What is the “clarification” step when processing Polaroid film?

Type 55 P/N Polaroid film (positive / negative) emerges as a positive print and a negative film sandwiched together. These images are comprised of metallic silver imbedded in gelatin. The materials being drenched with the reagents are soft thus fragile. The reagent is strongly alkaline and will cause reddening of the skin (contact dermatitis). The negative must be separated from the print hastily else the reagent and a thin brown paper mask material will adhere and if the reagent dries, all will be difficult to remove.

The positive print requires coating using the special coating material suppled in the film box. The negative emerges completely fixed and thus not light-sensitive. The film, covered by the reagent must be, within 5 minutes, be treated with an 18% solution of sodium sulfite 180g dissolved in 1000ml of water.

This solution hardens the film and prepares anti-halation dyes in the film for removal. The film, immersed in this fluid and agitated until developer reagent falls off. Gentle rubbing with a cotton swab will assist.

The film is then washed, preferably in running water, for a minimum of 30 seconds however for maximum archrival, wash for 5 minutes.

Following the wash, soak in a wetting agent such as Kodak Photo-Flo for 30 seconds and then hang allowing the film to air dry. You may achieve better uniform drying by squeegee.

film – Why do I literally look like a zombie on some old photos taken with an early-1990s analogue camera?

In some old photos from the early and mid 1990s, taken with a probably cheap (but far from “one-time camera quality”) camera bought in either the early 1990s or late 1980s, with standard consumer Kodak film, oftentimes in bad lighting and with a built-in flash, I literally look like a zombie.

I don’t just mean red eyes and red lips. I mean that, somehow, the optics or, perhaps more likely, the now-primitive electronics and chips inside of the camera made rather… peculiar choices/interpretations around my mouth.

It has seemingly morphed all my teeth and flesh in such a manner that it looks like I have some sort of flesh-eating virus and somebody has stabbed me numerous time all around my mouth and teeth. It looks truly bizarre. The same camera was certainly capable of capturing sane photos, and it usually did when the lighting was good and it was outdoors/daylight, but it really suffered from bad light and the flash.

Still, I don’t understand how it could not just get the colors wrong, and not even just the proportions, but actually basically re-edit the photo on its own, so that it no longer resembles my face as it actually looked at all. How does something like that happen? Of course, this camera was made long before there were any kind of “filters” or “overlay effects” built into cameras. I almost start to wonder if the Kodak employee saw the negative and decided to spend some time in the red room with chemicals to rearrange my mouth to play a “zombie prank” on us, but if so, he did it both on the negative and the final photo… so it seems unlikely.

I really wish I could show you an example, but the sole reason I cannot is for privacy purposes.

Processing of Polaroid film – “clarification”

I presume they’re referring to the (obsolete) Positive/Negative black and white Polaroids, Type 55 (and one of the 3×4 pack films). We’d normally speak of “clearing” the negative from these films after peeling the print off, in order to keep the negative in condition to use for scanning or darkroom printing.

This involves putting the negative, as soon as possible after peeling, into a sodium sulfite solution (“clearing bath”) to prevent the pod contents from hardening on the film and remaining fixer from damaging the image.

I’ve understood that the term is derived from “hypo clearing solution,” a sodium sulfite bath used to speed washing of prints (the sulfite promotes the thiosulfate to clear from the print, especially important for fiber based papers). The solution used for Polaroid negatives is much more concentrated, but has the same general effect — preservation of the negative by promoting removal of fixer (and other chemicals from the pod).

olympus – Opening back of my film camera

You know the film canister? And you had to pull the film leader out a little to load the film into your camera? Well, any film that gets exposed to light is ruined. Film is light sensitive. Extremely light sensitive. The photos you have taken so far have been lost. The film that remains in the canister is still usable. (The canister is designed not to let light inside.)

I am kind of guessing here, but I think when you closed the back of your camera, the camera assumed you just loaded a new film. You can go ahead and take photos now. The camera will have advanced the film a little so that the frame now positioned behind the lens, waiting to be exposed, is film that was just drawn from the canister since you closed the back. The camera has reset its counter, so it will be counting from 1, but you will not get 36 frames from this roll (or 24, whatever was written on the packaging), because there’s that strip of ruined film already wound onto the take-up spool (that is, those first frames you shot, which were ruined when you opened the camera back).

Be very careful not to expose film to light. I’m still a little in awe of how people can do this, but I guess if you are never told…
Load the film carefully, don’t open the camera back, unload carefully, and bring the film to the photo processing lab without pulling it back out of the canister.

Minolta x-370 shutter works only without film loaded

what does it mean if the shutter advances and releases without film but will not release the shutter with film loaded? Minolta X-370

diy – How to make photographic film at home

Some years ago, there were a number of “liquid emulsion” products, which allowed you to “paint” a surface with sensitized gelatin similar to that on enlarging paper. Once dried (in the dark) this could be exposed, either under an enlarger or in a camera, then developed much like a print to show an image (negative of the scene, though if on a black surface the image would become positive by reflection).

I don’t know if these are still available, but such materials are within the scope of amateur production — but how to actual do that job is far beyond what can be answered on this kind of site. There was a photographer in Oregon ten years or so ago who had a very complete web site, documenting her methods, and made all her own plates and even sheet film.

Shooting film with a camera that doesn’t have a ISO meter

So got a yashica J that doesn’t have an iso dial or meter and I was wondering does that mean my camera is only limited to a set of film iso or that I can’t push or pull the film

diy – How to make camera film at home

Some years ago, there were a number of “liquid emulsion” products, which allowed you to “paint” a surface with sensitized gelatin similar to that on enlarging paper. Once dried (in the dark) this could be exposed, either under an enlarger or in a camera, then developed much like a print to show an image (negative of the scene, though if on a black surface the image would become positive by reflection).

I don’t know if these are still available, but such materials are within the scope of amateur production — but how to actual do that job is far beyond what can be answered on this kind of site. There was a photographer in Oregon ten years or so ago who had a very complete web site, documenting her methods, and made all her own plates and even sheet film.

Movies Section: On the list, What is your favorite movies of 1998 each film distribution?

For example of my favorites.

Disney: A Bug’s Life

HM: Mulan, The Waterboy, Armageddon, Shakespeare in Love, The Parents Trap, The Faculty, Rounders, Enemy of the State, I Got the Hook Up, Beloved, Ride, Down in the Delta, Life Is Beautiful, Simon Birch, He Got Game; and Six Days, Seven Nights

Fox: Dr. Dolittle

HM: There’s Something About Mary, Bulworth, The X-Flies, The Thin Red Line, Ever After, and How Stella Got Her Groove Back

Lionsgate: Belly

HM: Permanent Midnight, Cube, Star Kid, Buffalo ’66, Suicide Kings, Caught Up, and Pi

MGM: The Man in the Iron Mask

HM: Ronin, Species II, Disturbing Behavior, and Deceiver

Paramount: The Truman Show

HM: The Rugrats Movie, Deep Impact, A Simple Plan, Snake Eyes, Sliding Doors, Hard Rain, and Star Trek: Insurrection

Sony: The Mask of Zorro

HM: Les Misérables, Godzilla, Spice World, Can’t Hardly Wait, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Stepmom, Wild Things, Urban Legend, The Replacement Killers, and Madeline

Universal: Saving Private Ryan

HM: The Big Lebowski, Antz, The Prince of Egypt, Half-Baked, Patch Adams, Babe: Pig in the City, BASKetball, Out of Sight, Small Soldiers, What Dreams May Come, Bride of Chucky, Mercury Rising, Primary Colors, Meet Joe Black, Paulie, The Last Days of Disco, Elizabeth, and Black Dog

Updated 34 mins ago:

Warner Bros.: Rush Hour

HM: Lethal Weapon 4, You’ve Got Mail, The Negotiator, Mr. Nice Guy, Quest for Camelot, Pleasantville, Why Do Fools Fall in Love, Blade, The Wedding Singer, City of Angels, The Players Club, Practical Magic, Lost in Space, Sphere, Home Fries, Almost Heroes, and American History X

If you don’t know any of these movies or haven’t seen or haven’t ever heard of, you can skip it or put none.

issue with my film scanned result

I am new to film photography, i’ve got my 120mm film developed and scanned by a photo lab, and got this result,can someone tell me what all these flaws please? is it something with the film? or is it with the developing process?enter image description here

enter image description here

Lookslike there's a line