View Full Version : Film is terribly underexposed.
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]
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
Warren T.
09-20-2006, 06:35
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.
KoNickon
09-20-2006, 06:49
Could they have inadvertently developed it as C41?
Mark Wood
09-20-2006, 06:49
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.
Gabriel M.A.
09-20-2006, 06:53
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
Gabriel M.A.
09-20-2006, 06:57
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.
pesphoto
09-20-2006, 07:19
RAid, playing a little in Photoshop, hope you don't mind:
I have added a a frame from the third roll [no retouching done].
Raid
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?
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
Here is a frame from the fourth roll (Ilford 125). I did not do any PS work on purpose here.
Raid
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
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::
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.).
.
Wayne R. Scott
09-20-2006, 10:57
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
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
Wayne,
The exposed area of the negative is dark and the film sprocket area looks normal. It is then my fault.
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.).
.
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
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, 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.
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
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
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
My meter is a separate Pentax Digital Spotmeter that is very accurate. I wish I knew which camera I was using.
Raid
isn't there any chance you set an incorrect ISO on your meter for all these rolls?
I was wondering the same thing.
isn't there any chance you set an incorrect ISO on your meter for all these rolls?
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
It's quite a mystery then.
It's quite a mystery then.
Rafael,
Frank strongly believes that the reason is overdeveloping. Do you see this not as a plausible explanation?
Raid
Roger S.
09-20-2006, 12:58
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!
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
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. :)
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 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 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...
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
Gabriel M.A.
09-21-2006, 21:08
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.
I'm with you (since the very beginning) on the overdevelopment theory.
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) ;)
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
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.
Gabriel,
Well, the idea of that being a diagnostic tool in _this_ case still doesn't make sense. Being clear and distinct just means the film hit developer at all. The exposure of those labels is so high that almost any developer should get you nice, clear lettering. The only information from those markings that mean anything is if they are _not_ clear, in which case you didn't get enough development.
But I don't see how anyone can look at those scans and think there isn't enough development. The debate was overexposure vs. overdevelopment. Not whether it was developed at all.
And I did notice that backed me up early on. For a while, I thought my suggestion go lost there...
allan
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"!Another thing that would be interesting to know is how often this lab encounters traditionial B&W films; for instance do they have to mix up developer for each rare instance it's needed... maybe they got the dilution way off this time. If it's unusual, then it's easier to make other mistakes as to temperature and time as well. And have you ever used this lab for this kind of film before, and if so how did it go?
Another thing that would be interesting to know is how often this lab encounters traditionial B&W films; for instance do they have to mix up developer for each rare instance it's needed... maybe they got the dilution way off this time. If it's unusual, then it's easier to make other mistakes as to temperature and time as well. And have you ever used this lab for this kind of film before, and if so how did it go?
Doug: This lab is now the only full service lab for B&W film in Pensacola. They have been around for many years,and they have an excellent reputation for service. They use automated developing (no hand work) with an Ilford general developer. In the past, their B&W developing was OK.
Raid
Raid,
Do you have black parts of film, I mean leader and begin of roll that you exposed to light while loading film in the camera? If it's still there - look thru it. Compare with other normally developed film. Normally if you look thru black leader on electrical bulb aprox. 60W at about 5 meters away, you will see the thread, the bulb and some surrounding details. You may also use your monitor and try to read this page :) Overdevelpment gives more dense leader. Also, significant overdevelopment gives manufacturer's marks (ISO speed, frame numbers, type of film) with grey shape around, they don't look sharp.
If you can see this page on your monitor thru leader and perforation marks on film looks very sharp without greyish cloud around, it's likely overexposure.
Eduard.
Raid,
Do you have black parts of film, I mean leader and begin of roll that you exposed to light while loading film in the camera? If it's still there - look thru it. Compare with other normally developed film. Normally if you look thru black leader on electrical bulb aprox. 60W at about 5 meters away, you will see the thread, the bulb and some surrounding details. You may also use your monitor and try to read this page :) Overdevelpment gives more dense leader. Also, significant overdevelopment gives manufacturer's marks (ISO speed, frame numbers, type of film) with grey shape around, they don't look sharp.
If you can see this page on your monitor thru leader and perforation marks on film looks very sharp without greyish cloud around, it's likely overexposure.
Eduard.
Eduard:Thanks for your specific instructions for checking out the negatives. I will inspect the rolls and follow your tips.
Regards,
Raid
I just tought it could be both. You said you set your meter to 200ASA, it's one step below 400 ISO. So, I'd expect one step overexposed negatives. Also, if you were unlucky and lab slightly overdeveloped pushing one step ahead - it is 2 steps above normal. Quite difficult to print but still possible. For scanning it probably could be saved by Farmer's reducer.
Eduard.
If I recall correctly (this may be incorrect...), but EI200 is 2 stops below EI400, with EI 320 being the intermediate stop. Which could exacerbate any over-development by the lab.
I process all my silver-gelatin film at home by hand; I haven't used a lab in years, but when I did, the film would always look over-processed. Overprocessing should also increase the contrast of the image, not just elevate the overall base exposure. Think N+1, etc, in the Zone system.
Many folks downrate their EI (like Raid does), but it should be accompanied by a corresponding downrating in development time. This is the classic 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' method. Which compensates for the slight over-exposure by under-developing, to contract a high-contrast scenic brightness range into the film's narrower latitude range.
If Raid over-exposed by 2 stops (i.e. downrated from 400 to 200), and the lab even slightly over-developed from what a EI400 film exposure would require, this could mean 3 or more stops too much density. And then throw in just a bit of metering error (weak battery, etc), and you can see where a combination of factors can get out of hand quickly.
You may want to try shooting a roll at EI400, and see what one of the labs does with that.
Alternatively, it's not a big thing to start processing at home. If I can do it, anyone can. And you get better control of your process, for less money.
If I recall correctly (this may be incorrect...), but EI200 is 2 stops below EI400, with EI 320 being the intermediate stop. Which could exacerbate any over-development by the lab.
Joe
most of what you say is right, but 200 is 1 stop from 400. not 2.
allan
I often use the ASA400 setting for traditional ASA400 B&W film, and I use always the ASA200 setting for C-41 ASA400 B&W film. I have not had a badly exposed B&W film in several years. Considering that each of five rolls was overdeveloped/overexposed the same wayfor all frames, this make sit very unlikely that I consistently overexposed in five rolls of film even when sometimes using a meter and sometimes using the Sunny 16 Rule.
I took two rolls of film a few days ago, and each frame was well exposed. I used the same meter and same camera (M3) that was used in at least one roll of the five messed up rolls.
Raid
This mystery movie seems to continue in its search for the truth.
Today, I dropped by that same lab to get their input on the five rolls of B&W film that may have been overdeveloped[or not?]. They assured me today that there was no overdeveloping. They now believe that the film is too old. Another suggestion was that my film scanner is the source of troubles here.
I had three rolls of Agfa400, one roll of Fuji400, and one roll or Ilford125 in that batch, so how can all three types of B&W film be damaged? I never had problems with slightly outdated B&W film in the past. The Agfa film is outdated, but the Ilford and the Fuji films are not.
This leaves the scanner theory; this is also a bad suggestion since the scanner works well with other negatives. Also, the negatives "look bad" from the start.
Today I picked up from this lab six rolls of developed B&W film. The developing looks better. I will post some pics when I have the negatives scanned.
I should add that the lab did not charge me this time anything for the six rolls of film developed.
Raid
I need to make sure that the Agfa400 film is not the source of the problem. I just finished shooting another roll of this film, and now I need to get this roll developed "optimally" to see if I have to throw away my Agfa film or not. I need a volunteer ...who has experience with developing such a film?
Raid
Scanner can't make the negs look overdeveloped. The rest of it is typical lab-talk to explain why it's the customer's fault, which it sometimes is. Camera error, set the wrong ISO, outdated film. Even an experienced photog like you or me can make an error or two, as I did just today when changing film I forgot to change the ISO so the first few shots will be 1 stop underexposed. But the lab can screw up too, especially I'd think these days with the minority non-C41 processing. They got the temperature of the soup wrong or left it in too long, something like that, is my guess. Sounds like they even suspect that too... :)
Gabriel M.A.
10-14-2006, 15:26
Agfa 400 --- ??
You mean APX, or Vista?
Sorry Raid, to far from you to be of any help with development accept shareing my experiences.
I've shot a lot of APX400 in the last two years, some slightly outdated some fresh from the plant, and developed in different developers.
I've tried Rodinal 1+50, Ilford ID11 1+4 and Tetenal Ultrafine plus 1+4 and I rate my film at box speed.
With Rodinal I get too much grain but stunning sharpness and with ID11 1+4 I had nice grays but some blown out highlights without too much loss in sharpness. Tetenal Ultrafine is my favourite so far, it has a pleasing compensating effect at 1+4 with 3 second inversions. I develope for lesser contrast, i.E. gamma 0.55 which is recomended for condensor enlargers and suits my scanner fine. I ad contrast in post processing and my Zeiss lenses don't lack in contrast so this is just fine for most applications.
With all that said back to your problem,
at box speed it is realy hard to mess up most B/W film, just recently I developed APX100 some 20% too long when I overheard the beep from my timer and it turned out fine :-)
When I shoot my old FSU cameras I usualy don't care for a stop over or underesposure because APX400, APX100, HP5 and FP4 handle that very well and I get the rest out while scanning and postprocessing.
As far as I know many labs process B/W film at very high temperatures in a short time, ca. 38°C and far less than 5 minutes for most ISO400 films. Then half a minute makes much more of a difference than in handdevelopment at 20°C.
Agfa 400 --- ??
You mean APX, or Vista?
Gabriel: It was Agfa APX 400 B&W film.
Raid
Sorry Raid, to far from you to be of any help with development accept shareing my experiences.
I've shot a lot of APX400 in the last two years, some slightly outdated some fresh from the plant, and developed in different developers.
I've tried Rodinal 1+50, Ilford ID11 1+4 and Tetenal Ultrafine plus 1+4 and I rate my film at box speed.
With Rodinal I get too much grain but stunning sharpness and with ID11 1+4 I had nice grays but some blown out highlights without too much loss in sharpness. Tetenal Ultrafine is my favourite so far, it has a pleasing compensating effect at 1+4 with 3 second inversions. I develope for lesser contrast, i.E. gamma 0.55 which is recomended for condensor enlargers and suits my scanner fine. I ad contrast in post processing and my Zeiss lenses don't lack in contrast so this is just fine for most applications.
With all that said back to your problem,
at box speed it is realy hard to mess up most B/W film, just recently I developed APX100 some 20% too long when I overheard the beep from my timer and it turned out fine :-)
When I shoot my old FSU cameras I usualy don't care for a stop over or underesposure because APX400, APX100, HP5 and FP4 handle that very well and I get the rest out while scanning and postprocessing.
As far as I know many labs process B/W film at very high temperatures in a short time, ca. 38°C and far less than 5 minutes for most ISO400 films. Then half a minute makes much more of a difference than in handdevelopment at 20°C.
Socke: Thanks for your input and recommendations regarding the developing of Agfa APX 400 film. I am intrigued by the different possibilities that at home B&W developing allows. One day, I will be back at B&W developing as I used to many years ago. I agree with you regarding the flexibility of B&W film and the lack of sensitivity for slight over/under exposure.
Raid
Scanner can't make the negs look overdeveloped. The rest of it is typical lab-talk to explain why it's the customer's fault, which it sometimes is. Camera error, set the wrong ISO, outdated film. Even an experienced photog like you or me can make an error or two, as I did just today when changing film I forgot to change the ISO so the first few shots will be 1 stop underexposed. But the lab can screw up too, especially I'd think these days with the minority non-C41 processing. They got the temperature of the soup wrong or left it in too long, something like that, is my guess. Sounds like they even suspect that too... :)
Doug: I kept my tone very diplomatic with the lab personnel, and I told them that members of the RFF with extensive experience in B&W developing are my advisers in this mystery case. I don't want to send to the lab another Agfa APX film before I figure out whether it was damaged film or it was lab error causing the unacceptable negatives.
Raid
I picked up a roll of developed APX400 from the same lab, and just scanned the first strip of negatives. They look much better to my eyes than the first batch of five rolls on which this thread is based on.
The results are not fantastic, but it shows me that the reason for the inferior looking negatives is not my scanner or the film.
What do you think?
Raid
My monitor is not the brightest, I adjustet it to Adobe Gamma as good as I could.
I see no blown out highlights and the shaddows could be deeper for my liking, but that's easyly done in postprocessing, wet or ditigal.
I am now getting information that maybe my scanning setting made results looks even worse than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, the negatives look terrible. Here are three negatives from the last roll without ICE and with factory settings for the scanner.
Raid
Here are more scans. The newly developed APX400 looks much better.
I sent someone in nelsonfoto.com a roll of exposed APX400film from the same batch that my lab claims to be outdated and the reason for the lousy negatives.
He wrote me today a pm in which he informed that he has developed that rollof APX400 and that he found the negatives to look great.
Raid
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.