Under-developed film help!

[usccharles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i've been playing around with a bunch of expired film, Kodak tmax 3200 and Ilford delta 3200, all expired less than one year.

 

i shot three rolls, mainly in the dark, but had them properly exposed on my MP when taking them. got my rolls developed and scanned at my local shop and these are what i got. all horribly underexposed.

 

my question is: you think the problems is my expired film, or the shop screwed up in developing my film, or the metering system might be off on my MP? i think the last one is not it because i took some pics on the same day i took some of these with some 400 iso color negatives and they came out fine. its just the b/w film that have screwed up like this.

 

i hate when this happens, i get so discouraged with film when it does...

 

FYI, i usually have my images developed at the shop and scan all the film myself but i got lazy with these and just had the shop develop and scan together. i tried rescanning them at home and the images are still look undeveloped like these.

 

thanks for looking

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!

[bullis]

my question is: you think the problems is my expired film, or the shop screwed up in developing my film, or the metering system might be off on my MP? i think the last one is not it because i took some pics on the same day i took some of these with some 400 iso color negatives and they came out fine. its just the b/w film that have screwed up like this.

thanks for looking

 

The negatives are underexposed. That's different from underdeveloped. I doubt they are underdeveloped, but of course, the underexposure may be masking that problem also.

 

I suspect that you were exposing using ISO 3200. Is this correct? Did you give the lab instructions concerning your decisions in making the exposure choices that you used? Do you know what choices they made concerning the type of developer and the length of time they processed?

 

I've tested both of these films. The results of the tests showed very clearly that these films work very well at 800 ISO and probably can be used at about 1000 without much loss. Both begin to lose shadow density pretty seriously at 1600. Since you are dealing with pretty much all shadow, it got you. Actually, they are pretty good films; I especially like the Ilford, but if you just put it in the camera, set it at 3200 and shoot, the results you got are fairly typical. Especially in the top one, where there is a blast of white background, my suspicion is that the meter, in reading that light, averaged the exposure with an inflated reading which cheated the dark areas. The white was irrelevant to the picture, so reading it introduced an error. The second one, same, but to a lesser extent. The one of the glass, yes, it was dark. "Pushing" is risky; it can sometimes work, but there is a price that you pay. It doesn't automatically work. These films used at 3200 or even 1600 are pushed, they are not naturally that fast. When you "push", you lose the shadows. The increased development has much greater effect in the higher values than in the shadows. You just don't get any help in the shadows. Essentially, you are two stops underexposed.

 

If you look at the data, they don't claim that the film IS 3200, they just give instructions of how to develop it to approximate that sensitivity, but they don't claim that you will have good density in shadow areas.

 

I know it is confusing. I think they ought to try to be more clear in their information sheets. Lots of people get results like this. Good luck.

[usccharles]

The negatives are underexposed. That's different from underdeveloped. I doubt they are underdeveloped, but of course, the underexposure may be masking that problem also.

 

I suspect that you were exposing using ISO 3200. Is this correct? Did you give the lab instructions concerning your decisions in making the exposure choices that you used? Do you know what choices they made concerning the type of developer and the length of time they processed?

 

I've tested both of these films. The results of the tests showed very clearly that these films work very well at 800 ISO and probably can be used at about 1000 without much loss. Both begin to lose shadow density pretty seriously at 1600. Since you are dealing with pretty much all shadow, it got you. Actually, they are pretty good films; I especially like the Ilford, but if you just put it in the camera, set it at 3200 and shoot, the results you got are fairly typical. Especially in the top one, where there is a blast of white background, my suspicion is that the meter, in reading that light, averaged the exposure with an inflated reading which cheated the dark areas. The white was irrelevant to the picture, so reading it introduced an error. The second one, same, but to a lesser extent. The one of the glass, yes, it was dark. "Pushing" is risky; it can sometimes work, but there is a price that you pay. It doesn't automatically work. These films used at 3200 or even 1600 are pushed, they are not naturally that fast. When you "push", you lose the shadows. The increased development has much greater effect in the higher values than in the shadows. You just don't get any help in the shadows. Essentially, you are two stops underexposed.

 

If you look at the data, they don't claim that the film IS 3200, they just give instructions of how to develop it to approximate that sensitivity, but they don't claim that you will have good density in shadow areas.

 

I know it is confusing. I think they ought to try to be more clear in their information sheets. Lots of people get results like this. Good luck.

 

 

thanks for your comments. i'm pretty sure it wasn't underexposed as i exposed on the shadows and and then recomposed for all the shots. also, i do alot of night time photowork (usually with delta 400 pused to 1600 and sometimes to 3200) so i have some experience with exposing at night.

 

the photoshop guy agrees that these were underdeveloped. he says looking closely on the film that there are details that look like would have come out more had it been developed for a longer period (his technical jive was way beyond me).

 

i'm taking anothr roll of 3200 tmax for him to develop so we can see again if it was the developing or its my film...

 

fyi, this also happened to another 3200 tmax roll last week. and this picture was shot during the day with the window open with even light and it still came out like this.

 

but the photoshop says they developed at 3200... i just don't know if its them or if its the film and i have no expertise of knowing the difference from looking at the images...

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!

[haris]

What bullis said is next: If you meter is set for 3200 for those films you will get underexposed images, even if your metering procedure is correct. You can not use those films as 3200 ASA films, you should use them as 1600 or 1000 or 800 ASA films. So, put those 3200 ASA films in camera, set camera meter (or handheld meter if you use it) to 800 or 1000 or 1600 ASA, and use films as they are 800, 1000 or 1600 ASA films. When you finish roll and give roll to process in lab, tell lab to process it as 3200 ASA film. But, it would be best if you process films by yourself.

 

It is not pull processing, don't mix those things!!!! And as I saw, you used to use 400ASA as 800 or more ASA film, so you usually push your films...

 

That was calling "finding true speed of film". In theory (and in practice) it is discovered that films are usually slower than they are nominated. So, 100 ASA film can be 25 or 50 or 64 ASA, 400 ASA film can be in fact 160 or 200 ASA, etc...

 

Tha is why people, usually fine artists who work with medium or large format, but also people who use 35mm film, make experiment fo establish "true film speed" for their equipment, photography procedure, processing procedure. And even for different batch (coatings) of same film...

 

You can find articles how to establish true film speed on net, best are the late Barry Thorton's articles: barrythornton.com under technique guide...

 

Good luck

[bullis]

usccharles,

 

There are a lot of people running labs. Some of them know more than others. Some have better skills than others. I think that when you use a lab, even one that is known as being of the highest professional caliber, it is very important that you take what they say, and view what they do, using your own critical faculties. That applies here, too. It is important to consider what anyone says about the work carefully. Not everyone's comments, however well intended, have equal value. It is equally, or even more important to view your own thoughts and understanding in the same critical way. Each of us carries assumptions that function as invisible foundations for our understanding. If these assumptions are in error, any thoughts that follow from them will reflect that error also and all decisions based upon them will be flawed.

 

In looking at what you are showing us, I see absolutely no detail in the darker areas, just blank dark gray with no detail. Even the grain seems to be better defined than any content that should be there in a correctly exposed negative. This is a dead giveaway for underexposure. If there is no detail in the negative, you are NOT going to get any in the print. The way to get no detail in shadows is just simply to underexpose your film. I see this consistently in what you are presenting. Yes, I am suggesting here that your technical consultant may not understand the problems in your results correctly. This, by the way, is NOT unusual. It is more common than not.

 

Haris' observations are right on, and if I have him correctly, the implications of what he is saying suggest that perhaps the assumptions that you've adopted really need to be scrutinized. Perhaps you've been lucky in the past and have achieved satisfactory results, but it looks to me as though you aren't clear about what exposure does, and what development does. I am confident that your work would be much more satisfying to you with just a bit of study, if you work toward understanding these basic concepts and their practical application.

 

The confusion about film speeds is so universal that it is often very hard to deal with it even with ordinary films, but with these special purpose films, it seems impossible. I think we humans really want things to be simple and certain, when in fact, they rarely are. In this case, if the cassette says 3200 on it, we think that is what it ought to be, but it is not so. People seem to be committed to the idea that they ought to be able to just use any speed they want and get great results. Unfortunately, many sources of information promote these illusions. If you don't test it yourself, you really can't know.

 

I hope you take this as I mean it. I give lots of critiques, and in doing so, I try to be as objective as possible. Often, people interpret this personally, but that is not at all how it is meant.

[newsgrunt]

Been a long time since I've shot 3200 but I always rated it box speed. How do the frame numbers on the film look ? Are they faint and look thin as well or do they have similar density as properly exposed and developed highlights ? This will help explain what happened to your film.

[f/11]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many years ago I was able to salvage some 4"X5" negatives when the flash bulb failed to fire. The graduating group heard the click of the shutter and that was good enough for them. I used chromium intensifier and Dectol. Alt-photo-process-l June 2002: Chromium Intensifier

[usccharles]

Bullis, Haris

 

thanks for your comments. this is very confusing for my head! haha

 

i'm still lost though. if i buy a film that reads 3200iso, shouldn't i be able to use it at 3200iso? if i'm only able to use it at 800 or 1000 or 1600, yet can process at 3200... i don't get the point in that when what i was looking for was a film speed of 3200 to increas my shutter speed.

 

i am VERY lacking in the technical aspects of film processing as i don't do my own dark room work. and from what i have read from these 3200 films, for instance with ilford 3200, i have read that the actual speed of the film is around 1000iso, but the film can be pushed to 3200 with good results. doesn't this mean i can shoot this at 3200, process it at 3200, and get good results? i'm lost...

 

let me go through my old photos and come back to you guys. this is very interesting because i have shot alot of 3200 film in the past and i've shot all of them at 3200 and processed them at 3200 and i have alwasy had good results... i never shot them at a lower iso than 3200.

 

thanks for your comments though. i really want to understand this if i'm going about this ina wrong way.

[rob_x2004]

Regardless of underexposure etc, looking at the black scanner frame margin of the last shot posted, there seems to be a considerable problem with scanning and post processing.

[usccharles]

Regardless of underexposure etc, looking at the black scanner frame margin of the last shot posted, there seems to be a considerable problem with scanning and post processing.

 

what do you see wrong in the scanning?

 

the scan was taken on default auto. basically neutral to show the scan as is.

[rob_x2004]

I'm on the wrong computer to be cropping bits out and putting arrows on them, but the black frame, that would be the bits in between shots on the negative? It seems to me to look like grey sandpaper so isnt there a noise and a black point problem going on? There is no reason it shouldnt be a shiny inky black, and it isnt. So that seems like scanning and or post processing. Translate that to the remainder of the scanned image and I reckon there is a fair amount of your answer there.

 

I get a similar looking scan straight off the scanner but that image is three to seven thousand pixels wide, depending on the scan resolution and resampling down to the size you show here averages away the noise, and so does printing anything under sixteen odd inch. What resolution was the scan? What did you do to the scan you got?

 

Black and white is an effort to learn how to scan, and I have never used the 3200, but I should imagine it doesnt have much of an exposure latitude, which to me would explain the degree of flatness of the scan, and that you would need fair editing skills to get good gradations going between blacks and whites. Add to that that the subjects appear to be in shadow so they are underexposed. How do you go with 100ISO silver based films?

[bullis]

what do you see wrong in the scanning?

 

the scan was taken on default auto. basically neutral to show the scan as is.

 

I think if you get into the scan, it is going to get even more confusing. You would be adding yet another medium. The scan shows precisely what I would expect to see from your description, shows it so well that I can see the space between the grains where the black ought to be, and if you fiddle with the scan you will "fix" it and entirely eliminate the possibility of understanding your basic photographic problem.

 

It baffles me that all of the books, even those written by persons who I know are totally solid such as the author of the text I use in my own courses, continue to try to teach "pushing" film. I suspect that the publishers insist on it because the public expects it. The fact is, pushing film is like buying a lottery ticket, only the odds may not be quite as good, unless you know what you are doing. And by knowing what you are doing, I do not mean necessarily technically as much as visually. You need to know what in your image you can sacrifice without killing the image. With skillful seeing, sacrificing the shadows can improve an image, can even send it over the top. In the images you are showing, you aren't exactly considering the way light works on the surfaces of your subjects. If you were, you would have a better chance. You have the light working against your subjects. If your lighting revealed the form, rather than obscuring it... You are basically taking pictures of things, and in doing so, asking your film to do what it wasn't designed to do. Yes it was meant for pushing, but it was meant for that to be done with a certain awareness of what the consequences of doing so would be.

 

What bothers me most is that when someone teaches the zone system in one chapter and then turns around and says "oh, well, you can just pretend your film is faster than it is and change your development time..." What a crock. You can't fix inadequate exposure by increasing the contrast.

 

No, when you read the disclaimer that is ALWAYS there inside the box, it says that the iso stated is merely a starting point and that it is your responsibility to determine the suitability for your own use. In other words, the mfr. is not liable. If you look at the information, you will see that nowhere does Ilford state that the iso "IS" this or that, but gives you a selection of options from which you can choose, and you are responsible for that choice, yes?

 

I wish it were easier to explain this. It is very frustrating to you, I'm sure, and it always is for me even with students in person when I can draw pictures and find lighting examples. Doing it this way is very hard, but I'd sure like to help you. Now that I've got your brain all messed up!

 

I doubt I'll be able to go much farther than this, because you really need some more background in order to grasp the concepts involved. However, let me suggest that instead of trying to do extreme things at this level of your work, try to simplify, using more ordinary materials in more ordinary ways. Perhaps, after doing that for awhile, you will be able to find your way to an understanding of the basic principles, and from there, you can move into these more adventurous areas. Get a good book, like, say, Horenstein's Basic Photography; something really solid, not the popular stuff. Take a course, and by all means, learn to process and print your own stuff. It will make a world of difference, and I'm pretty sure you will love it, have a great time, and learn a lot.

 

Sorry if I've left you worse than you were before! Get to work!

[stunsworth]

i'm still lost though. if i buy a film that reads 3200iso, shouldn't i be able to use it at 3200iso?

 

Look at the box, it doesn't say ISO 3200 it just says 3200. That's because it's not really an ISO 3200 film, so Ilford can't say so on the box.

 

It's real speed is around 1200 from memory, but I'm assuming it's a low contrast film which means that it can be pushed to 3200 without too many side effects.

 

I've used it at 3200, but generally shot it at 1600. At 3200 I found the grain to be a bit on the high side.

 

You should get better results that this, it looks like a metering, or possible a processing, problem.

[haris]

Bullis, Haris

 

thanks for your comments. this is very confusing for my head! haha

 

i'm still lost though. if i buy a film that reads 3200iso, shouldn't i be able to use it at 3200iso? if i'm only able to use it at 800 or 1000 or 1600, yet can process at 3200... i don't get the point in that when what i was looking for was a film speed of 3200 to increas my shutter speed...

 

Thing is: Manufacturers put on box film speed they establish in strictly controlled laboratory testing conditions. They do not test film by making images in various real life situations. They put their emulsions into machines, machines give as result certain number, and that number they write on box as film speed (of course this is not completely like that, I just very much simplify things). Even further, manufacturers make calculations for emulsion formulaes, for example they calculate chemicals and procedures needed for 3200 film, they coate base (make film) with those emulsions, and they check if results are under those calculated parameters. They simply can not (don't have time and money) to test every amulsion in real life situations and that also has no point.

 

Imagine you once buy film where in box is written 118 ASA, next time 31,5 ASA, next time 1823 ASA... That is pointless. That's why nominated and standardized (laboratory established) film speeds are written on film box, and true film speed (real life photography situations) may be different more or less from that nominate speed.

With b/w film things are somewhere better because b/w film can tolerate few stops difference, it can be "repaired" during processing or print making. So, usually, people use film at theire nominate (written on box) speed without problems. But, now and then, some critical photographs and some difficult lightning situation when film is used appears, and in those situation "true" film speed become important.

 

Try to use slide film and then you will see how important true film speed and precise exposure mettering is

 

Me personally use films (Ilford FP4 and HP5) at their nominate film speeds (ok, I use FP4 as 100 ASA not 125 film), and I have no real problems most of the times, my photography tehnique is OK with that.

 

I use Ilford Delta 3200 film as 1600 speed film.

 

I develop my films in Ilford ID11 (stock solution) at nominate times for each film.

 

Regards

[ejd]

There's a very useful fact sheet on the Ilford photo web site that explains all

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200613019405339.pdf

It says it's an ISO 1000 film, but is particularly recommended for use between EI 1600 and EI 6400.

 

The shop that developed them may or may not have used a suitable developer and given the right development time. Ilford does give quite specific advice on development, and they do recommend testing the film and development process before using it in the field, as it were. My impression is that Ilford is quite careful in the claims it makes for the film.

[haris]

What bothers me most is that when someone teaches the zone system in one chapter and then turns around and says "oh, well, you can just pretend your film is faster than it is and change your development time..." What a crock. You can't fix inadequate exposure by increasing the contrast.

 

Have ever you hear about saying: "Expose for shadows, develop for highlights"?

 

It means next: For getting details in shadows you need to get proper exposure for shadow (dark) part of scene. Now, it can (and do) happens that when you get proper exposure for shadows, your highlights (bright parts of scene) get wrong exposure (become dark). What to do then? Well, as shadows and highlights differently develop in developer (shadows develop faster and when completely developed they do not change), prolonged developing helps highlights to develop correctly. That is basically zone system, you establish exposure for shadows, then calculate developing time needed for getting good higlights and develop your film at that calculated time, not at time nominated for that film/developer combination.

 

That is why zone system usually is made on LF photography. Different scenes needs different developing times (even if made on same film type), and as you can not develop for example roll of 35mm film with developing times differently for each particular frame, it is not practical for 35mm photography.

 

Zone system CAN be done on 35mm and MF photography, but it is easier and usuall for LF photograhy.

 

And in zone system finding true film speed, true developing time, printing procedure is important. People even test their camers/lenses, because for example 1/125 shutter speed is also just nominate, it can be 1/90 or 1/180, depending of camera or lens making (precision in making), how old camera or lens is, etc...

 

But, I would forget zone system for now, it is too technical, when you get experience at "ordinary" metering/exposing/processing procedures, then zone system is something to learn.

 

If you are very interrested in that, books trilogy of Ansel Adams (Negative, Print, Camera) is somethnig to read, he is man who established zone system photography.

 

People even say those books are must read for every photographer even if you don't do zone system, it will learn you about exposing/procesing/printing.

 

Barry Thorton is also great to read, Les Mclean too, and there are others. And I would look at photographs and ask people here, for example Steve's, you can learn a lot from people here.

 

And for film photography, try to visit APUG forum, that is the place for film

[usccharles]

whoa... now.. i am.. COMPLETELY... whoa... heehee

 

stay tuned~ i have one more tmax 3200 roll i'm getting developed this weekend. shot it at 3200iso again. the photoshop is expecting me, so if the scanns come out like that again, then its definately something i'm screwing up on.

 

thanks again

[bullis]

whoa... now.. i am.. COMPLETELY... whoa... heehee

 

stay tuned~ i have one more tmax 3200 roll i'm getting developed this weekend. shot it at 3200iso again. the photoshop is expecting me, so if the scanns come out like that again, then its definately something i'm screwing up on.

 

thanks again

 

It probably doesn't seem right somehow.

 

Here, you have the MP, arguably one of the best cameras in the world. How come the pics aren't just great all the time? Fortunately, you aren't going to crash and burn. But in buying the best airplane in the world, I don't think most people would expect they could just get in, take off and most important, land it. I would hope they'd go to school before they point that thing at me and step on the gas!

 

There's a misconception out there that if you get a good camera you get good pictures. Actually, it is almost the opposite. Buy a crappy camera and it is made to replace your brain with built in compromises that will give you mediocre pictures most of the time and exceptional pictures maybe occasionally, and really bad ones sometimes. With your MP, it is all up to you. So it is your understanding and skill that will produce the results.

 

I had a client once, for whom I had won awards with my images, an architect. He had seen me working with my old junk view cameras, taped up with black tape and really ugly. He actually told me once that the reason he had to hire me was that he couldn't afford the camera that could do what I can do. He ought to have known better, but somehow, couldn't put it together. How could he even imagine that the camera got him the big prizes?

 

Your MP is a fine professional tool. Lots of people have fine tablesaws. That doesn't make them fine professional woodworkers. Even better, your MP is a fine amateur tool, in the sense that amateur comes from the latin root for love. You can grow into it over a lifetime and it will always give you room to learn.

 

You have all this wonderful stuff to learn. You have whole worlds in science and art ahead of you! If you had a $200 point and shoot that only worked on autopilot, you might get better pictures more of the time in the beginning, because it would lock out your brain and keep you from making mistakes, but then it would make its own mistakes and allow you to learn nothing at all! Of course, this isn't for everyone. Some people would consider it a real misfortune to have to actually think!

 

I don't think anyone gets an MP by accident. The opportunity it represents is enormous. Good luck. Good work.

[usccharles]

It probably doesn't seem right somehow.

 

Here, you have the MP, arguably one of the best cameras in the world. How come the pics aren't just great all the time? Fortunately, you aren't going to crash and burn. But in buying the best airplane in the world, I don't think most people would expect they could just get in, take off and most important, land it. I would hope they'd go to school before they point that thing at me and step on the gas!

 

There's a misconception out there that if you get a good camera you get good pictures. Actually, it is almost the opposite. Buy a crappy camera and it is made to replace your brain with built in compromises that will give you mediocre pictures most of the time and exceptional pictures maybe occasionally, and really bad ones sometimes. With your MP, it is all up to you. So it is your understanding and skill that will produce the results.

 

I had a client once, for whom I had won awards with my images, an architect. He had seen me working with my old junk view cameras, taped up with black tape and really ugly. He actually told me once that the reason he had to hire me was that he couldn't afford the camera that could do what I can do. He ought to have known better, but somehow, couldn't put it together. How could he even imagine that the camera got him the big prizes?

 

Your MP is a fine professional tool. Lots of people have fine tablesaws. That doesn't make them fine professional woodworkers. Even better, your MP is a fine amateur tool, in the sense that amateur comes from the latin root for love. You can grow into it over a lifetime and it will always give you room to learn.

 

You have all this wonderful stuff to learn. You have whole worlds in science and art ahead of you! If you had a $200 point and shoot that only worked on autopilot, you might get better pictures more of the time in the beginning, because it would lock out your brain and keep you from making mistakes, but then it would make its own mistakes and allow you to learn nothing at all! Of course, this isn't for everyone. Some people would consider it a real misfortune to have to actually think!

 

I don't think anyone gets an MP by accident. The opportunity it represents is enormous. Good luck. Good work.

 

 

hey bullis,

 

don't judge people so easily

 

yes, no one gets a MP by accident, and my MP surely wasn't one either. do you know what cameras i've had and still have until i came to my MP? no you don't do you? but that didn't stop you from making assumptions of someone you don't know.

 

i didn't ask for a commentary on how well composed these pictures are. you want to do that, then go do a search on me in the photo forum and do it there. these pictures were purely put up because of its underexposure/underdevelopment issue i was having to film i have shot with many time before and have had very good results shooting at 3200iso. but yes, i don't develop my own film and i don't know the technical aspects of developing film. does that all of a sudden make my MP a fine tablesaw?

 

shish...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[haris]

hey bullis,

 

don't judge people so easily

 

yes, no one gets a MP by accident, and my MP surely wasn't one either. do you know what cameras i've had and still have until i came to my MP? no you don't do you? but that didn't stop you from making assumptions of someone you don't know.

 

i didn't ask for a commentary on how well composed these pictures are. you want to do that, then go do a search on me in the photo forum and do it there. these pictures were purely put up because of its underexposure/underdevelopment issue i was having to film i have shot with many time before and have had very good results shooting at 3200iso. but yes, i don't develop my own film and i don't know the technical aspects of developing film. does that all of a sudden make my MP a fine tablesaw?

 

shish...

 

It is simply assumption that if one buys one of most expencive cameras in world, one knows what (s)he is doing, that is one knows why (s)he spent that money on that camera and not something else.

 

It is great to learn on MP camera, but it is unusuall to see someone who doesn't have wide knowledge and experience not only in aesthetical, but also in technical and theoretical aspect of photography to spent such money on camera. Not that it is wrong, of course it is not wrong, only it is unusuall.

 

Relax and enjoy...