Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-23-2014, 11:37 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,303
The photos look under exposed to me. Are the negatives very dark ("thin")? Try shooting some outdoor shots on a sunny day in manual mode using the sunny 16 rule as previously suggested. You can just set the aperture to f16 and see if the metered shutter speed is close to the reciprocal of the set ISO.

Is the exposure compensation set to zero?


Last edited by Not a Number; 01-23-2014 at 02:39 PM. Reason: Thin negatives (underexposed) not "thick"
01-23-2014, 11:56 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,701
QuoteOriginally posted by JuanEstrada Quote
The negatives are ok, I developed them at a shop with a machine, not manually done. I believe the problem is exposure.
If the negatives are OK, then the problem is definitely not exposure. I would suspect a problem with the machine scan and/or the proof sheet print.


Steve
01-23-2014, 11:59 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,701
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
The photos look under exposed to me. Are the negatives very dark ("thick")?
Underexposed negatives would look very thin. I agree, though, that the proof sheet appears to reflect underexposure and/or underdeveloped.


Steve
01-23-2014, 12:10 PM   #19
Forum Member
JuanEstrada's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bogotá, Colombia!
Posts: 87
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by titrisol Quote
Are you shooting in A mode?
Is your exposure compensation in 0?
Are your batteries new?

I would also think the lab is suspect
yes I am, auto mode, 0 compensation, batteries are about 6 months old

QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
Ummm... silly question...

Did you set the proper ISO on camera to match your ISO from the film?
On some cameras this does affect the light metering and I believe (if I remember correctly), this is true for the ME as well.
That will affect the final picture depending on how big the difference is between the ISO set on the camera and the actual ISO of the film.
Yes, 400 and 200 for each film

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
If the negatives are OK, then the problem is definitely not exposure. I would suspect a problem with the machine scan and/or the proof sheet print.


Steve


QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
The photos look under exposed to me. Are the negatives very dark ("thick")? Try shooting some outdoor shots on a sunny day in manual mode using the sunny 16 rule as previously suggested. You can just set the aperture to f16 and see if the metered shutter speed is close to the reciprocal of the set ISO.

Is the exposure compensation set to zero?
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Underexposed negatives would look very thin. I agree, though, that the proof sheet appears to reflect underexposure and/or underdeveloped.


Steve

I will try again with different film and shop and will show results in a few days, thank you all for the help!

01-23-2014, 12:27 PM - 1 Like   #20
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,303
Old or cold chemicals could lead to "thick" underdeveloped negatives leading to loss of contrast/highlight/shadow detail. If the lab shuts off the machines at night and you go early in the morning the systems may not be up optimal temperature. Safeties on the machines should keep them from running if the temps are out of bounds but then safeties are known to get bypassed. If you go late in the day the chemicals may be in need of replenishment (busy lab).

Take some sunny 16 shots and auto metered shots on the same rolls. If you try a new lab and they all come out then it is a film/processing error. If only the sunny 16 shots look ok then it is a camera problem

Last edited by Not a Number; 01-23-2014 at 02:54 PM.
01-23-2014, 01:21 PM   #21
Veteran Member
hks_kansei's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 795
I think the film may be ok, a lot of my film tends be be bought, shot, and then stays in the fridge for 6 months while I find the time to get to the shop to develop it.

Never had a bad one.

I even forgot one film and left it in the car over a few days of summer, it also came back fine (granted, I think that was just luck)



I very much think you need to check that the meter on the ME is working correctly.

Also, the images posted don't look that bad (but it's hard from a small pic)
it seems to be only the odd few that are white and milky, the rest look ok (bear in mind that a lot of films won't actually be as vibrant in colour as digital, unless you shoot Velvia or something)
01-23-2014, 01:35 PM - 1 Like   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,701
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
Old or cold chemicals could lead to "thick" negatives making them appear under exposed.
I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "thick" negatives. An unexposed frame is clear after development (very thin). A severely overexposed frame is opaque (very thick). Underdeveloped negatives will lack density and/or contrast depending on the film being used and exposure.

I would suggest that the OP compare the camera's meter readings against a known good camera or meter. If the meters agree, the issue is with the processing and/or the scan. It is highly unlikely that there is an issue with the electronic shutter and lenses have been ruled out since it happened with several different lenses. I am assuming that the correct ASA (ISO) film speed was set on the camera.

All that being said, I can relate my personal experience with similar results from a couple of years back. I was having my processing and scanning done with a local minilab (Costco). Everything was great until I got two rolls of film back where the scanned results looked very much like those on the OPs proof sheets. The negatives appeared to have adequate density, but the scanned images sucked. I was able to rule out the camera meter and the film (fresh Ektar 100, processed promptly) and finally came to the conclusion that the processing was primarily at fault with the problem being compounded by poor quality scans. (The minilab scanner attempted to compensate for the bad negative with really nasty results.)

It was that experience that prompted me to switch to a local pro lab exclusively for my C41 processing and to purchase a film scanner to do my own scanning. I have had no problems since. At one point I revisited the two bad rolls using my Nikon scanner and determined from the histogram that the negatives were badly underdeveloped with very poor contrast. Case closed. Regular maintenance, chemical replenishment, and rigorous quality control checks are essential for good results from an automated film processor. Apparently Costco was not adequately diligent.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-23-2014 at 01:43 PM.
01-23-2014, 02:03 PM - 1 Like   #23
Veteran Member
titrisol's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the most populated state... state of denial
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,098
Juan, since you are going to sacrifice a film on another lab try the follwing
Choose a picture (say in the park), shoot the same scene in auto mode with 0 compensation, then with +1/2, then with +1
Repeat that for the whole roll and send to develop.

Check which of the 3 comes better and then use that as you base for ISO
If 400 and +1/2 comes better, then set the film speed as 300; if +1 -> 200

ALSO if you can borrow a negative scanner, try scanning the negatives to see if you can get better results on your computer
it may just be that the lab operators are lazy and a contact sheet is done without any adjustments

01-23-2014, 02:06 PM   #24
Forum Member
JuanEstrada's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bogotá, Colombia!
Posts: 87
Original Poster
Thank you again!

I will compare it with a friends k1000 and see what happens... Also, I have narrowed the possibility down to either the camera or the lab.

If it is the lab, is there a possitilbity I can fix the negatives?
01-23-2014, 02:38 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,303
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "thick" negatives. An unexposed frame is clear after development (very thin). A severely overexposed frame is opaque (very thick). Underdeveloped negatives will lack density and/or contrast depending on the film being used and exposure.

Steve
You're right, I got it bass-ackwards - it should be thin. It's been a few years since dealing with negatives and I can't flip-flop between negative and positive exposures like I used. The proofs have the look of reciprocity and contrast failure that result from very short exposures in prints from underexposed negatives. I shall edit my posts.
01-23-2014, 04:17 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,701
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
The proofs have the look of reciprocity and contrast failure that result from very short exposures in prints from underexposed negatives.
My thoughts as well.


Steve
01-24-2014, 08:08 AM - 1 Like   #27
Veteran Member
titrisol's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the most populated state... state of denial
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,098
Once the negatives are fixed, there is not much you cna do to fix it.
As a rule, never send your film to be developed on monday

QuoteOriginally posted by JuanEstrada Quote
Thank you again!

I will compare it with a friends k1000 and see what happens... Also, I have narrowed the possibility down to either the camera or the lab.

If it is the lab, is there a possitilbity I can fix the negatives?
01-24-2014, 08:21 AM   #28
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
But, like I have said before... if you scan the images you can save most of them by doing your own post-process via software .
01-24-2014, 10:31 AM   #29
Forum Member
JuanEstrada's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bogotá, Colombia!
Posts: 87
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
But, like I have said before... if you scan the images you can save most of them by doing your own post-process via software .
Thanks, I don't have a scanner but there are labs that digitize the negatives for cheap....
01-24-2014, 11:34 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
QuoteOriginally posted by JuanEstrada Quote
Thanks, I don't have a scanner but there are labs that digitize the negatives for cheap....
Unfortunately cheap usually means full autocorrection and excessive sharpening. Hopefully this will result in good scans . . .
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax me opaque/dull, pictures
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax ist D dull and distorted color photos Budgie Visitors' Center 18 10-09-2013 01:19 PM
Misc Why It Takes Me So Long to Sort Through Pictures GeoJerry Post Your Photos! 12 10-30-2012 01:29 PM
Dull colors from Pentax K-5 tblachowicz Pentax K-5 25 01-03-2012 03:37 AM
No 'manufactured' pictures for me lesmore49 Photographic Technique 17 05-17-2009 11:20 PM
Pictures color looks dull but not in CS2...Advice? synnyster Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 06-24-2007 07:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top