What I then didn't notice is that the self timer slider does not cancel after the shot, so the following 10 or 12 fantastic possible entries for this month and next month's FPOTY were taken with the self timer as well. Except they were taken as normal and I would have closed the front cover before the shutter actually tripped a few seconds later. :eggface: :asshat: :banghead:
Click to expand...
Good Lord, a mistake I have never made! And there was me thinking I had made all the mistakes.
 
ChrisR said:
I was about to click "Like", @Peter B , but it doesn't really convey the right message.
Click to expand...

I just "liked" and then "unliked" as the situation requires a "dislike" response.

Wether @Peter B received a "like alert" would be interesting to know seeing as I deleted the "like" several seconds after posting it.
 
Asha said:
I just "liked" and then "unliked" as the situation requires a "dislike" response.

Wether @Peter B received a "like alert" would be interesting to know seeing as I deleted the "like" several seconds after posting it.
Click to expand...
I only got the Reply alert, Asha.
 
This might be premature, and the photos might be fine, but today I realised that I shot the first 10 frames of my expensive roll of Ektacrome while thinking my F80 was focusing on a half-shutter-press, and not the back-button-focusing that I've actually got it set to. :(

Liuckily, most (though not all) were shot at f/8 with the subjects not too close to the camera and I don't recall the viewfinder being horrendously out-of-focus either, so I might be ok. I guess I'll find out tomorrow when I get them devved.
 
FishyFish said:
This might be premature, and the photos might be fine, but today I realised that I shot the first 10 frames of my expensive roll of Ektacrome while thinking my F80 was focusing on a half-shutter-press, and not the back-button-focusing that I've actually got it set to. :(

Liuckily, most (though not all) were shot at f/8 with the subjects not too close to the camera and I don't recall the viewfinder being horrendously out-of-focus either, so I might be ok. I guess I'll find out tomorrow when I get them devved.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that, Nige. Now go and stand in the corner and think about what you've done! :facepalm:
 
I shot a roll of Fuji Provia at the Lincoln Steam Rally at the weekend. The shots have come out really nice in the whole with great exposure and beautiful colours. The only problem I have is the MASSIVE BL**DY LIGHTLEAKS on most of the frames.

I think I know the cause though. I was using my Zeiss Mess-Ikonta and, when I reached the end of the roll, wound the film onto the takeup reel completely. Normally at this stage, I would remove the film and seal it ready for processing. This time though, because it was a bright sunny day, I decided to leave it in the camera until I got home. I think that the film, no longer held under tension, has managed to loosen slightly on the reel and when I've removed it, some of the exposed frames were outside of the flanges of the reel slightly and light has gotten in.

Thankfully, I've managed to mostly salvage the shots by use of some creative cropping (although there are still some slight residual signs of the light leak on some of them). This one however, is beyond my photoshop skills...

FILM - b--gered.jpg
 
Ok so it'sa sheet of film and not a roll but hey it's still stuffed!

The abandonned car was shot a few weeks ago ( a scene that interested me last winter but seeing it taken over with vegetation completely changed it's appearance!

So shot exposed, darkslide replaced blah blah blah, I goes out yesterday to a beautiful, although dangerous for access location with a waterfall and plunge pool .

Shot exposed using a TOYO film holder with a darkslide showing "grey" (ie unexposed) .

Devd this morning and guess what, that darkslide was for some reason not re-inserted with "black" showing following the car exposure…..Dammit!:banghead::banghead:

Double exposure Abanconned car, Waterfal Plunge pool 2019Small File.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yep, done the same myself....
 
Andysnap said:
Yep, done the same myself....
Click to expand...

Ditto. I'll see if I can find one....

Edit. I did. So here are four of my photographs, exposed economically.
cpic037x.jpgWealdFail.jpg
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I had to DuckDuckGo that... And found out it means

Form SD1: Demand immediate payment of a debt
Click to expand...


:runaway::runaway: Oh dear I have a feeling that I will soon be delivered more than one of those! :runaway::runaway:

:LOL::LOL:
 
Way 102 - Assume that because the light seal foam areas on a Contax 139 are not sticky that they are OK - Wrong - the foam has all gone and what you can see is the now non-sticky adhesive layer that just looks like foam - I've never seen such light leaks. The tiny bits between the leaks look OK though. Still drying film. So just the seals to do.

<Edit > and done - time to load another film.</Edit>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top