> Simple logic applied to the evidence provided suggests that this was a
> shorter roll of a different, faster, film.
>
> Is it possible this was a 24 exposure roll, perhaps even a mislabeled
> one, and actually ripped a couple of 'frames' earlier? (If in the RC,
> with its shorter film path and careful loading, it might even rip at 27,
> whit the counter ending up at 28 after the rip.) Slide processors used
> to return all the film, good and bad, from end to end, so you can see
> the problems with the ones they didn't mount and not yell at them for
> missing that perfect shot you know you took. If this were a full 36
> exposure roll, you should have gotten a long blank piece with frame
> numbers up to 36 on it. You can check to see if is is indeed the same
> film by looking at the edges, where the film type and frame numbers are
> shown.
>
> Moose
I was curious about what happened, so specifically asked the developer to
check out the roll. They included a length of film about 2 frames long that
had the sprocket holes ripped out on one side only, so that three holes are
now one elongated hole. The other side must have been jumping over the teeth
of the cog, which made it feel rough in winding. The frame counter on the
OM2s was at 28 when I stopped winding, but I'm guessing that I had a wound
few frames after the film stopped advancing. The last unmounted bit of film
has an "X KODAK EL -2" (without the quotation marks) along one side
of the film. On the other side of the film it has an X and a bit further
along an XA with a small arrow under the XA. There are no frame numbers on
the bit of film they included. It was marked in the box and on the film the
same as all the others, that is, Kodak Elitechrome 100 extra color. Does
anyone know if these markings are what is supposed to be on the film?
Wayne
< 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 >
|