Finally tried Portra VC... problem

[mllanos1111]

Finally had the chance to try a couple rolls of Portra VC and I'm starting to think that Calumet messed up the processing.
All the pictures were fairly under exposed at least 1-2 stops so the pictures look terrible and washed out like it was shot with expired Kodacolor from a truck stop and processed at wallmart 1 hour photo.
I know the camera is fine since I use this camera for all the B&W that I process and all my negs are spot on with my Nikon F3HP, Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar and fresh batteries.
I just checked the ASA on the camera in case I was losing my mind and it is also set correctly.
What do you all think?

 

[rogue_designer]

are the prints washed out, or the negs?

 

[Tuolumne]

Shoot a test roll and try again. Send it to a relaible developer. See what happens.

/T

 

[Ronald M]

Under exposed negs lack shadow detail. Pro portrait film negatives look flatish compared to consumer film. They are designed to give normal contrast, normal color, not some over saturated consumer film that is supposed to make box cameras prints look profesional.

 

[mllanos1111]

are the prints washed out, or the negs?

The negs are also washed out. 🙁

 

[Never Satisfied]

Flat negs are easier to scan than contrasty ones. Try scanning a few frames to be sure, Andrew.

 

[Pherdinand]

... I'm starting to think that Calumet messed up the processing.
All the pictures were fairly under exposed at least 1-2 stops ...

If they were underEXPOSED (and if you mean the negatives) then i don't see the Calumet reference.
And i don't understand when you later explain that all was set fine on your part.
SO is it underexposed or not?

 

[Rhoyle]

Shoot a roll of chromes to test it out. Portra VC is not a washed out film by any stretch of the imagination. It should give excellent color, contrast, and detail.

 

[charjohncarter]

I just shot a roll of Kodak Porta VC 160, and had Dan's camera do it: develop and CD only. In the past I have felt there should be more to my scans of this film, but this time they were great. Maybe old chemical in the past and new chemicals this time.

Here is one from a RolleiflexT shooting towards but not into the sun.

 

[mllanos1111]

If they were underEXPOSED (and if you mean the negatives) then i don't see the Calumet reference.
And i don't understand when you later explain that all was set fine on your part.
SO is it underexposed or not?

I'm just trying to figure out what went wrong and if its possible that Calumet may have processed the film incorrectly which lead to thin negs.
Maybe underexposed was not the correct terminology since I am not too familiar with color negs, I normally shoot Velvia or B&W.
Color print film is not something I've shot in years, but the examples I saw here made me want to try it.
When I shoot a chrome I know what the print is going to look like when I have one made and with B&W I process and print myself.
I also had the negs scanned at the same time and the scans look bad as well.
I'm going to shoot some Velvia today for a sanity check, but I've never had a roll of Velvia come back totally unuseable let alone two rolls.

 

[amateriat]

Other than that of a solid commercial lab (and even then, only a lab I know pretty well), I do all my film scanning to evaluate film. It is possible that the lab screwed the pooch with your roll, although I'm a bit surprised this happened through Calumet, of all places. (But every lab has an off day.)


- Barrett

 

[Keith]

My first experience with VC was odd also ... a lot of shots appeared to have a bluish colour cast which surely would have to be the processing ... it was hard to tell by looking at the negs but some of the scans were strange to say the least!

 

[mllanos1111]

I shot a couple more rolls, but this time I shot NC and had them processed at A&I in Hollywood and scanned. They came out great this time and I'm starting to think that the first two rolls I shot were processed poorly and I'll probably never send film to them again. The NC has very nice color and I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[Finder]

First, underexposure is the photographer"s fault. You cannot change exposure in the processing.

To determine if it is the processing, can you post an image. Without seeing anything, we are only taking stabs in the dark. Can you also scan the neg as a positive (slide) and post the scan with no corrections. That will show what the negs look like and reveal any processing errors. But c-41 processing is standard and so they had to be working with really exhausted chemistry which would be strange.