I'm constantly underexposing

[Chinasaur]

Kenny

You also seem to have boxed yourself into a cage of your own making. You said the camera should work and you don't want to investigate manual shooting until you know the camera is metering properly. That's backward.

If you learn to shoot manually, it won't MATTER whether the camera is shooting correctly AND you'll have learned a technique that will pay for itself the rest of your life.

YES, the camera should function correctly, but that's irrelevant; because if you know how to manually meter, it won't matter if the camera meters correctly or not. I understand the OCD/compulsion to have something work that should (I feel the same way), but it's getting in your way of taking better shots.

Don't let that stop you from getting outside your comfort zone and learning.

And as you said later, maybe you're not developing correctly. So, how ARE you developing? Exactly...

 

[kennylovrin]

Kenny

You also seem to have boxed yourself into a cage of your own making. You said the camera should work and you don't want to investigate manual shooting until you know the camera is metering properly. That's backward.

If you learn to shoot manually, it won't MATTER whether the camera is shooting correctly AND you'll have learned a technique that will pay for itself the rest of your life.

YES, the camera should function correctly, but that's irrelevant; because if you know how to manually meter, it won't matter if the camera meters correctly or not. I understand the OCD/compulsion to have something work that should (I feel the same way), but it's getting in your way of taking better shots.

Don't let that stop you from getting outside your comfort zone and learning.

And as you said later, maybe you're not developing correctly. So, how ARE you developing? Exactly...

You have a good point, I really am the kind of person that tend to obsess instead of getting things done. 😉 However, I find it very tricky to go out and practice sunny16 when the light is changing so quick this late in the year, and with the turnaround time of developing. Maybe I should just get out and do it instead of whining about it though. 🙂

The last rolls have been Delta 100 and 400, developed in Paterson FX-39 dulited 1+9. I am using the Massive Dev chart app, so the process and times I've used are as follows (the only difference being dev time):

10 minutes for Delta 400
7 minute for Delta 100

So I get all the liquids to 20C as good as I can (I probably average 20, sometimes 19.9, other times 20.1, but pretty consistently very close to 20).

I pour the developer in, agitate for close to 1 minute (this actually sounds long to me, but I've tried it anyway) by spinning the little thingie that comes with the Paterson tank.

Then I put the lid on and smack the tank and put it down. I then agitate for 10 secs on every full minute. I'm a bit unsure here what people consider a turn, but when I say a turn now, I mean turning it 180deg, so I turn it upside down, and the right way up again - 2 turns. In 10 secs I usually manage 8 turns.

Then when there is 15-10 secs left of developing I pour it out and try to match it so I get the stop bath in when the time ends. I agitate with the little spinning-stick thing again for a 45 secs then start pouring it out and get the fixer in at the minute.

I then fix for 5 minutes (also sounds a bit long, but I do it because the chart says I should 🙂).

After that I wash by filling the tank, turning 5 times, filling again, turning 10 times, filling turning 20 times (I think I got that from Rogers book).

Then I let dry. 🙂 So far at least the process is consistent, I get the same looking negatives every time, from different films (with different dev times of course). They just all look a bit thin. But like I said, I cannot be sure they actually are too thin because I have nothing to compare to as "being correct".

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks for your reply again! I wanted to get back to you on that specific part though that I have quoted here. So, you think it is more probable that I am making mistakes either when developing or when scanning rather than when exposing? This might very well be the case, which is why I have a few follow up questions:

1. To me, I imagine that my negs should be somewhat more dense because I can quite easily see through even the highlight parts. Somehow I imagine the highlights to be a bit more opaque than what I'm getting. Also, it just seems to me as if I have a bit too much transparent film on the negs, more than there should be black in the scene. This has lead me to believe that I am underexposing, because the negs don't seem extremely flat, rather just thin.

2. I have been developing based on the Massive Dev chart as I've heard good things about it. However, with the specific developer I'm using (FX-39) there are some revised times and alternative dillutions, and seeing that I'm new to this I'm not sure how to relate to this in regards of my specific developer.

3. Lately the weather in Sweden (or most often really) is pretty overcast, so I don't usually get very high contrast scenes unless it's summer. Lately it's been more like a giant soft box than a blue sky. Could it be that the combination of this flat light and the compensating FX-39 (as I understand it) leads to me getting underexposed/flat negatives?

I have been thinking that I should try Rodinal or something which everyone seems to use, instead of messing with something that isn't as common as it seems, at least now in the beginning.

Based on the FX-39 fact sheet I am actually agitating more than it says, and my understanding is that it should help the highlights and contrast, yet I'm not seeing huge contrast in the negs.

My problem is that I've read up a lot on the process, and I like to think that I have a good grasp on the theory. The thing is just that what I get out of my development I can't really compare to anything. I'm not sure exactly what a "good negative" should look like and so forth. There are a lot of variables for me because of this, and it makes it hard to adjust the process as I am not sure where to make the adjustments.

If I take a digital shot of one of my negs, does that even make sense to show here? Could more experienced people based on that tell if it is underexposed, under developed, etc? When I look at the negative, and think of it in terms of the scanning process, I have a really hard time imagining that it's so dense that the highlights would actually go white because they would block the light from the scan head.

EDIT AGAIN:
Now I just realized that you are refering to option three and fourth of what you we're listing, and not what I was listing in the previous post? That kind of makes sense to me now in the context of this discussion. 🙂 So you are saying I should maybe try both thinking harder on what I'm metering, and perharps also try shooting at EI200?

Dear Kenny,

There's an old saying that you should (just) be able to read newsprint through the densest part of your neg, with the neg on a newspaper. I'm not sure it's valid (or even a good idea), but the fact that it's popular suggests that you may be expecting more density or contrast than is realistic.

Because I always wet print, it's very easy for me. I go for a neg that gives me shadow detail (exposure) and prints well on grades 2 to 3 (development). I'm not sure how to translate this to scanning. Sorry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kennylovrin]

Dear Kenny,

There's an old saying that you should (just) be able to read newsprint through the densest part of your neg, with the neg on a newspaper. I'm not sure it's valid (or even a good idea), but the fact that it's popular suggests that you may be expecting more density or contrast than is realistic.

Because I always wet print, it's very easy for me. I go for a neg that gives me shadow detail (exposure) and prints well on grades 2 to 3 (development). I'm not sure how to translate this to scanning. Sorry.

Cheers,

R.

Interesting, maybe I am not as much off on either exposure or development as I think then.. It could be that with the overcast skies lately when I've been shooting, it hasn't been any extreme or very deep shadows, so what I've considered shadows and meter in fact might have been brighter. Perhaps one stop down instead of two is actually closer to the actual shadow depth I've been metering.

I will try a few variations this weekend, finding a suitable subject and shoot it both based on the sunny16 method, metering off my hand and metering the shadows of the subject and see if I can get something better than I am now and how it differs from each other. Could be an interesting exercise I guess. 🙂

 

[f6andBthere]

Thanks Kenny ... this has been an interesting thread.

By the way, I can relate to your having to have your meter working accurately rather than compensating with a different ISO setting ... I would be the same. I have an OM that is nearly two stops out in it's metering ... I refuse to use it until it's right. 😛

 

[crispy12]

Scanning film is another art in itself. Most scanner output on default settings appear quite flat so you will usually need to set some curves/levels and sharpening.

Another matter is metering technique, and there are all sorts of scenarios that can throw the meter setting off. Perhaps you can share some pics with us? 😀

 

[film nut]

If you don't know how old the batteries are, I would put new ones in and at least you would have the comfort of starting with everything up to par. Then if nothing has changed go after all the other suggestions.

Mike

 

[kennylovrin]

Thanks guys, I was thinking yesterday, it's really incredible the amount of answers and help you can get on an internet forum for even a pretty boring thing as this. 😉

I turned the issue a bit on its head yesterday night after posting my meter tests, I started instead thinking about about my scanning technique. That has also been a bit of an journey and I realized I actually haven't taken the time yet to really look at the software settings.

The thing is, I got a roll of Ektar back from the lab this week - just a test roll I shot to try out the film a bit. Anyway, when I scanned it I was very underwhelmed, it didn't produce nearly the result I was expecting after looking on sites like Flickr etc.

So yesterday I tried again just scanning a frame and fiddling with the different settings. I'm using VueScan at the moment - I've gone through two different scanners and Epson Scan, Cyberview X (i think it is called), Silverfast and VueScan. Obviously pretty quick tests, but to be honest, all of them are seriously below par for what could be considered modern user friendly interfaces (I work as a developer for a digital UX agency, so I have a tendency to be very picky about interfaces on the other hand). In the end I settled for VueScan because I just couldn't stand the others, but I still find VueScan very unfriendly for new users.

Anyway, after some messing around with the scanning I managed to (at least I think) capture as much data as the scanner possibly can, getting a pretty dark and flat scan. But instead of tweaking it in VueScan I did it in Aperture instead, and in fact I got a much better results, with more punch in the colors, kind of as I had expected from the beginning.

So this weekend I will look more into metering techniques and scanning techniques. I will also look into the Mac OSX API's for interfacing with scanner hardware, because there might be support for writing an simple app with the only purpose of scanning "raw" data that is easy to use. 😉

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You haven't said what you are mostly photographing and that is relevant to metering. F'instance all your shots could be portraits into the sun or they could all be landscapes with the sun behind you and so on.

Both need different techniques to get the exposure right and there are several techniques for both. And a lot of people - I've noticed - don't even know about pointing the camera or meter down to get a landscape's exposure right(ish). I try to use CW'ing on grass in the middle distance, for example. But, like a lot of people, I often look at the reading and add or take away a bit.

As for twiddling the ISO setting dial on the camera a bit, that could have dislodged tarnishing or dirt on the contacts. It's not unknown and is why some contact points are gold plated. Dirt can also be dislodged when batteries are changed. You can get a bit of life out of "dead" batteries by rotating them, for example. Mostly because the power needed to run modern things is very slight and a little dirt or tarnish on important contact points can screw up the system. (It works on my old car's lights as well.)

As for comparing with a digital, a lot of them "recognise" standard shots and adjust accordingly; so they are not doing straight forward meter readings. But I don't know anything about your digital camera...

Regards, David

 

[Sykomor]

When I got a new scanner and wanted to try a new film and another developing technique I decided to look at this problem in a different way. I decided there’s not a correct ASA but only better or worse results. I started by deciding on a developing technique: Two hours in stand with Rodinal 1+100 in a full tank (700 ml even with just one roll); Took a test roll with the iPhone meter set to 50 => 3200 ASA (seven exposures); Scanned the negs with locked blacks (VueScan); In Lightroom i chose the negative that resulted in the least tweaking to get the result I wanted.

Since I also would like to get consistent results with my Nikon FE I first calibrated the meter in the iPhone with that before the test roll.

If you would like to know more about my results I would be happy to discuss this further in swedish.

 

[j j]

... instead of tweaking it in VueScan I did it in Aperture instead, and in fact I got a much better results, with more punch in the colors, kind of as I had expected from the beginning.

... I will also look into the Mac OSX API's for interfacing with scanner hardware, because there might be support for writing an simple app with the only purpose of scanning "raw" data that is easy to use. 😉

On the first point this is the way to go in my experience. I have used Vuescan for years and it is great for getting the scan but it is nowhere near as good as Aperture (or other similar) for developing the photo.

On the second, please let us know who you get on. An easy to use app aimed at getting basic scans that develop nicely in Aperture would be good news.

 

[kennylovrin]

On the second, please let us know who you get on. An easy to use app aimed at getting basic scans that develop nicely in Aperture would be good news.

Always good to hear that there are others having the same need. I will definitely look into it, but I am not a graphics developer or OSX dedicated developer, but rather iOS developer (so I can do some OSX as well). I am dependent on Apple providing API's for interfacing with the hardware to be able to pull it off, but after some quick skimming through the docs a while back it seems there is a chance they have the support needed. I will definitely let you know if I can get it going. 😉

For me the only needed initial feature set would more or less be setting scan resolution, defining the scan area, set CCD exposure and PERHAPS some levels or curves. I would probably start with only getting the scan out, as the levels I would adjust in Aperture anyway.

 

[brbo]

You do know that you can get exactly that (RAW or linear scan) in Vuescan (or Silverfast, Epson/Nikon/Canon... scan software) and do everything else outside Vuescan?

 

[kennylovrin]

You do know that you can get exactly that (RAW or linear scan) in Vuescan (or Silverfast, Epson/Nikon/Canon... scan software) and do everything else outside Vuescan?

I know that yes, but it doesn't mean I enjoy using the software. However, for me it's also about learning something new and satisfying curiosity trying to do a scanner app. 🙂