Poor exposures from 400 speed negative film

Hello,

I use a lab at a photography chain store near my home in Tokyo. It's
reasonably priced, and the staff are nice, but I have a couple issues
that I'm trying to figure out if it's my error (probably the case), or
the lab's, or "that's just the way it is".

I use a mix of Konica-Minolta Centuria Super 400 and Kodak Super Gold
400. The photography store apparently sends the film out to be
developed by the vendor (Fuji for Fuji, Kodak for Kodak, etc.)
However, since Konica-Minolta got out the film business, the film is
sent (by my choice) to either Fuji or Kodak for processing.

I know it's all C-41, so it shouldn't make that much of a difference I
guess, but since I've been sending the film to Kodak labs I'm a little
disappointed with the quality of the exposures I get, primarily
shadowed areas are underexposed, and bright areas have little or no
detail (this happens with both brands of film that I use). Things
seem to be coming out a lot grainier recently as well. I could be
messing all of this up recently and not be aware of it, but I used to
routinely get shots like this:

http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...aris016_C4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...guro015_C4.jpg

but now most of the negatives after scanning end up looking like this:

http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...ashi014_G4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...achi020_C4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...Misc018_G4.jpg

I feel like the range of f-stops I'm getting out of the film has
shrunk, or the metering on my camera (Canon A-1) has gone way downhill
in the past few months. Does anyone have an idea what I'm doing
wrong? 400 color negative isn't all the same obviously,
responsiveness to chemicals, hues, light, etc. all varies from one
roll of film to the next.

Would a slower speed film have better chance of capturing a smoother
range of contrasting tones? Do I have no other choice than bracketing
multiple exposures to the same negative?

Thanks for advice anyone can offer.

(if the above links don't work by just clicking on them...i.e.
hotlinking, please just try copy-pasting the URLs directly...sorry for
the trouble!)

http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...ashi014_G4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...achi020_C4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...Misc018_G4.jpg

I feel like the range of f-stops I'm getting out of the film has
shrunk, or the metering on my camera (Canon A-1) has gone way downhill
in the past few months. Does anyone have an idea what I'm doing
wrong? 400 color negative isn't all the same obviously,
responsiveness to chemicals, hues, light, etc. all varies from one
roll of film to the next.

Would a slower speed film have better chance of capturing a smoother
range of contrasting tones? Do I have no other choice than bracketing
multiple exposures to the same negative?

Thanks for advice anyone can offer.

An overly grainy image is usually due to under-exposure in-camera...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:

I feel like the range of f-stops I'm getting out of the film has
shrunk, or the metering on my camera (Canon A-1) has gone way downhill
in the past few months. Does anyone have an idea what I'm doing
wrong? 400 color negative isn't all the same obviously,
responsiveness to chemicals, hues, light, etc. all varies from one
roll of film to the next.

Would a slower speed film have better chance of capturing a smoother
range of contrasting tones? Do I have no other choice than bracketing
multiple exposures to the same negative?

You may have been vicitim to poor negative developing (cool temperature
or un-refreshed chemicals).

Slower, finer grain, higher quality negative film might help, esp. for
scanning. Some negative and slide film just does not scan well (grain
aliasing being one problem).

As Mark points out, the underexposed areas of a shot (same colors but
areas with lesser light) will develop larger grain.

For scanning negatives, I really like Kodak Portra 160NC. ... if you
can find it which is increasingly difficult. You can always order it.

Expose it as ISO 100 for nice saturation and high detail in dark colors.

160VC is a "vivid" version of the same film (deeper color/higher contrast).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:

Would a slower speed film have better chance of capturing a smoother
range of contrasting tones? Do I have no other choice than bracketing
multiple exposures to the same negative?

Thanks for advice anyone can offer.

Some additional guidance on Portra films
(yes, there is prob'y marketing bias)

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/e...ationChart.gif

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello,

I use a lab at a photography chain store near my home in Tokyo. It's
reasonably priced, and the staff are nice, but I have a couple issues
that I'm trying to figure out if it's my error (probably the case), or
the lab's, or "that's just the way it is".

I use a mix of Konica-Minolta Centuria Super 400 and Kodak Super Gold
400. The photography store apparently sends the film out to be
developed by the vendor (Fuji for Fuji, Kodak for Kodak, etc.)
However, since Konica-Minolta got out the film business, the film is
sent (by my choice) to either Fuji or Kodak for processing.

I know it's all C-41, so it shouldn't make that much of a difference I
guess, but since I've been sending the film to Kodak labs I'm a little
disappointed with the quality of the exposures I get, primarily
shadowed areas are underexposed, and bright areas have little or no
detail (this happens with both brands of film that I use). Things
seem to be coming out a lot grainier recently as well. I could be
messing all of this up recently and not be aware of it, but I used to
routinely get shots like this:

I run a mini-lab. C-41 film is almost universally underexposed in the
camera. Damn near every roll I get is at least one stop under and most
are 2 or more stops under. I think that's what you're getting here.

Trying to get a good scan/print from an underexposed negative will cause
an increase in noise that mimics increased grain, especially in the
shadow areas. That's what I'm seeing in your images.

Makes it hell trying to give the customer a decent print.

You could try a different lab, in fact it won't matter if you have the
Fuji lab process your Kodak film (or vice versa), but I think the
problem is in your camera, maybe it just needs fresh batteries,
especially if you're getting the same kind of results from two different
labs.

My experience it at not all lab personnel care that much about doing a
good job, but actual film processing is so completely automated, they
shouldn't be able to screw it up even if they want to.

Another thing to consider is the film itself. I don't know when
Konica-Minolta actually stopped production, so the film may itself be
getting outdated.

Out of date film can be still usable, but you do have to take a little
extra care storing it.

But I think you're just under-exposing your film.

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello,

I use a lab at a photography chain store near my home in Tokyo. It's
reasonably priced, and the staff are nice, but I have a couple issues
that I'm trying to figure out if it's my error (probably the case), or
the lab's, or "that's just the way it is".

I use a mix of Konica-Minolta Centuria Super 400 and Kodak Super Gold
400. The photography store apparently sends the film out to be
developed by the vendor (Fuji for Fuji, Kodak for Kodak, etc.)
However, since Konica-Minolta got out the film business, the film is
sent (by my choice) to either Fuji or Kodak for processing.

I know it's all C-41, so it shouldn't make that much of a difference I
guess, but since I've been sending the film to Kodak labs I'm a little
disappointed with the quality of the exposures I get, primarily
shadowed areas are underexposed, and bright areas have little or no
detail (this happens with both brands of film that I use). Things
seem to be coming out a lot grainier recently as well. I could be
messing all of this up recently and not be aware of it, but I used to
routinely get shots like this:

http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...aris016_C4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...guro015_C4.jpg

but now most of the negatives after scanning end up looking like this:

http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...ashi014_G4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...achi020_C4.jpg
http://ichigoichie.org/photographs/r...Misc018_G4.jpg

I feel like the range of f-stops I'm getting out of the film has
shrunk, or the metering on my camera (Canon A-1) has gone way downhill
in the past few months. Does anyone have an idea what I'm doing
wrong? 400 color negative isn't all the same obviously,
responsiveness to chemicals, hues, light, etc. all varies from one
roll of film to the next.

Would a slower speed film have better chance of capturing a smoother
range of contrasting tones? Do I have no other choice than bracketing
multiple exposures to the same negative?

Thanks for advice anyone can offer.
I've noticed that since "film died" (cough), it's been harder to get quality
processing. Labs that used to be ok seem to have gone downhill. I was having
a chat to one of my mates at Fuji about it the other day. It is not some
great conspiracy to switch everyone to digital, but a side-effect of people
using less film. What seems to be happening is that a C41 minilab needs to
process a certain amount to keep the chemistry properly in balance. The
chemicals require constant replenishment (which happens everytime a roll
goes through the machine). When a machine only does a few rolls in a day,
the chemistry sits at high temp oxidising, without getting the constant
replenishment that it would have got in years gone by. The solution would be
for a lab to "batch run" ie, book in all the films for the day, then warm
the machine up, process it all, then let the machine cool down again, as the
chemistry doesn't go off as bad if it is at the low temperature of a
turned-off lab. Doing this though would play hell with the "1 hour photo"
concept that most labs operate to. The net result of what happens to the
chemistry, is under-exposure and poor colour saturation. The other option is
to find a lab that is still processing a lot of film (which is nigh on
impossible for me since I live in a country town), or to do it yourself with
one-shot chemistry (if you can find it). My Fuji mate actually suggested
that I might be better to use one of the 48 hour services, where your film
gets sent off to a capital city processor, because these places do work with
the batch run system, and are working to higher volumes. The downside is the
risk of scratches becomes greater - aargghhh... where can I get some
one-shot C41 chem in Australia????

Out of date film can be still usable, but you do have to take a little
extra care storing it.

Yeah, I'm refridgerating most of my film, though it's still less than
a year old.

But I think you're just under-exposing your film.
I've read in several places that it's better to overexpose than under,
since you have more leverage there to correct and adjust the levels to
bring detail that's simply bright. As a result, recently I've started
setting the EV adjustment on my camera to +0.5-1.0. Would this help,
in theory?

Thanks so much for the advice. I appreciate you taking the time to
look at my test shots.

An overly grainy image is usually due to under-exposure in-camera...

I was wondering about that. I think I'm going to try and err on the
side of over-exposure and apply a positive EV shift. Thank you!

You may have been vicitim to poor negative developing (cool temperature
or un-refreshed chemicals).

Yes, I'm sure it's mostly me, but just in case, I think I should try
to find some local photo enthusiasts and poll for a possible lab
replacement. It's not just a hobby, I really want to get it right.
Thanks for the advice.