Poor exposures from 400 speed negative film

On Apr 8, 2:20 pm, "HeroOfSpielburg" wrote:
Out of date film can be still usable, but you do have to take a little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?


If your camera allows you to set the ISO you could also set for ISO
200 with the 400 film loaded, this would be the same has putting in a
EV of +1.

Scott

On Apr 8, 4:11 pm, That_Rich wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 18:02:20 -0700, "Scott W" wrote:





On Apr 8, 2:20 pm, "HeroOfSpielburg" wrote:
Out of date film can be still usable, but you do have to take a little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?

If your camera allows you to set the ISO you could also set for ISO
200 with the 400 film loaded, this would be the same has putting in a
EV of +1.

Wow... another epiphany.


It is a pretty common thing to do, shoot at a different ISO then what
the film is labled at.

Scott

HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
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.

That's part of what prompted me toward digital, actually...the fact that I
would then have *absolute* control...from shutter...to print. I was sick of
relying on others to *maybe* get it right in the lab. -Even if they knew
what they wre doing, they couldn't know my intent for the image...so they
were very often "off" in some way. Even slides (which I turned to, followed
by film-scanning at home) were still at their mercy for basic development
issues.

With negative film: if you under-expose...and they try and push developer
exposure to compensate..., it ends up unveiling serious grain, even from
film that isn't normally particularly grainy...

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

Scott W wrote:
On Apr 8, 4:11 pm, That_Rich wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 18:02:20 -0700, "Scott W" wrote:





On Apr 8, 2:20 pm, "HeroOfSpielburg" wrote:
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?

If your camera allows you to set the ISO you could also set for ISO
200 with the 400 film loaded, this would be the same has putting in
a EV of +1.

Wow... another epiphany.


It is a pretty common thing to do, shoot at a different ISO then what
the film is labled at.

Scott

Which is just like pushing film... Shoot as though it's 800, but develop for
400.

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

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message
ps.com...
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!

I shoot a lot of slides, with Sensia mostly, and I routinely set my EV to
+.7 This seems to put them in a range where I can get the most out of them
in Photoshop. (I seldom project them anymore....Just look at them on a
computer screen)

So, the general consensus seems to be to shoot around roughly +1.0 EV,
or just set the ASA for one stop slower film.

This seems like it will work with scanning. However, now that we're
talking about scanning, I have a further question.

I do art shows several times a year (one coming up next month,
actually) and at that point of course I print, in the area of 8x10" or
11x14" (entertaining the idea of going larger). The professional lab
I go to for printing has two ways of printing (maybe these are
standard):

The first is traditional "manual printing" where they take the
negative/slide, make minimal corrections for exposure manually, and
print from that the standard way.

The second is to scan the negative there on a professional grade
scanner, make exposure and color corrections in software, and then run
a high quality image out of a printer. This costs about two to three
times as much as the first method, but they recommend it because they
can, "correct for problems in the exposure and give me a print that's
more like what I intended."

If I can help it, I try to print the manual (traditional) way because
it saves a ton of money for the number of prints that I make.
However, if I routinely start taking my shots at +0.7-1.0 EV, will
this ruin any chance I had of getting a standard print out of the
negative/slide? I'm worried they might say "all of your shots were
overexposed, and there's only so much we can do when printing
traditionally."

I guess you can't expect to have it both ways, but if anyone has
advice on this, I'd be much obliged. I think I'll go to the lab next
weekend and run some small proofs for the show.

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


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.

Figure the first thing to do is admit that it's all a mystery. Like
handicapping a race without a program. The first thing I do is figure that
there is no such thing as 400 film, just companies that charge more for it.I
shoot it at 200 for starters. Second, Kodak is a scratch: Film, chemicals,
developing, lens cleaning tissue.Out of the race. Next the lab; give them
the first roll on Monday, the second on Tues; like that. at some point
they'll prolly get grainy and too blue. That's the day the chemicals are
shot. My bet would be Fuji film/lab/overexpose/Mon. Bob Hickey