Did I really mess up the shoot, or was this processed incorrectly??

[mugget]

Hey folks,

So I picked up my latest batch of processed film yesterday, started looking at the film when I got home & this entire roll of Ilford 3200 was just way washed out, basically junked. Pretty disappointed with that, but now i just want to figure out what happened so there isn't a repeat in the future!



I was shooting a flat track race, you might just be able to make out the shape of a rider heading towards right of frame.

I shot about another 5 rolls of film on the same day, some Ilford HP5 & the rest various colour films. All of the others came out fine, so I seriously doubt it was anything I did wrong? I was using a Canon T90, I always check that it detects the ISO correctly and I was shooting at dusk/early night under floodlights so there's just no way it could have been overexposed that much. I was actually leaning on the underexposed side of things.

So the next question is whether it was processed incorrectly? Is it possible to tell from looking at the negative? I haven't been shooting film that long so I'm not too sure about what a processing mistake looks like. I have used the same film in the past so I'll compare with the other negatives tonight.

Cheers for any help on this.

[ameerat42]

It's SURE AND AWAY underexposed!!!

BUT, I don't know how you could prove why - whether "your fault" or wrongly processed.

Did you say anything when you picked them up?

The ONLY way I can think of checking is what the film tongue looks like.

What process did they use for the other films, C-41 (or modern-day equivalent)?

I guess this HP5 DOES NOT take the same process and that maybe that's what they did??? - Only a wild guess, though.

Sorry I've got nothing more useful.

Am.

[fillum]

Hey mugget, either under-exposed or under-developed. I think probably more likely to be under-exposed. How were you metering? Were you shooting in manual exposure mode?

Does your lab process films in batches? The Delta 3200 might have been thrown in with some HP5 which has a shorter development time (assuming something like d-76), which could result in under-development. Does the docket from the lab give any details of processing? Might be worth having a chat with them anyway.



Cheers.

[jev]

I was using a Canon T90, I always check that it detects the ISO correctly and I was shooting at dusk/early night under floodlights so there's just no way it could have been overexposed that much. I was actually leaning on the underexposed side of things.

Underexposed for sure. In analog, that's a bad thing to do: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights!

How did you measure the light at the scene?

[mugget]

Apologies for getting back to this so late...

Ok, here's the film tongue. I just checked this against the previous roll of 3200 I had processed and it looks the same so I'm guessing that I did underexpose it...



Also the tongue is actually solid black, that's just my reflection from when I was taking the photo.

I didn't get a docket or any kind of info from the lab, it was an after hours pickup so I didn't speak to anyone, no chance for anyone to mention anything to me either.

The majority of the film would have been C-41 (just regular Kodak & Fuji colour films). But I'm starting to think processing was not the problem.

It threw me at first because I looked at the film and saw it was all washed out, I thought "oh no, it's all white! No way that could be my fault!". Not to self: that's not how negatives work, silly.

I was using manual exposure, just metering using the camera itself, based on the brighter parts of the scene. I was shooting about 1-2 stops underexposed, I've done this before and the results were what I wanted/expected (lots of dark in the frame, but the subject was still visible). Although that time I was at Willowbank shooting Top Fuel, I guess when they're shooting 6 foot flames out the exhausts it does tend to add quite a lot of light to the scene... A bit different to floodlights. Ok, starting to think that it was my fault for underexposing so much...

Actually I just read what I wrote in the paragraph above and you know what - I think I may have had a complete brainfart at the time I was shooting as well. Why would I try and underexpose if it was already at night? I would have gone 1-2 stop over while I was at the drags... but for some reason I have a distinct memory of metering and turning the dial to the left while I was using this latest roll of 3200...

Sorry for all the fuss but I think I have discovered the real problem, a technical issue with the camera operator.

[ameerat42]

Ah! The ubiquitous "user error", or ERR 101.

[jev]

I was using manual exposure, just metering using the camera itself, based on the brighter parts of the scene.

Stop right there. Expose for the shadows when using B/W film, not for the highlights! That's something you would do on a digital system, but certainly not analog negative...

Read up on the zone system for a full understanding (and than go back, read it again. And again. I took me just 5 times or so to wrap my head around that!)

Ah! The ubiquitous "user error", or ERR 101.

In the computer-world, that's an EBCAK (Error Between Chair And Keyboard). But in the camera world... EBC (Error Behind Camera) I guess

[ricktas]

In the computer-world, that's an EBCAK (Error Between Chair And Keyboard). But in the camera world... EBC (Error Behind Camera) I guess

Over here, on the underside of planet Earth, we prefer PICNIC error (Problem in Chair not in Computer)

[jev]

If a user can't get his firewire device to work properly, that's probably a PICNIC without a BBQ?