Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,171   Online: 793
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by karrlander View Post
    Hi! I've read this forum for a little while and enjoyed a lot of good tips and trix. Just started to develop color negative and runned into some problem. As you can see on the pic I got some strange things going on in the left and right part of the pic. I doesn't show on all frames in the roll, at least not what I can see. This shot is taken with studio flash and a grey background so it becomes very obvious. I haven't had this problem with b/w. I develop in Digibase C41 and have tried both 38 degrees and 25 degrees.
    Is this a light leak maybe from the roll not getting rolled up tight enough or is it a dev error? I have tried to agitate both by turning my paterson tank upside down and by just turning the little stick. The negs got better when I stopped turning it every 30 sec and just twisted the stick every 1 min in 25 degrees and 13 min. The film is Kodak Portra 160 and is shot with a Mamiya 645 AFD II.
    Does anyone have a clue?

    Attachment 71547

    /robban


    This is a typical issue of underdevelopment or underexposure, whatever it is, your negatives are too 'thin', not dense enough... so when scanned or digitally photographed those weird tones appear, I can see it in the over emphasised dust on the original image, also if you bring that image to photoshop or similar and play with the curves (contrast and blackpoint) you get something very similar to your second example.... the point is: the second sample you posted will have exactly the same problems as the first, you are just hiding them with the contrast applied to the digital file..

    So the problem here is you are either underexposing pretty bad the negative (shooting 2 or 3 stops under what one can call a 'good' exposure) or your temperature or dev time is lower than what it should be..

    Try to find a properly exposed negative and compare it to yours, do you see a difference in regards of density?

    Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by cs_foto View Post
    This is a typical issue of underdevelopment or underexposure, whatever it is, your negatives are too 'thin', not dense enough... so when scanned or digitally photographed those weird tones appear, I can see it in the over emphasised dust on the original image, also if you bring that image to photoshop or similar and play with the curves (contrast and blackpoint) you get something very similar to your second example.... the point is: the second sample you posted will have exactly the same problems as the first, you are just hiding them with the contrast applied to the digital file..

    So the problem here is you are either underexposing pretty bad the negative (shooting 2 or 3 stops under what one can call a 'good' exposure) or your temperature or dev time is lower than what it should be..

    Try to find a properly exposed negative and compare it to yours, do you see a difference in regards of density?

    Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....
    Underdevelopment can surely be something. I don't think it's the camera that underexposes everything. I have checked the meter readings with a handheld and also tried another camera with the same results. The time is right as well if not my iphone got a really bad stop watch app. But my thermometer can be a bit off, it's not the most expensive proffesional one. I will have that checked against a couple of others.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by cs_foto View Post

    Google for 'thin negative' 'negatives are too thin' or something like that....
    I did and I found this site with good examples of many errors. This is photos with a microscope but the errors are the same. Thanks for the tip!

    http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/p...rocerrors.html

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Another roll and a new scanner, bought an Epson V500. Tried another thermometer witch showed a lower temperature compared to the other one so it all got a little bit hotter. Also checked that the film was just covered with fluid to leave enough air in top of the tank and went back to 1 inversion every 30 sec as said in the instruction for dev in 25 degrees celcius. The background was grey seamless and the light to softboxes. Still got the same thing going on on the sides of the pic. Scanned a raw scan with vuescan and then runned it trough the colorperfect plugin. I did shoot exactly the same shot on the roll I sent away to the lab. It will be interesting to compare when I get it back.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	scan0008.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	313.3 KB 
ID:	72060

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Today I got a roll back from a pro lab. Here is there dev and scan of a testchart. Better then what I have achieved but the gray background is still not the same all over the frame. I took a shot from the same position with the same settings with a Nikon D800 and the background was perfectly gray all over. So, is it the film or is it the camera? Strange if it is the camera because then I have the same error on to cameras. The other pics looks good to me, it's just visible on the more controlled testshots on gray seamless that I did.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	006.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	152.1 KB 
ID:	72296

  6. #46
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    What I find interesting here is that the edge blooming we're seeing is always on the rebate edge and never between frames (and this is taking into account 645). While it seems like the film is the only common element here, it would be extremely unlikely the film itself is bad or otherwise has this kind of issue. Kodak doesn't let stuff out like that.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    I know, it's strange. But I don't have a clue otherwise. I have changed everything except the film. I have ordered a pack of Fuji Pro 400, it should be interesting to see what will happend there. Anyway, most of the color pics a have planned for this years trip to Estonia will have to wait until I get this sorted out. But theres a lot of b/w to shoot there as well so I'm not to dissapointed. And what would the charm of shooting film be if everything was easy as working with a DSLR?

  8. #48
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by karrlander View Post
    I know, it's strange. But I don't have a clue otherwise. I have changed everything except the film. I have ordered a pack of Fuji Pro 400, it should be interesting to see what will happend there. Anyway, most of the color pics a have planned for this years trip to Estonia will have to wait until I get this sorted out. But theres a lot of b/w to shoot there as well so I'm not to dissapointed. And what would the charm of shooting film be if everything was easy as working with a DSLR?
    The film might have a higher range of greys available and so the digital might not have seen all the grey tone shifts?

    Was the light controlled with a strobe or from window light? Sun/clouds could be a factor.

    Same exact time? Looks like the paper is folded and not flat.

    Same exact lens? I think you need to use the same equipment, Lens contrast could be different. Do this with a Nikon film body that takes the same lens as the digital.

    Digital camera could also be taking advantage of its "vignetting correction" (peripheral illumination correction) feature and that could have an effect on the greys.

    Nikon owners I know complain that they don't produce the same tones that are present in a scene. Get a Canon haha (this is a teasing joke, lets not start a Canon-Nikon war lol).

    Hope some of those suggestions were helpful.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mariefred
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    The film might have a higher range of greys available and so the digital might not have seen all the grey tone shifts?
    Was the light controlled with a strobe or from window light? Sun/clouds could be a factor.
    Same exact time? Looks like the paper is folded and not flat.
    Same exact lens? I think you need to use the same equipment, Lens contrast could be different. Do this with a Nikon film body that takes the same lens as the digital.
    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ok, a lot more to put into the equationi. At least the light was under control, two studiostrobes and no windows. But not the same lens. Maybe there is some difference betwen my 80 and my 150mm lens but I'm not sure so it could be a factor. Will try another film and new chemistry as well. But the normal outdoor shots looked good (as far as I can say) on the lab developed roll so I'm getting closer.

  10. #50
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by karrlander View Post
    Ok, a lot more to put into the equationi. At least the light was under control, two studiostrobes and no windows. But not the same lens. Maybe there is some difference betwen my 80 and my 150mm lens but I'm not sure so it could be a factor. Will try another film and new chemistry as well. But the normal outdoor shots looked good (as far as I can say) on the lab developed roll so I'm getting closer.
    This was mentioned on another thread and I just thought of it, I don't know your camera but it was mentioned they with cameras that have leaf shutters, if you exceed the shutter speed, rather than see part of the frame completely black, you get a sort of underexposed center brighter image because the leaf shutter in the lens hasn't finished opening yet. Could this be what happened? Was the shutter speed too fast for the x-sync?

    Just another thing to consider.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin