Some of your responses have been informative. However, I have additional information on my problem. I made the mistake of evaluating the film while it was still wet, this prevented me from seeing the ghost image on the 3 of the 6 frames. So all 6 frames have a ghost image. In answer to some of the questions posed: Yes all frames are side by side. The edge print is crystal clear and perfectly developed. The ghost images are extremely light and all other frames seem overexposed by at least one stop. I am almost positive now that me developer is spent, even though i have not used it much (it is at least 4 months old). If anyone thinks that the developer is the problem please let me know.

No way the camera is at fault here. The edge print is proof of this, and i have replicated this problem with 2 different cameras. One of which is a Nikon F100 that works flawlessly.

Thank you in advance.

-- Gino Difarnecio (gdifarn@evansville.net), October 04, 1999

Answers

Me again! I know you used two cameras for this test. However, I still must lean to the cameras having a problem, possibly shutter. I believe some edge markings are pre-exposed by the factory. Therefore a totaly broken camera will still develope the edge markings. That tells me that the developing is working to some point. At any rate, I think that having a camera checked is a good idea.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), October 04, 1999.

The edge markings (frame numbers, manufacturer, etc) are put there in the factory. If they are visible, the developer is OK.

If the 'ghost' images are very faint, then you have underexposure, pure and simple. Did you do something differently on those frames (like using manual exposure when the others were on auto)? Flash? Could you have made a mistake reading a meter?

Incidentally, you can provide "Additional info" by replying to the original question.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 04, 1999.

One last comment on this subject. A good point was made. In my experience with TMAX400CN (used only for important shots and pro developed) the film just dies if under exposed. What other users say is that TMAX is very fine grained but unforgiving.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), October 04, 1999.

Alan is right. If you have a few frames that aren't developed, then it is because of underexposure. If the developer was bad, the WHOLE ROLL would be un(der)developed, not just 6 frames. Not only that, your edge markings would not be developed either. (Edge markings are made by the film manufacturer, not by your camera!) Developer cannot pick and choose which frames to developer and which not to! And it can't decide to develop only the edge markings and not the rest of the film! So it's definitely underexposure of some kind.

The solution is to stop using your camera as a glorified point and shoot (get it off program!!!!!) and learn proper exposure. Then your underexposure problem will disappear. Why are you using program anyway? A proper test would be to figure out proper exposure, set it manually, shoot away, then develop. If the whole roll is underdeveloped, then (assuming you have proper exposure), the developer is bad. If only a few frames are undeveloped, then you know that there's a problem with your cameras.

-- Devin Shieh (junky@toadmail.toad.net), October 05, 1999.

Thank you all for your help. I now know why only six frames of the 24 were not developed.

Why was i using program mode? Tsk tsk. As i mentioned in my original post my Nikon F100 is brand new. I am trying to test every possible feature on it within a 2 week time span. It is a shame some people include such judgemental and critical airs in their responses. They spend more time barrating than really being constructive and help full. I like to thank Andy clements for shooting a straight answer and not putting on airs.

Thank you.

-- Gino Difarnecio (gdifarn@evansville.net), October 05, 1999.

This from someone who doesn't know that edge markings are put there by the factory, thinks that their developer is dead when 18 out of 24 frames are overexposed or overdeveloped, and owns an F100. I may be an ass but at least I'm not a dumbass.

-- Devin Shieh (junky@toadmail.toad.net), October 05, 1999.

"I may be an ass but at least I'm not a dumbass" - Devin Shieh

Thank you all for your help. A special thanks to Devin.

-- Gino Difarnecio (gdifarn@evansville.net), October 05, 1999.

Gino, don't be intimidated, there is nothing wrong with using PROGRAM. I've been photographing nearly 50 years and use it frequently, more and more as I get older. It saves time, and sometimes I get better pictures that way! If you're using the camera's built-in meter to set shutter/aperture, whether it does it electronically on PROGRAM, or if you do it yourself on MANUAL, the total exposure should be the same. If there is underexposure, either: a)you have it set on manual and you are underexposing by not following the meter recommendations, or: b)there is a problem with the camera. I have a 19 year old Pentax LX which, on aperture preferred exposure, randomly fires at 1/2000 sec about once a roll. If your camera is new send it back. If you have two doing the same thing send them both back. My quess is that it is misreading the ISO speed code on the cassettes (bad contacts, or "dirty" cassettes.)

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 05, 1999.

Gino, Keep asking those questions! If it was not for sites like B&W World and forums like this and the people that contribute, then would ALL of us be having a harder time. Thanks.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), October 06, 1999.