Dog park scans/Camera problems

Whooo, boy. I guess I knew what I was getting into with the unpredictable Holgas, but today was a downer. I went in to WSC to process 3 rolls of film. The first problem was the cover for one of my developing tanks. I always tell the students to look at the cover before you go into the closet...as they age, they crack. And those cracks, while they look small, are actually colossal in terms of light leaks. I saw it right away and went back into the closet with a new lid, but we all know how fast light travels, right? Right. Strike One. After the fixer stage, it's ok to take a peek at the film, as it is no longer sensitive to light. That was when I discovered that one of my cameras is still set on bulb. (The piece of tape I put over the switch must have fallen off, or I took it off and forgot to replace it.) So although each negative was beautifully exposed, they were...well, a blur. Into the trash with that one. Strike Two. The remaining rolls were shot with Holga body #3. I am making notes about this because if I have an errant camera that is ruining my film, I want to know which one it is! (The roll of film gets labelled with which camera it came from.) Apparently the newer Holgas are being made with cute little foam things glued to the inside where the film spools sit. Why? I have no idea. But my foam has long since ripped off (and into the film as it gets advanced) and what's left over is the glue. Given the mechanics of the camera, and the fact that it's just the paper side of the film that should pass by these glue areas, I didn't worry. But something is getting on each negative and adhering to the emulsion...and so there's NO IMAGE where the glue hit the film. Just a bunch of clear dots. Strike Three. Aaargh. SO, the top photo is an "uncleaned" negative, with those black dots being where the glue hit the negative and ripped off the emulsion.

These are light leak (bad cover) examples, above and below.

And a Martha's Vineyard example of the glue issue. Nice pattern, though.