ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: BertieSlack on April 09, 2020, 05:28:17 AM

Title: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: BertieSlack on April 09, 2020, 05:28:17 AM
Has anybody seen this new article at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
I'd be very interested to hear some views.

Hope everybody is keeping safe and well.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: Abaddon on April 09, 2020, 07:07:29 AM
Has anybody seen this new article at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
I'd be very interested to hear some views.

Hope everybody is keeping safe and well.

Fatally flawed.

That was not the camera used.
They performed the depress/repress cycles and then exposed the film. That is not remotely what happened.
They did not verify that they used the same development process.
They did not account for the colour calibration charts included in Apollo film. Nor did they reason WHY those colour calibration charts were included in the first place. It was exactly to account for such colour space variation and correct for it.

And so on. I can't be bothered with more. Those idiots simply don't care about the facts.


Stay safe, be well.

ETA: Oh and Marcus Allen in involved, the lying ****. That is an immediate red flag.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 09, 2020, 07:19:55 AM
So flawed on so many levels Rather like the 'cooking it in an oven' test done years ago, they totally fail to actually reproduce the circumstances because the spacecraft interior was not one atmosphere of normal air but 5psi pure oxygen. Their depressurisation/repressurisation cycle is therefore not a true reflection of the conditions they are trying to examine. They also fail to account for the fact that film development is not a 'this process and ONLY this process' situation, and the process can be tweaked to change the outcome somewhat. I don't know how, because I have never done it nor taken the time to understand the process in depth, but I do know people who are experts, and I know from a little reading that it is possible to change the various steps to produce different results. I also know why they exposed a colour chart at the start of every roll.

So pretty much the usual Aulis 'make it look like science without actually understanding any of the science' rubbish.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: molesworth on April 09, 2020, 08:06:43 AM
... 'make it look like science without actually understanding any of the science' rubbish.
This is pretty much the modus operandi of every pseudo-science and conspiracy theory proponent, from flat earth to the latest anti-5G and Coronavirus believers.

Unfortunately, to a lot of people, even something that looks vaguely scientific can be compelling evidence, especially if it reinforces their own beliefs.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: BertieSlack on April 09, 2020, 08:50:27 AM
Rather like the 'cooking it in an oven' test done years ago

I was wondering about the temperature aspect of the 'experiment' as well. In what is the film contained when it has the lamp shining on it? And there is a reference to 'ambient temperature' - ambient temperature of what, I wonder?
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 09, 2020, 09:12:34 AM
They were at least smart enough to use ESTAR-base film, except that the film base you get today is many times thicker than the very thin ESTAR base that was actually provided for Apollo.  And actually it was provided for Project Corona.  (That name didn't age well.). It was designed specifically for use in space, for reasons having nothing to do with Apollo.

And yes, ditto to all the obvious methodological errors the others have noticed.  There are simply too many to name.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 09, 2020, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Aulis Article
(https://www.aulis.com/images_vacuum/fig6.jpg)
Figure 6. Changes to the film strips are visually apparent. Here the vacuum-exposed film is on the left – the film has lost it's sheen and has shifted to a brownish hue. The control film strip is on the right

What a load of rubbish!

What they have done here is place the two pieces of film different ways up. On the right, the film is substrate side up, on the left it's emulsion side up. The emulsion side of a film is always more dull than the substrate side (just find any piece of 35mm film and examine it yourself). When you look at a piece of film, if the frame numbers are the right way around, you are looking at the back or substrate side of the film; they are back-to-front if you are looking at the emulsion side.

It is also easy to tell just by looking at the photo itself. When film dries by hanging up (without a roller drying machine) the film always curls across its width towards the emulsion side. The film on the left is clearly curled upwards. If both films were the same way up, the reflection from the lamp would be on the same side, but its not - on the right the reflection is on the right side of the strip (outside the curl) while on the left strip, its on the left (inside the curl)

These guys have faked their results.   
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 09, 2020, 06:38:06 PM
They also fail to account for the fact that film development is not a 'this process and ONLY this process' situation, and the process can be tweaked to change the outcome somewhat. I don't know how, because I have never done it nor taken the time to understand the process in depth, but I do know people who are experts, and I know from a little reading that it is possible to change the various steps to produce different results.

Yes, the developer makes a difference, and so does the process used.

Process a black and white film in D-76 and you will get different results from processing in Ilford LC-29. Then there is Ilfotec DD-X, Ilfotec RT, Ilfosol 3, ID-11, Perceptol, Microphen also from Ilford, and HC-110, XTOL from Kodak. Although D-76 has been around a long time, there were probably also developers used in the 1960s that are no longer around; IIRC, DK-50 was one of them. All of these developers will yield different results, then on top of that, is HOW the films are developed. Developing in a machine, a tank or as single sheets in a tray or bath will yield different results. Then there are developer strengths (ratio of concentrate to water), developing time and developer temparatore, all of which can be tweeked in the darkroom. If you don't know the chemical and methodology that were used to develop the Apollo films, then anything you do with different films, in a different camera with different developing methods will be  will be meaningless.

Aulis also used C-41 colour film using C-41 process. Well, C-41 wasn't released by Kodak until Late 1972, so all the missions up to Apollo 17 must have used C-22 for their colour negative film, a considerably different process. If you process C-22 in a standard C41 bath, you will ruin it unless you take some very special precautions.

ETA: I just found this of only film developers. All these will yield different results in different circumstances

https://www.digitaltruth.com/data.php?doc=filmdevsabc
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: Abaddon on April 09, 2020, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Aulis Article
(https://www.aulis.com/images_vacuum/fig6.jpg)
Figure 6. Changes to the film strips are visually apparent. Here the vacuum-exposed film is on the left – the film has lost it's sheen and has shifted to a brownish hue. The control film strip is on the right

What a load of rubbish!

What they have done here is place the two pieces of film different ways up. On the right, the film is substrate side up, on the left it's emulsion side up. The emulsion side of a film is always more dull than the substrate side (just find any piece of 35mm film and examine it yourself). When you look at a piece of film, if the frame numbers are the right way around, you are looking at the back or substrate side of the film; they are back-to-front if you are looking at the emulsion side.

It is also easy to tell just by looking at the photo itself. When film dries by hanging up (without a roller drying machine) the film always curls across its width towards the emulsion side. The film on the left is clearly curled upwards. If both films were the same way up, the reflection from the lamp would be on the same side, but its not - on the right the reflection is on the right side of the strip (outside the curl) while on the left strip, its on the left (inside the curl)

These guys have faked their results.   

Even visually, from the curl in the film, they are obviously flipped, but what else do you expect from Aulis?
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: AtomicDog on April 10, 2020, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Aulis Article
(https://www.aulis.com/images_vacuum/fig6.jpg)
Figure 6. Changes to the film strips are visually apparent. Here the vacuum-exposed film is on the left – the film has lost it's sheen and has shifted to a brownish hue. The control film strip is on the right

What a load of rubbish!

What they have done here is place the two pieces of film different ways up. On the right, the film is substrate side up, on the left it's emulsion side up. The emulsion side of a film is always more dull than the substrate side (just find any piece of 35mm film and examine it yourself). When you look at a piece of film, if the frame numbers are the right way around, you are looking at the back or substrate side of the film; they are back-to-front if you are looking at the emulsion side.

It is also easy to tell just by looking at the photo itself. When film dries by hanging up (without a roller drying machine) the film always curls across its width towards the emulsion side. The film on the left is clearly curled upwards. If both films were the same way up, the reflection from the lamp would be on the same side, but its not - on the right the reflection is on the right side of the strip (outside the curl) while on the left strip, its on the left (inside the curl)

These guys have faked their results.   


I've developed thousands of rolls of film over the years ( I used to work in a minilab) and I could tell instantly what emulsion side vs. substrate side looks like. NO ONE familiar with developing film would make this mistake. This is intentional deceit.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: raven on April 10, 2020, 03:21:36 PM
Aulis? Using deceptive practices to promote their particular brand of mental sewage?!
Perish the thought! :o
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 10, 2020, 04:03:05 PM
They also fail to account for the fact that film development is not a 'this process and ONLY this process' situation, and the process can be tweaked to change the outcome somewhat. I don't know how, because I have never done it nor taken the time to understand the process in depth, but I do know people who are experts, and I know from a little reading that it is possible to change the various steps to produce different results.

Yes, the developer makes a difference, and so does the process used.

Process a black and white film in D-76 and you will get different results from processing in Ilford LC-29. Then there is Ilfotec DD-X, Ilfotec RT, Ilfosol 3, ID-11, Perceptol, Microphen also from Ilford, and HC-110, XTOL from Kodak. Although D-76 has been around a long time, there were probably also developers used in the 1960s that are no longer around; IIRC, DK-50 was one of them. All of these developers will yield different results, then on top of that, is HOW the films are developed. Developing in a machine, a tank or as single sheets in a tray or bath will yield different results. Then there are developer strengths (ratio of concentrate to water), developing time and developer temparatore, all of which can be tweeked in the darkroom. If you don't know the chemical and methodology that were used to develop the Apollo films, then anything you do with different films, in a different camera with different developing methods will be  will be meaningless.

Aulis also used C-41 colour film using C-41 process. Well, C-41 wasn't released by Kodak until Late 1972, so all the missions up to Apollo 17 must have used C-22 for their colour negative film, a considerably different process. If you process C-22 in a standard C41 bath, you will ruin it unless you take some very special precautions.

ETA: I just found this of only film developers. All these will yield different results in different circumstances

https://www.digitaltruth.com/data.php?doc=filmdevsabc
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 10, 2020, 04:18:01 PM
Anyways, this was a cool experiment, which I have been wanting to do myself.

But it is kind of usefull, since film in all sizes (16mm to large format) was used by space agencies for decades, starting even before manned missions and lasting even a few years on the ISS because digital could not yet match hasselblad resolution.

So given film has been used for decades in EVA's, even extremely complex camera's such as 70mm Imax... all this crap about cold welding, temperature, radiation, is BS.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2020, 06:21:01 PM
They also fail to account for the fact that film development is not a 'this process and ONLY this process' situation, and the process can be tweaked to change the outcome somewhat. I don't know how, because I have never done it nor taken the time to understand the process in depth, but I do know people who are experts, and I know from a little reading that it is possible to change the various steps to produce different results.

Yes, the developer makes a difference, and so does the process used.

Process a black and white film in D-76 and you will get different results from processing in Ilford LC-29. Then there is Ilfotec DD-X, Ilfotec RT, Ilfosol 3, ID-11, Perceptol, Microphen also from Ilford, and HC-110, XTOL from Kodak. Although D-76 has been around a long time, there were probably also developers used in the 1960s that are no longer around; IIRC, DK-50 was one of them. All of these developers will yield different results, then on top of that, is HOW the films are developed. Developing in a machine, a tank or as single sheets in a tray or bath will yield different results. Then there are developer strengths (ratio of concentrate to water), developing time and developer temparatore, all of which can be tweeked in the darkroom. If you don't know the chemical and methodology that were used to develop the Apollo films, then anything you do with different films, in a different camera with different developing methods will be  will be meaningless.

Aulis also used C-41 colour film using C-41 process. Well, C-41 wasn't released by Kodak until Late 1972, so all the missions up to Apollo 17 must have used C-22 for their colour negative film, a considerably different process. If you process C-22 in a standard C41 bath, you will ruin it unless you take some very special precautions.

ETA: I just found this of only film developers. All these will yield different results in different circumstances

https://www.digitaltruth.com/data.php?doc=filmdevsabc
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

True. However they did use B&W negative film, IIRC, Panatomic-X, and either 2475 or 2485 high speed recording film.

However the caveats I mentioned still apply. The E-4 process was phased out in 1976 due to its highly toxic chemicals (particularly the reversal agent tertiary butyl-amine boraner) and was replaced by the E-6 process, which used tin chloride.

Those clowns at Aulis used Kodak Ektachrome E100 and processed it E-6; Apollo used Ektachrome SO-168 and SO-121 and processed it E-4 - so not the same film, and not the same process either. The results WILL be different. 
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2020, 06:28:01 PM
I've developed thousands of rolls of film over the years ( I used to work in a minilab) and I could tell instantly what emulsion side vs. substrate side looks like. NO ONE familiar with developing film would make this mistake. This is intentional deceit.

Me too... I've worked in a minilab for 25 years (and owned for the last 18)
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 10, 2020, 07:02:14 PM
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2020, 09:45:51 PM
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the of the  Apollo landings. Furthermore, the two processes are so similar that the Ektachrome emulsions of the time could be processed using either with very little modification to techniques and processing times.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2020, 09:58:46 PM
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the Apollo landings. Furthermore, the two processes are similar enough that the Ektachrome emulsions of the time could be developed using either process with some modification to techniques and processing specifications (to Process Ektachrome 3 in E-4 you left out the film re-exposure step because it had a reversing agent, you had to cut the developing time down by about 20% and run the developer temperature about 6° higher... 30°C instead of 24°C)
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 11, 2020, 03:47:25 AM
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.
Where some of the films pushed to pseudo-increasing their sensitivity? I know the dim-light photography was taken on b/w negative film and heavily pushed to 6400 or I think even 12800.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: smartcooky on April 11, 2020, 05:26:37 AM
As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.
Where some of the films pushed to pseudo-increasing their sensitivity? I know the dim-light photography was taken on b/w negative film and heavily pushed to 6400 or I think even 12800.


That will be the Kodak 2485 recording film, the nominal speed was 1600 ASA.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 11, 2020, 10:54:54 AM
Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the Apollo landings.

I know that much is true, and I can make a case why they would want to use E-3.  But now I'm interested in what the historical fact is.  That means a fun weekend research project.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: bknight on April 11, 2020, 12:16:51 PM
Has anybody seen this new article at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
I'd be very interested to hear some views.

Hope everybody is keeping safe and well.

Fatally flawed.

That was not the camera used.
They performed the depress/repress cycles and then exposed the film. That is not remotely what happened.
They did not verify that they used the same development process.
They did not account for the colour calibration charts included in Apollo film. Nor did they reason WHY those colour calibration charts were included in the first place. It was exactly to account for such colour space variation and correct for it.

And so on. I can't be bothered with more. Those idiots simply don't care about the facts.


Stay safe, be well.

ETA: Oh and Marcus Allen in involved, the lying ****. That is an immediate red flag.

I agree with your thoughts, he is a snack oil salesman, who will and does say anything true or not about Apollo.  Most of his work is deceitful presentation that look glossy, but only to those who don't want to research the truth.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 12, 2020, 03:18:36 PM
That means a fun weekend research project.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750007872.pdf

This is cool.  It's specific to Apollo 16, but it calls out the ME-4 (motion-picture variant of E-4) for the Ektachrome ASA 160, type FF emulsion.  I believe Apollo 11 used Kodak SO-168, which is the EF emulsion.  As of Kodak's documentation in 1972, it calls for the ME-4 chemicals.

Here's something from American Cinematographer, the trade magazine for professional motion picture directors of photography. https://ascmag.com/articles/flashback-photographing-apollo-11
Quote
When the historic film was delivered to our laboratory, all was in readiness. The 16-35-70mm Ektachrome SO-368 color film exposed on the moon — a total of 785’ — was placed in the High Speed Equipment Company processor using the Kodak ME-2A 75 chemistry. This unit, extensively modified by NASA, essentially is two machines employing a single set of chemical tanks. It is capable of processing 16mm, 35mm and 70mm film footage simultaneously or separately at a rate of 35’ per minute.

The 16mm Ektachrome SO-168 motion-picture film returned from the moon was processed by a similar piece of equipment using the Kodak M E-4 elevated temperature chemistry, at a rate of 90’-100’ per minute.

Within minutes, a deep sigh of relief echoed through the laboratory. The processed camera stock emerging from the processors was good.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 12, 2020, 04:10:33 PM
Some time ago I read a document related to the space shuttle. They had several film magazines inside and outside the shuttle, I dont remember how long this mission lasted but i'd say several days as usual?

From what I remember the results showed a higher base fog and maybe also different contrast and spectral sensitivity properties. But nothing destructive, or that couldn't be corrected for when making internegatives/interpositives with filters.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 13, 2020, 10:48:21 AM
What effect do you suppose the thickness of the base has on fogging and other possible detriments?  the film in the Aulis photo looks like a standard base thickness of 0.4 mm or so.  The films Kodak produced for space and air reconnaissance use was much thinner, typically less than 0.2 mm.  We have some at the aerospace museum I sometimes volunteered at before the quarantine.  It's amazingly flimsy.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 13, 2020, 11:08:34 AM
This is usually called "film base plus fog", which is a combination of the actually density of the film base plus the randomly developed but unexposed silver crystals. It varies according to the characteristics of the emulsion and the developer activity.

To start with, the density of a photographic emulsion equivalent to a neutral density of one f stop is .30.

Sheet film base will have a density of around .04 or .05.

Roll film base will be around .03 or .04., rarely less.

35mm film base is deliberately dyed to a neutral grey with a density of somewhere between .25 to .28. The reason for this that the manufacturer cannot "practically" use an "anti-halation" backing because the thickness would would be too great for the long rolls of film, therefore the grey film base functions to prevent or reduce halation!

When film is developed, the developers not only reduce the exposed emulsion to appropriate levels of metallic silver, but a small amount of metallic silver is randomly reduced from the un-exposed silver halides, this is usually called "developer fog". This may add anywhere from .02 to .05 density units (rarely even more than that).

The combination of these is commonly called "film base plus fog" or sometimes abbreviated as "FBF or FB+F".

With a fine quality roll film base, a thin high resolution emulsion, and a low activity developer, the FBF may be as little as .05 or .06. On the other hand a 35mm film with a high speed emulsion and a very active developer, the FBF could be could be anywhere from .32 to .34 possibly more, or a neutral density in excess of 1 f stop!

FBF gets higher and higher he more a film expires. Hence films exposed several decades ago but only just being developed now out of intrest on their content have a high base for. I think this is resultant of temp changes, emulsion simply getting older and radiation affecting the film.

Kodak has several documents wherein they detail the higher base-fog as resultant from airport scanners.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 13, 2020, 11:10:46 AM
Overall, radiation will increase the film's base fog and temperature changes will cause colour shifts.

But again, nothing destructive or that couldnt be fixed with filters and internegatives/positives.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 13, 2020, 11:56:50 AM
Thanks, that's very informative.  Of course airport x-ray machines involve considerably more energy than occurs naturally.  If fogging from surveillance x-rays is not a problem, the  longer wavelengths of naturally-occurring x-rays and considerably smaller flux certainly won't be an issue.
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 13, 2020, 12:25:02 PM
The effect of space radiation on film (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960007133.pdf)

Table Vl. Time Spent by Sample Cassettes in Different Locations
Canister Location1 Location2 Location4
Can1 52 hrs. 13rain. 0 hrs. 76 hrs. 14min.
Can2 75 hrs. 52 rain. 0 hrs. 52 hrs. 34 rain.
Can3 99 hrs. 7 rain. 2 hrs. 27 hrs. 20 min.
Can4 99 hrs. 7 min. 29 hrs.20 min. 0 hrs
Can5 99 hrs. 7 min. 29 hrs.20 min. 0 hrs
The actual rad(tissue) dose recorded per dosimeter location is shown in appendix A. The
dosimeter dosages are proportional to the dosage absorbed by flight film. The estimated
rad(tissue) absorbed by each canister as related to dosimeter dosages is as follows:
=Canister1 - 341 mrad
=Canister2 - 325 mrad
=Canister3 - 313 mrad
•Canister 4 (Bag)- 363 mrad
=Canister 5 - 363 mrad


"6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The effectsof radiationfor STS-48 are apparentinthe final imagesproducedby the high
speed(above 400 ASA) flightoriginalfilms. The colorfilms,7296 and 5030, exhibitedan
increasein minimumdensityand a decrease incontrast. When seen inthefinal image,
shadowswouldappear grainyand ambiguousinthe darkerdetail. Flatnessinthe tonalrange
is theeffectofthe loweredcontrast. The blackandwhitefilms,5454 and5453, and color
negativefilm,6028, displayedidenticaleffectsonlyto a lesserdegree. Reversalfilm5020 was
notsignificantlyaffectedbythe radiation.All colorfilmsexhibiteda shiftincolorbalance. The
colorshifts,increasesinbase exposureand decreasesincontrast,are functionsofthe film's
representativespeed. While 6028 was the leastaffectedofthe negativefilms,it shouldbe
notedthat reversalfilm5020 showedthe leastapparentdamage (becausethe effected partof
reversalfilmis beyondthe usefuldensity"

Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: raven on April 13, 2020, 06:10:39 PM
The photos show plenty of signs of radiation exposure.
Just non-ionizing wavelengths of a very narrow, particular band. ;D
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: JayUtah on April 13, 2020, 06:58:38 PM
The photos show plenty of signs of radiation exposure.
Just non-ionizing wavelengths of a very narrow, particular band. ;D

Thanks, I needed that today.  ;D
Title: Re: Film subjected to vacuum testing
Post by: apollo16uvc on April 14, 2020, 11:30:53 AM
I wonder how surface photos would have looked if they were taken with Aerochrome / EIR.