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
Wayne Culberson wrote:
I've heard some talk about the sprocket holes ripping on a film, but had not
experienced this either until this trip. On one roll of 36 exp Kodak
Elitechrome 100 EC, the sprocket holes ripped at about the 28th frame, and
stopped advancing. I rewound the roll and managed to get about 24 slides,
but every one of them was quite overexposed on almost every frame. Since the
rolls before and after it worked fine, all the same film type and all on
OM2s, and mostly were pretty well exposed correctly, does it make any sense
to conclude that the film roll was not only defective mechanically, but also
somehow defective in its exposure speed? It just seems too much conicidence
that every frame would be overexposed on that roll, and almost none on
several other rolls.
< 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 >
|