Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> What's this? |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's this?
Hi.
On a C200 film i got done recently, there was this photo with this foggy effect. Can you tell me what caused this? Thanks Tom |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
To me it looks like under-exposure. The grain visible in the sky is a characteristic. The muddy colours are another.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now you mention it, I did have the ISO 200 above what the film reccomended.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am curious as I have seen examples of Kodak Porta underexposed by 1 stop with almost no noticeable difference but that seems to be the limit. It is always useful to know what C200 can accomodate as underexposure Thanks Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ISO 400. I had just been shooting Ilford HP5+ 400. The film speed should have been 200 ISO.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I think like Mike that under exposure is the death knell. This may have not been helped with a possible misreading of the exposure by the camera which obviously made the situation worse that it would have otherwise been. There is a fairly large expanse of bright sky which would have altered the meter reading. Was this the only frame that was affected.
There was an old saying with B&W photographers that is still true today when using film. 'Expose for the shadows and the highlights will take care of them selves' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Tom. I suppose I should have asked if this was a good scan of a print. Was it?
Apart from the nearside hedge very little shadow detail has been lost but somehow it has a slighly foggy look. You can tell it's a sunny day but the vibrancy of colour has been lost It may be that a cheaper film such as C200 which may or may not be the same as Fuji Superia 200 gives this look at even 1 stop under whereas the better quality and of course more expensive Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H show little change at one stop under. John makes some good points about sky and metering so in effect the actual exposure speed may have rendered the under-exposure to more than one stop. Mike |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You'll have to ask ASDA photo center. My community darkroom is only set up for black and white.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The scanner is fairly good, but some of the other underexposed photos were fine!
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I used to set up printers and analysers in labs. From time to time I also had to deal with complaints and I became familiar with technical failures.
Photowaffle's print showed severe underexposure - perhaps two or more stops? At that amount of underexposure I don't think the brand or type of film, or the scanner, would have much to do with the result. As Mike O'Pray said 'Colour neg film can stand quite a bit of overexposure but only a little bit of underexposure.' |
Tags |
c200, colour, film is not dead |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|