Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?

[jusxusfanatic]

Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?

Well, I think I exposed them right. Pushed delta 400 to 1600, some were nearly transparent.

 

[tunalegs]

Post a photo.

Either you didn't expose them right or you didn't develop them right.

 

[x-ray]

Why don't you sit down with a pencil and paper and list out the various things that could cause thin negs.

1-under exposed due to poor metering technique - lack of understanding how a meter works

2-inaccurate meter

3- inaccurate shutter

4-under developed film

5- entered wrong aperture by accident

6- entered wrong shutter speed by accident

7- wrong ISO entered in meter

Keep listing all the things that could go wrong and then go back and check each one until you find your problem. This is how you learn. No one can answer your question but you.

I've read a lot of your posts and you're very inexperienced. My GUESS, you don't know how to meter properly because you don't take the time to learn one thing before you're into another. Learn to process film at normal ISO first and learn your equipment before jumping to something else. Pick one film and one developer and learn to use it first.

How many rolls have you actually exposed and successfully developed, 20,30 or less? You need to learn the basics first.

 

[Rob-F]

At 1600, the film is underexposed 2 stops. I take it that you pushed the development, but that only boosts density in the highlights and maybe the middle tones. Overall, it's bound to look thinner. The short answer is, the film looks underexposed because it is underexposed. You didn't say what you developed in, though. You should be able to get useable negatives @ 1600. Try Microphen or DD-X. Try metering more for the shadows.

 

[x-ray]

Do you have any idea how your meter sees values? Do you know why 18% reflectance is important? Know how to properly use a meter? Do you know what happens when you push film and did you know that most developers don't actually raise the ISO when you push? Did you know your margin for exposure errors decrease as you "push" your film? Pushing 2 stops makes for little room for error.

Sit down and list out all the things you can think of that might be a problem and then go through the process of elimination until you figure it out. Test and experiment if needed to discover where YOU failed.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Thanks for the replies. I was using my leica iii and my phone's meter at a concert. Might be due to the extreme flashing of lights. They look "fine" after scanning tho. Used HC-110, 20 degrees 13.5min

[/url]18449516_801315256701671_1061407757744565709_o by Justin Ng, 於 Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]18422351_801315276701669_6552932392644849951_o by Justin Ng, 於 Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]18423044_801314873368376_7703430393831604459_o by Justin Ng, 於 Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Chris101]

Thirteen and a half minutes in HC110 (dilution b = 1+31) sounds close for 1600. Your images look like I would expect. Try Delta 3200. It's made for that. Delta 400 is made to have less grain than FP5 or Trix. Delta 3200 is made to push up to 3200 (or more.)

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Yea, but I bought a bulk roll of it cuz I like it. Will try that next time

 

[Chris101]

I like Delta 400 too. The grain is beautiful. Almost as if it understands your images. But it's not made to push. I will gladly push Tri-x or Delta 3200 (or even some color emulsions), but Delta pulls well, but its box speed is the max it looks good at. Kodak emulsions are made to push. Try Tri-x at 400, I think you will be surprised!

 

[waileong]

Your pix don't look right. They aren't likely metered right, if you're using a metering app on your cellular.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Alright thanks 🙂 thought any 400asa rated film would be able to push well

 

[jusxusfanatic]

But on flickr, every picture looks normal

 

[waileong]

But on flickr, every picture looks normal

They should look something like this if they are exposed and pushed properly. Even if you lose shadow detail from pushing, you should get the pushed higlights.

 

[Chris101]

Maybe add a couple stops to your light meter app? I have tride several, but have yet to find a light meter app I like. Proof of point: I just bought a Sekonic 208 (their cheapest, yet sensitive enough for indoor photography.)

 

[tunalegs]

Well the obvious thing is the stage is backlit, so the meter is not going to give you the appropriate setting for the performers, whose shaded areas are facing the camera. You'd need two or three more stops of exposure (if even possible) to have gotten them exposed adequately.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Thanks for the replies. I was using my leica iii and my phone's meter at a concert. Might be due to the extreme flashing of lights. They look "fine" after scanning tho. Used HC-110, 20 degrees 13.5min

You should buy a light meter.

 

[Scrambler]

You should meter the entire stage, consider spot type work. As stated this is metering with a light source in view. Better to meter the shadow of your hand than the stage.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

True. I had a light meter, but I dont like it

 

[Prest_400]

Well the obvious thing is the stage is backlit, so the meter is not going to give you the appropriate setting for the performers, whose shaded areas are facing the camera. You'd need two or three more stops of exposure (if even possible) to have gotten them exposed adequately.

Also, with all the flashing around and spotlights it's a hard situation. Spot metering would help.
#3 has a lot of flare too. That's something to account, and I'd say that older lenses have more difficulty in this situation giving more flare and ghosting.
Metering and shooting this would have been much easier with a 1970+ SLR with Spotmeter.

You should buy a light meter.

+1. Sunny 16 only gets so far.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Yup, sunny 16 all the way. It would be hard to meter in my situation, since there was a moshpit / circle pit behind me and everyones just pushing around