|
I've recently shot a roll of 35mm Portra 160VC and I was expecting a lot of it. But the interior photos turned out very grainy. Also the outdoor shots weren't as good as I expected. They where shot with a Minolta XG2. The roll of film was expired but was always kept in the fridge. What am I doing wrong?
>>www.off-limits.eu<<
https://www.flickr...otos/33475620@N05/ |
|
Looks like underexposure to me.
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
Maybe for the first one, but the last one isn't underexposed.
So is this one
>>www.off-limits.eu<<
https://www.flickr...otos/33475620@N05/ |
|
The outdoor one looks fine.. Looks like VC.
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel |
|
When you shoot one roll under two drastically different lighting conditions (indoor and outdoor), the processor may develop for the outdoor shots making the indoor ones not necessarily underexposed but under developed. This results in flat washed out negs. So how do you fix this? Well.. its hard to get just right but in most cases you need to significantly overexpose the indoor shots to compensate for underdevelopment. Maybe like 2 stops.
..... but, you're not going to get much more out of expired film anyways.
[last edit 6/7/2011 11:54 PM by Adv.Pack - edited 1 times]
https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/ |
|
Posted by Adv.Pack
When you shoot one roll under two drastically different lighting conditions (indoor and outdoor), the processor may develop for the outdoor shots making the indoor ones not necessarily underexposed but under developed. This results in flat washed out negs. |
That makes sense. Thanks!
>>www.off-limits.eu<<
https://www.flickr...otos/33475620@N05/ |
|
Posted by Off-Limits
That makes sense. Thanks!
|
That is to say, it would make sense if it weren't complete nonsense. C-41 film has very specific developing times and temperatures. One can't inspect it while processing. You underexposed the interior photos.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits |
|
Posted by EatsTooMuchJam
That is to say, it would make sense if it weren't complete nonsense. C-41 film has very specific developing times and temperatures. One can't inspect it while processing. You underexposed the interior photos.
|
Yeah I guess you're right. If you're not developing yourself, there is really no leeway.
[last edit 6/21/2011 11:07 PM by Adv.Pack - edited 2 times]
https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/ |
|
Something else to be looked at. Some cameras do not work as well with one type of film as they do with others. Sometimes you have to play with different ones to find what your camera will work best with, in what you do and what you are looking for. When I had my old canon, it worked better with the afga films than fuji, and a lot better than Kodak. But my Nikons did not work as well with the Afga (before they quit making their film) but worked good with the fuji. As of yet I have not went back to Kodak, even though I did try a few rolls with my Nikon N90, but even that has not shown any good. Maybe these newer Kodak lines might work better. I don't know, but until Fuji quit making their Pro 800 line, I never had a problem with them.
Another point is, do you have your developer adjust your images? If you are, make sure they know to watch for the different shots of indoors and outdoors. Or you can change rolls before you change settings, which could help as well.
Even changing your ISO in the different conditions can help, but again make sure your developer knows this and to watch for it.
Futurus partum par fabrica |
Ethics
