Provia 400X - What speed do you rate it?

[Honus]

While I am a dedicated b&w shooter, I will occasionally cheat on the wife, so to speak, and load some color film in my camera. After seeing examples of Provia 400X, I included a half a dozen rolls in my last film order. When I got the slides back from the lab for the 1st 2 rolls, they look to be nearly a stop under-exposed. I rated it at box speed, 400iso.

My metering is generally pretty accurate. I used a Leica M6 and confirmed many of the exposures with a hand-held incident meter. It looks to me like it would be best rated at 250 or 320. If anyone has advise or examples, I would appreciate the help. I really like the color palette of the film, btw.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

While I am a dedicated b&w shooter, I will occasionally cheat on the wife, so to speak, and load some color film in my camera.

You naughty boy, you.

After seeing examples of Provia 400X, I included a half a dozen rolls in my last film order. When I got the slides back from the lab for the 1st 2 rolls, they look to be nearly a stop under-exposed. I rated it at box speed, 400iso.

I've had this disastrous, if not at least annoying, case come up with my expired Kodachrome.

I believe expired slide (aka "chrome" for you old-timerf out there) film "loses" speed the older it gets. If your film wasn't expired yet, then it must not have been stored properly. 😕

 

[furcafe]

Go towards the end of this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28202

I've shot it @ 400 & it seems fine to me. As Gabriel writes, perhaps there was something wrong w/the roll, but there is also the factor of the quality & color of the light. What kind of light were you shooting in?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I have shot it and rated it usually at ISO 400. This is an extraordinarily flexible film, and can be pushed even at 1600 without color shift or excessive grain. Sorry yours turned out poor, but it must be slightly old or not well stored.

Strange... you said you purchased along with an order for other film. That shouldn't happen. Where did you get it developed?

 

[Honus]

Thanks for the replies and the link. I bought the film recently from B&H, but bought the cheaper 'grey market' stock. It shouldn't make a difference. The lighting for the 2 rolls was all over the place - bright sunshine to heavy overcast to incandescent indoors.

Because of the consistency of the apparent under-exposure, I am starting to think they are under-developed (or at least developed with stale chemicals). I used a local lab that has given me inconsistent results before. I like using them because a) it is a convenient walk from my office and b) I like supporting local merchants, but ...

I'll spend a little more money with a good pro lab for the next couple of rolls and see if that makes a difference.

 

[titrisol]

that is quite interesting Slide film used to be UNDERexposed by 1/3 to saturate more.

 

[PATB]

I tried the "imported" version from B&H and rated them at 400 ISO (Leica MP, double check with Sekonic 308s) and the exposure looks good to me.

Excellent film -- too bad it costs too much.