Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Raid,
If the exposed area of the negative is very dark and the film sprocket area looks normal it is a camera exposure problem. If the negatives are dark all the way through to the sprocket holes, it means that the developer operator went to lunch and forgot to take your film out of the soup until he got back; which resulted in overdevelopment.
Wayne
If the exposed area of the negative is very dark and the film sprocket area looks normal it is a camera exposure problem. If the negatives are dark all the way through to the sprocket holes, it means that the developer operator went to lunch and forgot to take your film out of the soup until he got back; which resulted in overdevelopment.
Wayne
raid
Dad Photographer
Wayne R. Scott said:
Wayne,
The exposed area of the negative is dark and the film sprocket area looks normal. It is then my fault.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
RayPA said: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.).
.
Ray: I expected such a response from someone since it could have been a nice gesture by the lab person. I better check out my cameras used in these film rolls.
Canon IVsb
Leica IIIc
Pentax Spotmatic
Leica M3
Raid
FrankS
Registered User
Raid, if you used 4 different cameras for 4 different rolls of film, it can't be that all your cameras over exposed your film at the same time. I still think it's the lab's fault and they over-developed.
raid
Dad Photographer
FrankS said:
Frank: I also tend this direction. Since I used four different cameras (all working properly so far), and using quite often the Sunny 16 rule, it is unlikely that my metering was off in all five rolls of film.
How would I approach the only remaining B&W lab left in Pensacola without making them angry?
[edited: I just called the lab; the man was very polite about it and he told me that they would take care of the lost money $25].
Raid
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
raid amin said:
I'm [I can say: we're] very sorry for you Raid. It's frustrating to have the neg scr**ed by a lab.
Best,
Marc
W
wtl
Guest
raid amin said:
isn't there any chance you set an incorrect ISO on your meter for all these rolls?
Rafael
Mandlerian
I was wondering the same thing.
raid
Dad Photographer
wtl said:
WTL:
Not really, since I also regularly check against the Sunny 16 rule as a general practice to learn more about exposure. When I see a big difference between what I expect to have as the exposue and between what I meter, I double check. With ASA400 film I usually set the meter at ASA200.
Raid
Rafael
Mandlerian
It's quite a mystery then.
raid
Dad Photographer
Rafael said:
Rafael,
Frank strongly believes that the reason is overdeveloping. Do you see this not as a plausible explanation?
Raid
Roger S.
Member
Okay, take a roll of slide film, shoot a few frames (bracket) and rewind the film, and put it through the four bodies. Take notes regarding exposures.
Get it developed unmounted (frame spacing won't be even enough to mount), and figure out which camera is wrong, if your shutter speeds are off with one body, etc.
This shouldn't cost you more than $10 or $15 to buy and develop the film and should solve your problem.
Good luck!
Get it developed unmounted (frame spacing won't be even enough to mount), and figure out which camera is wrong, if your shutter speeds are off with one body, etc.
This shouldn't cost you more than $10 or $15 to buy and develop the film and should solve your problem.
Good luck!
FrankS
Registered User
You need to look for a common element. 4 differnt cameras were used so that can't be it. Using an external meter for all 4 films and the development of all 4 films (together I assume) are the common elements. Raid said he double-checks the meter's recommendations with the Sunny 16 standard, so that's not likely to be it, leaving the development. I've never heard of a lab being so quick and hassle free in replacing film unless they know the problem was their fault. It's either extremely generous customer service, or it's an implicit admission of guilt. IMO
FrankS
Registered User
Just trying to help,
Oh yes, Roland, me too. I'm not arguing at all, this is jsut a friendly discussion on what we think went wrong.
Oh yes, Roland, me too. I'm not arguing at all, this is jsut a friendly discussion on what we think went wrong.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
What do you all mean when you say the sprocket holes are "exposed correctly?" You don't expose them at all. They are just there. I'm clearly missing something.
Do you mean the edge markings, on the rebate? That'll look right no matter what, since it's exposed at the factory, and enough so that they should come out nice and dense all the time. The only time they wouldn't come out is if they were too light, in which case you didn't get enough development. But this isn't the case here anyway.
If the negative is dense all over, and I mean like solid solid, with possible spillover out of the frame (like leakage of density), then it's massive overexposure.
What you are describing to me also still sounds like overdevelopment. You have perfectly fine shadow detail in those images. Exposure seems about right. But highlights are way out there. Now, normally I would say that your shadows do look a bit hot, but that's also explanable. Shadows do in fact increase slightly with development, just not nearly as quickly as the highlights do. So significant overdevleopment would still give negs that look like that.
So. for me, I need more info on your negatives. Solid silver all over? Or just ridiculous contrast (very dense vs. not so dense or perhaps to no density at all)? Spillage outside the frame?
allan
I'm clearly missing something.Do you mean the edge markings, on the rebate? That'll look right no matter what, since it's exposed at the factory, and enough so that they should come out nice and dense all the time. The only time they wouldn't come out is if they were too light, in which case you didn't get enough development. But this isn't the case here anyway.
If the negative is dense all over, and I mean like solid solid, with possible spillover out of the frame (like leakage of density), then it's massive overexposure.
What you are describing to me also still sounds like overdevelopment. You have perfectly fine shadow detail in those images. Exposure seems about right. But highlights are way out there. Now, normally I would say that your shadows do look a bit hot, but that's also explanable. Shadows do in fact increase slightly with development, just not nearly as quickly as the highlights do. So significant overdevleopment would still give negs that look like that.
So. for me, I need more info on your negatives. Solid silver all over? Or just ridiculous contrast (very dense vs. not so dense or perhaps to no density at all)? Spillage outside the frame?
allan
raid
Dad Photographer
I will have to inspect the negatives again. I will tomorrow post something about my findings. I will also post an image from the fifth roll. The entire roll looks the same for all cases wrt how negatives look like.
I may simply check the spotmeter to see if it is accurate. If it is broken or off, then I would have some photos messed up but not all since I often use the Sunny 16 rule (in sunny Florida).
Guys ... you are leading a very useful discusison, by the way. Thanks.
Raid
I may simply check the spotmeter to see if it is accurate. If it is broken or off, then I would have some photos messed up but not all since I often use the Sunny 16 rule (in sunny Florida).
Guys ... you are leading a very useful discusison, by the way. Thanks.
Raid
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I would tend to agree with Allan and Frank... It sounds to me, Raid, with 4 cameras they wouldn't all come down with the same/overexposure problem at the same time. Using the same meter, checked for "reasonableness" with the sunny-16 rule of thumb, would seem to eliminate drastic exposure error. In these days when labs are likely to see only rarely traditional films coming in for development, the likelihood there for error is significant. In my experience heavy overdevelopment doesn't darken the normally clear edge areas with the sprocket holes; nothing there to develop other than the factory film data. The concilliatory behavior of the personnel is interesting too...
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Raid,
whatever it is that you finally settle on as the culprit (pssst! it's overdevelopment!, I still would like to know what anyone means by the sprockets being "exposed correctly." For the life of me, I don't know how you expose the sprocket holes.
allan
whatever it is that you finally settle on as the culprit (pssst! it's overdevelopment!
, I still would like to know what anyone means by the sprockets being "exposed correctly." For the life of me, I don't know how you expose the sprocket holes.allan
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm with you (since the very beginning) on the overdevelopment theory.kaiyen said:Raid,
whatever it is that you finally settle on as the culprit (pssst! it's overdevelopment!
I think what they mean to say with "the sprockets being exposed correctly" (I need to run it by the discomfibugulmbulator too after reading that one again) is that the frame numbers, as well as the film brand/code should have been developed and therefore be legible clearly --you know, nice black and solid font.
Tomay-to / toe-ma-toe (or, in this case, Gatorade / Clamato)
raid
Dad Photographer
I called up the lab and I told the person on the phone that since I used four cameras and since I have received a lot of input online, I am quite certain that the lab overdeveloped my five rolls of film and that I have lost the images and the film. He assured me that they would compnesate me ... we'll see what "develops"!
Raid
Raid