Film is terribly underexposed.

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
12:54 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,581
I have a few rolls of AGFA 400 B&F film back from a commercial developing, and the negatives don't look good at all. How can I save some images from these negatives when scanning?

I have attached two images that I have not changed with PS.
Thanks for any suggestions.

Raid

[edited: I have added a frame from the third roll]
 

Attachments

  • film1 1.jpg
    film1 1.jpg
    434 KB · Views: 0
  • film2 1.jpg
    film2 1.jpg
    164.4 KB · Views: 0
  • film3 1.jpg
    film3 1.jpg
    155 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Raid,

We have all seen enough of your work to know that you don't underexpose. I would venture a guess that the commercial lab got the development all wrong. There is an outside small chance that your meter was off. A quick roll of 400 color with the same body-lens-meter combination would confirm that your equipment and the Operator are not at fault. If that is true, take the negatives to the lab and point out their mistake. Maybe they can get it right in the future. Do you have AGFA's developing table for the film?

PS. Actually, the second image could work with a small amount of help in PS.
 
while it is hard to tell what you're acftually shooting in the first one, the 2nd one looks overdeveloped, not underexposed. what do your negs look like? this is traditional bw or c41?

allan
 
Raid, I think you should try adjusting the exposure in the scanning process to compensate for the problems with the negative density. Have you tried this yet? Hopefully then you'll have something that's more workable in Photoshop.

--Warren
 
RAid, when you hold up the actual negatives to a light source, do they look dark and dense, or almost blank and see-through?
 
I would shoot a test roll of C41 using the same camera (of course) and the same metering technique, and have that processed as develop-only (unless you wan the prints) to evaluate the negatives. You need to eliminate variables. If the lab screwed up, you need to know that. If your camera is not working properly, you really need to know that.

I agree with Allan, though. The one shot looks underexposed, the other doesn't.
 
Most importantly, take a look at the manufacturer's film edge markings on the negatives. If they're pale and grey, the film's underdeveloped.
 
I agree with Alan. These look grossly overdeveloped. Is this B&W C-41 film, Raid? I didn't know Agfa made any.

I'd just be harping the same old "scan raw, use Silverfast HDR", but that workflow is a bit verbose.

In any case, scanning with some "underexposure" (if you have control of that anywhere with your scanning software) will help you, but your dark shadows are going to be clipped.

:(
 
I need to carefully inspect each of the five rolls of B&W that I got back. The lab person at the photography lab called me over in the lab to tell me his concerns about all five rolls. He believes that the camera is faulty. I have never had this problem before though. I use a spotmeter and am used to excellent exposures. With five rolls, I bet I used five different cameras one after the other. This pretty much limits the chances that one camera was faulty. My last suspicion is the film. I may have tried out some AGFA film for the first time, so there is a chance that the film is damaged. Maybe one of these five rolls was not AGFA400, and it will shed some light on this problem. Thanks for the input.
Once I get home, I will inspect the negatives again and post here my findings.


Raid
 
raid amin said:
The lab person at the photography lab called me over in the lab to tell me his concerns about all five rolls. He believes that the camera is faulty.
Yeah, always fault the user. :rolleyes:

What ISO speed is this film, Raid? I'm pretty sure they didn't use the correct development settings for your rolls' ISO. It happened to me once; I asked for ISO 400 development for a roll of Fuji 160 (which I mislabeled -- I spooled it myself); that was years ago. It was a pain to see the prints; could pass for artsy f@r$y.

Edit: Oh, I see it's 400. Hmm.
 
RAid, playing a little in Photoshop, hope you don't mind:
 

Attachments

  • film2 1new.jpg
    film2 1new.jpg
    241.6 KB · Views: 0
  • film1 1new.jpg
    film1 1new.jpg
    325.9 KB · Views: 0
Pulling C-41 film common?

Pulling C-41 film common?

Two years ago I had some C-41 films developed by a pro lab in "Lausanne", so the store in SH told me.

Well it came back all pulled 1-2 stops, i.e., dreadfully underdeveloped.
I was told that this was done so that the digital printer would have an easier time with it. I did not understand a word of it. And my lab at home had a really hard time to do the pics much justice. I also learnt that the big W for example does this routinely, too.

Anyone's film hurt that way too?
 
venchka said:
Raid,

We have all seen enough of your work to know that you don't underexpose. I would venture a guess that the commercial lab got the development all wrong. There is an outside small chance that your meter was off. A quick roll of 400 color with the same body-lens-meter combination would confirm that your equipment and the Operator are not at fault. If that is true, take the negatives to the lab and point out their mistake. Maybe they can get it right in the future. Do you have AGFA's developing table for the film?

PS. Actually, the second image could work with a small amount of help in PS.


Wayne: I got suspicious when they gave me two 36 exp. rolls of Tri-X for free to check out my camera. My meter is a separate Pentax Digital Spotmeter that is very accurate. I wish I knew which camera I was using.

By the way, four rolls were AGFA400 and one roll was Ilford 125.


Raid
 
Last edited:
Here is a frame from the fourth roll (Ilford 125). I did not do any PS work on purpose here.

Raid
 

Attachments

  • Film4 1.jpg
    Film4 1.jpg
    200.9 KB · Views: 0
FrankS said:
RAid, when you hold up the actual negatives to a light source, do they look dark and dense, or almost blank and see-through?


Frank: The negatives look dark and dense. I want to figure out if the main reason for these inferior negatives was the developing process or me.

Raid
 
raid amin said:
Frank: The negatives look dark and dense. I want to figure out if the main reason for these inferior negatives was the developing process or me.

Raid

Raid, that would mean the that the negs were either over-exposed or over-developed.
 
Definitely over-exposed. That's not a problem if you're developping. I don't, and many times I can't do anything with my neg. One day, I'll process and enlarge my films ... ::sighs::
 
raid amin said:
Wayne: I got suspicious when they gave me two 36 exp. rolls of Tri-X for free to check out my camera. My meter is a separate Pentax Digital Spotmeter that is very accurate. I wish I knew which camera I was using.

By the way, four rolls were AGFA400 and one roll was Ilford 125.


Raid

That is suspicious. (geez how jaded and cynical we've become ;) ) However, it sounds like you're describing your negatives as overexposed, which would put the error on your end (camera, transferring meter readings, etc.).


.
 
Back
Top Bottom