Super16Eclair Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 My newly aquired ACL II Eclair (converted to Super 16) magazines seem to be marking my neg. If you are familiar with the Eclair magazine, you will know that where the film exits and enters the magazine to run past the gate, there are two 'teeth' towards the outside of each opening that come into contact with the emulsion. When I inspect my neg closely under strong light I can see rub marks that run the full length of the neg on each side (these match up perfectly with the width and position of these 'teeth'). One rub mark is over the perfs, but the other is very much in the image area. Are ANY marks on the neg unacceptable and likely to cause visible scratch marks when processed, or is this common with this type of magazine and unavoidable? It seems to me that there is no way to stop these bits of metal touching the emulsion as the film exits and enters the magazine. I know that a simple answer would be to process the neg and see what happens, but I was curious if this was encountered by anyone else. Both of my magazines have the same issue. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Bullock Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 It sounds to me like your magazines weren't converted for proper S16 use. Is it possible that only the camera body was converted and not the mags? Who did the S16 conversion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super16Eclair Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 The conversion was done by someone here is Australia. I was told by the previous owner that the magazines had also been converted. What should they look like if they have been converted? Are you saying that this rubbing on the emulsion is to be expected, but it was not usually within the image area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted March 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 27, 2006 The conversion was done by someone here is Australia. I was told by the previous owner that the magazines had also been converted. What should they look like if they have been converted? Are you saying that this rubbing on the emulsion is to be expected, but it was not usually within the image area? Well, it is normal, but it's designed to be in the perforation area. Since the S16 conversion, one of the perforation areas is now image area. It sounds like the mags needs to be altered so there aren't sprockets on the image side of the film anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Bullock Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Well, it is normal, but it's designed to be in the perforation area. Since the S16 conversion, one of the perforation areas is now image area. It sounds like the mags needs to be altered so there aren't sprockets on the image side of the film anymore. That is my thinking on it, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Anything that rubs the emulsion side before development is likely to cause pressure fogging. The scratch itself, if it is just a light mark in the protective supercoat, will probably heal over in the process - but you will most likely get a yellow line (yellow on the neg, showing as blue in a positive image), which can't be cured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now