Is this negative severely underexposed or underdeveloped?

[zanzibarbungalow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey all, recently took a new to me M3 out to run a test roll and got the scans back from the lab. Nearly every shot (but not all) have this issue that looks like it's very underexposed. Mainly want to rule out if it's underdeveloped because if so I don't want to run the risk of taking more rolls to them.

I used a Gossen Luna Pro to meter and in the past it's been very reliable. I tested it against a light meter app on my phone which has always been very accurate as well and they are usually within 1 stop of each other. This particular photo looks like it's underexposed by a hell of a lot, which seems odd. Could be the camera as well, but since not every shot looks like this I'm guessing it's just underexposed and either my meter is faulty or the camera needs adjusting. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Need to see the negatives to see if it’s under exposure or development. Also to see the black fogged leader of the film to see how black it is, dark black or a lighter shade, which would indicate under development.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zanzibarbungalow]

I'll be picking up the negatives when they reopen tomorrow. However, I grabbed a strip from the same lab and compared it to an older home developed roll and noticed the strip seems lighter. I did my best to take a picture over the lightbox but some weird coloring happened, but you should still be able to see the strip well. 

Top strip was home developed a few years ago. Bottom strip was developed by the lab a couple weeks ago. Those photos on the bottom strip are definitely underexposed, but when comparing the frame numbers and the word Kodak there's some noticeable differences. Top strip seems to be more contrasty and detailed, and the bottom one is fainter and the negative itself is a lighter shade. I could have overdeveloped the one at home as well which is entirely possible. 

I also think their scans are likely terrible. I usually scan myself but had them do it for convenience for this test roll but I'm definitely regretting it. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Both strips of negatives look ok. The edge printing on the bottom one is lighter but the negatives themselves look ok, but possibly the contrasty subject makes it difficult to tell, the negatives might be correctly exposed for the sky but under exposed for the figures. The black developed leader will give the best indication of whether the film was under developed or not.

[pfoto]

they are underdeveloped and the second strip is underexposed. i am saying this, having used tri-x as pro for years way back then

[zanzibarbungalow]

Thanks y'all. I think in the case of the most recent roll, it might be the camera unfortunately. I developed a roll at home today from the M3 and they all seem very underexposed. I even developed a roll from my IIIf and that one came out fine, all exposed properly. One of the reasons I think this is the case is a couple shots I took on the street the other day—one of them came out ok (but still underexposed) and the other came out WAY underexposed. No changes in shutter/aperture. I'm wondering if maybe the speeds between 100-1000 aren't changing much. They sound ok by ear but that's not a perfect test obviously. Is that even possible for the M3 to underexpose most frames? I would assume anything's possible, curious if y'all have heard of this before.

I shot a test roll of the same setting but adjusting shutter for each one. Going to drop this off tomorrow to see what comes out. 

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, zanzibarbungalow said:

Thanks y'all. I think in the case of the most recent roll, it might be the camera unfortunately. I developed a roll at home today from the M3 and they all seem very underexposed. I even developed a roll from my IIIf and that one came out fine, all exposed properly. One of the reasons I think this is the case is a couple shots I took on the street the other day—one of them came out ok (but still underexposed) and the other came out WAY underexposed. No changes in shutter/aperture. I'm wondering if maybe the speeds between 100-1000 aren't changing much. They sound ok by ear but that's not a perfect test obviously. Is that even possible for the M3 to underexpose most frames? I would assume anything's possible, curious if y'all have heard of this before.

I shot a test roll of the same setting but adjusting shutter for each one. Going to drop this off tomorrow to see what comes out. 

The top strip of negatives are just about ok, the bottom strip is underdeveloped. You need to get them developed properly before you can determine if the camera, or the photographer, is under exposing. The edge printing should be black, not grey.

Edited May 24, 2021 by 250swb

[zanzibarbungalow]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

The top strip of negatives are just about ok, the bottom strip is underdeveloped. You need to get them developed properly before you can determine if the camera, or the photographer, is under exposing. The edge printing should be black, not grey.

Yeah, I developed one at home yesterday and it's underexposed. I have no clue on the camera's CLA history and neither did the previous owner, so it definitely needs one. 

This lab also developed a roll from a different camera and development and exposure look fine.

[zanzibarbungalow]

Here's another example of why I think it's the camera. These two pictures were of the same thing taken one right after the other. First one seems fine and the second one is waaaay messed up.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Yes, that looks like the camera needs a service. Were the two shots taken on the same shutter speed?

[zanzibarbungalow]

2 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Yes, that looks like the camera needs a service. Were the two shots taken on the same shutter speed?

To my recollection, yes. I set the shutter to 100 for that day and mainly went by sunny 16 or used my light meter to adjust aperture. I try to not mess with shutter speed too much, and I don't remember changing it much that day. 

I've already contacted DAG so likely going to send it in this week along with a lens. 

[oldwino]

Get that camera fixed, and in the meantime, find a new lab! 

[zanzibarbungalow]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

Get that camera fixed, and in the meantime, find a new lab! 

Yeah, unfortunate since they're so close to me and have been good in the past. 

Got any recommendations for mail-in labs? There's a couple other places in my town but always willing to try outside labs if they're very good. 

[zanzibarbungalow]

Here's another one for fun. This has the negative from the original post. Top and bottom are lab, middle is home developed.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 24, 2021 by zanzibarbungalow

[Pyrogallol]

Stick to the home developing, with slightly reduced time/temperature.

[zanzibarbungalow]

8 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Stick to the home developing, with slightly reduced time/temperature.

Yeah, I think you're right. I started using the lab recently just for convenience and to save time, but I'm probably going to have to do it at home just out of necessity. 

[Stuart Richardson]

It looks like they are either underdeveloping or using somewhat expired chemicals. Also, if you regularly photograph people with darker complexions such as those in the photos above, you might consider rating your film slightly slower. For example, by taking Tri-x to 320 or 250. You may be aware that a lot of the metering conventions and ISO ratings for film were designed for white and Asian complexions. You may have to be a little more careful to avoid burning out the skies, but the better gradation would most likely be worth it.

[zanzibarbungalow]

31 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It looks like they are either underdeveloping or using somewhat expired chemicals. Also, if you regularly photograph people with darker complexions such as those in the photos above, you might consider rating your film slightly slower. For example, by taking Tri-x to 320 or 250. You may be aware that a lot of the metering conventions and ISO ratings for film were designed for white and Asian complexions. You may have to be a little more careful to avoid burning out the skies, but the better gradation would most likely be worth it.

Thanks for the tip—are you pulling in development or developing at 400? 

I actually did hear about that a few years ago, very interesting and indicative of the era that a lot of these popular films were made in. 

[adan]

1) Now that we can see the original neg, the answer to the title question is simple - that picture was massively underexposed.

2) There is a fairly simple "eyeball" check for underexposure vs. underdevelopment.

In a correctly-exposed negative, no part of the image area should be "blank." There should be some detectable density higher than (darker than) the unexposed borders, everywhere in the picture.

The old rule-of-thumb applies - "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

And the reason for that is that development is an amplifying or multiplication process. And as we know, multiplying "zero" by any amount, no matter how large, still results in "zero." You cannot "save" underexposed shadows with additional development. In a digital analogy, those shadows with zero density are "clipped" to black.

By comparison, an underdeveloped (but well-exposed) negative will still show some detectable density even in the shadows, but will be gray (low-contrast, lacking in density range) everywhere. Because the "multiplier" (development) was deficient. And overdeveloped film will have an excessive density range (highlights that are nearly solid black and impenetrable).

Now, there are three caveats to that.

One is that roll film does not allow independent developing of each picture - all 12 or 15 or 24 or 36 pictures on a roll get the same development. So anyone not shooting individual sheets of film in a view camera (or separate rolls with interchangeable film backs like a Hasselblad or similar) will have to make some compromises, and "fix things" in printing and scanning.

Another, as Stuart mentions, is that with a high-contrast scene, sufficient shadow exposure may push the exposure in the highlights close to the upper limit of what the film can handle gracefully. One may have to make a "creative command decision" as to what to sacrifice.

And that is the third caveat - an "ideal" negative is fine, but one can choose to "mis-expose" or "mis-develop" to get some special desired artistic effect.

Although in general I've found it better to get as close to the ideal neg as possible, and then use post-processing (whether in darkroom printing, or adjusting a film scan on the computer) to "create." Twenty years from now, one may change one's mind, and wish the effect was not so "baked into" the negative.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zanzibarbungalow]

3 minutes ago, adan said:

1) Now that we can see the original neg, the answer to the title question is simple - that picture was massively underexposed.

2) There is a fairly simple "eyeball" check for underexposure vs. underdevelopment.

In a correctly-exposed negative, no part of the image area should be "blank." There should be some detectable density higher than (darker than) the unexposed borders, everywhere in the picture.

The old rule-of-thumb applies - "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

And the reason for that is that development is an amplifying or multiplication process. And as we know, multiplying "zero" by any amount, no matter how large, still results in "zero." You cannot "save" underexposed shadows with additional development. In a digital analogy, those shadows with zero density are "clipped" to black.

By comparison, an underdeveloped (but well-exposed) negative will still show some detectable density even in the shadows, but will be gray (low-contrast, lacking in density range) everywhere. Because the "multiplier" (development) was deficient. And overdeveloped film will have an excessive density range (highlights that are nearly solid black and impenetrable).

Now, there are three caveats to that.

One is that roll film does not allow independent developing of each picture - all 12 or 15 or 24 or 36 pictures on a roll get the same development. So anyone not shooting individual sheets of film in a view camera (or separate rolls with interchangeable film backs like a Hasselblad or similar) will have to make some compromises, and "fix things" in printing and scanning.

Another, as Stuart mentions, is that with a high-contrast scene, sufficient shadow exposure may push the exposure in the highlights close to the upper limit of what the film can handle gracefully. One may have to make a "creative command decision" as to what to sacrifice.

And that is the third caveat - an "ideal" negative is fine, but one can choose to "mis-expose" or "mis-develop" to get some special desired artistic effect.

Although in general I've found it better to get as close to the ideal neg as possible, and then use post-processing (whether in darkroom printing, or adjusting a film scan on the computer) to "create." Twenty years from now, one may change one's mind, and wish the effect was not so "baked into" the negative.

Thanks for the write up. There's actually a 2 issues that have arisen since the original post was made. The first one is that the camera is definitely messed up and underexposing most frames. It goes in the mail today to DAG for repair. 

It also turns out the lab is underdeveloping. Maybe not by too much but it's there. I likely would have not noticed had I not looked so hard at these negatives from that underexposed roll.