kshapero
South Florida Man
Shoot with a CV Bessa R3M and Heliar 50/2
was shoot with Fuji 400 color film at f5.6 &1/250 sec.
What did I do wrong?
NO PP done.
was shoot with Fuji 400 color film at f5.6 &1/250 sec.
What did I do wrong?
NO PP done.
nobbylon
Veteran
under exposed by 2 stops maybe? wrong film speed set?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Is this a scan from a print? Is it possible that you underexposed the film, and the lab tried to make the best print and scan of it? Did you check the neg?
Judging by the light, it looks like you shot it in shadow, and perhaps 1/250 @ f/5.6 might be two stops too fast. So almost like you pushed the film, the lab developed it like it was shot at ISO 400, and they/their system attempted to make a properly exposed image out of it. Could be wrong though!
Judging by the light, it looks like you shot it in shadow, and perhaps 1/250 @ f/5.6 might be two stops too fast. So almost like you pushed the film, the lab developed it like it was shot at ISO 400, and they/their system attempted to make a properly exposed image out of it. Could be wrong though!
nobbylon
Veteran
I always err on the side of over exposure with colour film. With 400 asa I set the camera at 320. I do this with all my cameras exept the F5 which has the best meter I have ever used. I think with colour print you get latitude of 3 stops over and 1 stop under.
Using fuji pro Z at 800 asa always gave me results like this until I rated it at 640 and then made sure the needle was just on the plus side as well. The grain just went mad with under exposure.
Using fuji pro Z at 800 asa always gave me results like this until I rated it at 640 and then made sure the needle was just on the plus side as well. The grain just went mad with under exposure.
Probably needed to open your lens another 2-3 stops.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Like others have said...it's under exposed...
Steve M.
Veteran
Either your meter needs calibrating/replacing (assuming you metered it right in the beginning), or your camera's shutter speeds are not true. Does the neg look like this under a loupe? The reason I ask is, in the past a lab has given me scans that were nearly this bad, and it turned out that the neg was fine, it was their crappy scanning. But what you have posted sure looks like underexposure.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Now I remember a Roger Hicks post to this effect.
mfogiel
Veteran
This has been shot ard ISO 3200
kshapero
South Florida Man
you would think, but no it was at 400 ISO.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
What does the neg look like? Is it really 'thin'?
The neg will tell the story.
The neg will tell the story.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If this was at box speed and metered correctly you need to check the meter. Absolutely underexposed by a good bit I'd say. Can you post a digi pic of the neg on a light table?
colyn
ישו משיח
I've seen Wally World scans turn out like this but when the neg was taken elsewhere the prints turned out as they should..
bramley
Newbie
1/250 @ f/5.6， iso 400 = EV 9.
basing on the shade, i 'guess' the appropriate LV shold be around 5-6, maybe.
your shots is well underexposure, and the lab pushing the EV by some software. It is the software make all those noise. find some software to reduce this noise, but you will lost contrast.
basing on the shade, i 'guess' the appropriate LV shold be around 5-6, maybe.
your shots is well underexposure, and the lab pushing the EV by some software. It is the software make all those noise. find some software to reduce this noise, but you will lost contrast.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
is there a DX setting for the ISO on the camera? what was it set to?
did you accidentally set the exp. comp. dial on the bessa to -1 or -2?
did you accidentally set the exp. comp. dial on the bessa to -1 or -2?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Shooting at ISO400 and 1/250 f/5.6 seems OK if there was bright light "outdoors", so here are some options:
1. You think those were the settings, but accidentally there were changes from those settings, and film was underexposed.
2. A meter problem (not usual) and film was underexposed.
3. A development problem (time/temperature/contamination)
4. A scanning problem (not usual) but film is fine.
or
5. The scene required more light than 1/250 f/5.6, but some external (brighter) light made the meter guess less light was required, and the man, the real scene -that looks several stops below external light- was underexposed.
Cheers,
Juan
1. You think those were the settings, but accidentally there were changes from those settings, and film was underexposed.
2. A meter problem (not usual) and film was underexposed.
3. A development problem (time/temperature/contamination)
4. A scanning problem (not usual) but film is fine.
or
5. The scene required more light than 1/250 f/5.6, but some external (brighter) light made the meter guess less light was required, and the man, the real scene -that looks several stops below external light- was underexposed.
Cheers,
Juan
bdeyes
Established
Need for info
Need for info
I think Juan is on the right track here, but it would help if you can provide more info on the subject scene, from a light perspective....daytime? subject in deep shadow? any "fill" light from above? If all that is true, then your exposure seems correct, so something else must be happening.
Also, what happened to the rest of the roll? what kinds of scenes were on other shots? did they also show symptoms of 2-3 stop underexposure?
Need for info
I think Juan is on the right track here, but it would help if you can provide more info on the subject scene, from a light perspective....daytime? subject in deep shadow? any "fill" light from above? If all that is true, then your exposure seems correct, so something else must be happening.
Also, what happened to the rest of the roll? what kinds of scenes were on other shots? did they also show symptoms of 2-3 stop underexposure?