Timothy Sherburne wrote: > > Yes, both rolls were processed at the same lab. I had other rolls done at > the same time with no ill effects, and I've used the lab before. > > Looking again, I see the spots on the Portra negs are actually three > dimensional: tiny raised craters on the negative's mask.
That's from static electricity. It comes from the film being pulled across or between two dissimilar or plastic materials, or rewound too rapidly (An example: the film stripped off the roll too fast, creating high fields of static electricity too quickly to be dissipated.) However produced, or when, that's what it is... keith whaley > The one blemish on the Reala is only two dimensional. It looks like it is in > the emulsion itself. > > t > > On 12/13/02 9:23 PM, Dan Scott wrote: > > > > > On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 10:35 PM, Timothy Sherburne wrote: > > > >> This frame was taken with 35mm Portra 160NC. The roll is covered with > >> little > >> "splatters" from about 26 through the end. It looks like it is in the > >> emulsion to me. > >> > >> <http://www.sherb.org/bad/portrabad.jpg> > >> > >> Here's a frame from a roll of 120 Fuji Reala (it's imported because > >> that's > >> all you can get). The weird vertical "drip" shape is in the negative. > >> It's > >> the only frame on the roll that has that kind of problem. > >> > >> <http://www.sherb.org/bad/realabad.jpg> > >> > >> I've run about a dozen rolls of each and haven't seen any other > >> problems, so > >> this is hardly conclusive. I'll probably continue to get film from > >> them. > >> > >> t > > > > Hi Timothy, > > > > That's a bummer, but interesting that the two different brands show > > similar problems. Were they both processed at the same lab? > > > > Dan Scott > >
