Accidentally super lowered ISO of a slide film, very sad, can it be pushed ?

Chan Tran · Aug 10, 2013

Mark Feldstein said:
And you're speaking from how much experience with professionally printing underexposed C-41 negatives and on what kind of equipment ?
M.

In fact I have run accross negative with about 3 stops underexposure but I never attempt to print them as I can't see much on the film.

Stephen Frizza · Aug 10, 2013

in case this was missed :

Has the film been processed yet? If not I'm happy to suggest something that will give you an extremely good result by modifying the E-6 process chemically, feel free to private message me.

-Steve @ The Lighthouse Lab.

Mark Feldstein · Aug 10, 2013

Chan Tran said:
In fact I have run accross negative with about 3 stops underexposure but I never attempt to print them as I can't see much on the film.

Not to be (too) argumentative, but maybe it'd be worthwhile investing in some paper, making some test strips, experimenting and seeing what you actually CAN get out of a severely underexposed (or overexposed) negative on C-41 film.
M.

sage · Aug 10, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
in case this was missed :

Has the film been processed yet? If not I'm happy to suggest something that will give you an extremely good result by modifying the E-6 process chemically, feel free to private message me.

-Steve @ The Lighthouse Lab.

So what do you change to help this out?

Stephen Frizza · Aug 12, 2013

P.M sent Sage

vpwphoto · Aug 15, 2013

What I meant by bracketing is just that. Did you calculate exposure, then make a couple exposures opened up a stop or two. I didn't have the luxury of doing that, but when I used to make art photos on E-6 sometimes a shot opened up a stop was worth the effort in my travels.

It was typical for people to make three exposures of things over under and spot on when I worked in labs, I'd see it all the time, thought you might have to, and in this case pushing the film a stop along with the "one over" exposures would have perhaps saved your lunch.

lxdude · Aug 15, 2013

The OP said it was bright, "eye-burning bright". That could mean that the underexposure could be a bit less than thought. I suggest that if possible you take exposure readings on a similar day to figure as accurately as possible how much the film is underexposed. Maybe a 2 and 1/2 stop push would be adequate. If it was bright enough, maybe even less. Every bit helps.

gone · Aug 16, 2013

I absolve you of all forgiveness. Or whatever.

If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd bet the film is toast because it is slide film. I love to shoot B&W film, especially Tri-X, because it is very forgiving (there's that word again) and can tolerate a 3 stop error if you know how to develop it. Won't be perfect, but it won't be a write off either. My experience w/ slide film has clearly not been the same. Color negative film has a wide exposure latitude too.

Hey, it just gives you a good reason to somehow go back and reshoot the images. At the least it was a hard won lesson, and those are the ones that you remember. Mistakes are part of the deal. The only way anyone gets experience is by doing what you're not supposed to do. That's what the word experience really means.

lxdude · Aug 16, 2013

jp498 said:
I'd also suggest as Wolfeye has doing it yourself. You will get color shifts by not processing it by directions at the very least, and it'll be unknown what you get for an image. I've developed plenty of E6 and it's not hard.

But people who process it professionally and are experienced, know what to do to optimize results. Some processors even push/pulled Kodachrome, something they didn't get help from Kodak on, and salvaged a lot of mis-exposed film.

lxdude · Aug 16, 2013

momus said:
I absolve you of all forgiveness. Or whatever.

If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd bet the film is toast because it is slide film.

Once at Big Sur, I underexposed most of a roll of K25 because I thought I had K64 in the camera. That's a stop and a third. Normally processed, it came out gorgeous. Deeply saturated, dark shadows, but for the subject matter, it was beautiful.
There is definitely something on the film, and push-processing should be able to salvage enough to make it worth doing, if the images are important. Reshooting would be best, if it is a viable option; if not, and the OP cares about the images enough, then it is worth doing. What Stephen Frizza has said is very interesting; he's not just some guy talking- he knows his stuff.

Stephen Frizza · Aug 17, 2013

What I find sad is standing back and reading all thee threads about trying to push it 3 stops or the notion that doing this will not yield a good result.
Hearing people think that because its a slide film its "Toast"...... I can tell you all now with the right chemistry and right processing method all these cherished images can be saved with wonderful results.

clayne · Aug 17, 2013

Yep. I think there's a huge amount of ignorance about the slide process itself and people believing there's some kind of magic going on that doesn't apply to negative films.

lxdude · Aug 17, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
What I find sad is standing back and reading all thee threads about trying to push it 3 stops or the notion that doing this will not yield a good result.
Hearing people think that because its a slide film its "Toast"...... I can tell you all now with the right chemistry and right processing method all these cherished images can be saved with wonderful results.

The slide shooter's version of "fix it in post."

MartinCrabtree · Aug 17, 2013

I'd love to know what eventually happened.

wildbill · Aug 18, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
What I find sad is standing back and reading all thee threads about trying to push it 3 stops or the notion that doing this will not yield a good result.
Hearing people think that because its a slide film its "Toast"...... I can tell you all now with the right chemistry and right processing method all these cherished images can be saved with wonderful results.

I'd like to hear more about it.

Mark Feldstein · Aug 18, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
What I find sad is standing back and reading all thee threads about trying to push it 3 stops or the notion that doing this will not yield a good result.
Hearing people think that because its a slide film its "Toast"...... I can tell you all now with the right chemistry and right processing method all these cherished images can be saved with wonderful results.

I think you're exactly right. I've been pretty much trying to convey that same thought, I think if people really understood film and the chemistry(ies), they'd get it much better, perhaps.
M.

wildbill · Aug 19, 2013

Well, some of us have seen what slide film that's been this underexposed looks like in person. Now what's this magic e6 treatment that fixes this?

MartinCrabtree · Aug 19, 2013

And some of us just listen.............

Stephen Frizza · Aug 19, 2013

wildbill said:
Well, some of us have seen what slide film that's been this underexposed looks like in person. Now what's this magic e6 treatment that fixes this?

Sent Private Message.

Abutate · Nov 18, 2016

i know this is way too old thread, what happened at the end?

pentaxuser · Nov 18, 2016

Abutate said:
i know this is way too old thread, what happened at the end?

Good question. I am curious myself. The OP took a lot of trouble to try and reply to each respondent but then seems to have disappeared

Scans of what the OP got back would be enlightening for those of us who haven't any experience of appreciable slide underexposure but I doubt this or even a response will happen as the OP hasn't been seen since Aug 2014

pentaxuser

Abutate · Nov 18, 2016

Sadly its very common here that at the end op never shows up and no one can tell what happened. i have seen many other film related threads where op are lost

Sirius Glass · Nov 18, 2016

That is a lot off for slide film. Develop one roll and tell them what happened. If the results are decent the develop the rest of them.

removed account4 · Nov 18, 2016

if it was me ...
i would have used it as black/white film.
processed it in dektol 1:7 for 4.5 mins ( adj 1 min, then 5sec/30sec)
then caffenol c with a shot of dektol for 5 mins (agitate continuously )

and then buy another roll of slide film, and make sure i sunny 11 instead of fiddling with the meter.

BetterSense · Nov 18, 2016

Underexposed slides can be rescued by copying. Possibly by scanning, but the density will be too much for most scanners. I have rescued severely underexposed slides by making internegatives. You can easily print through the density, and the interneg boosts contrast. There is a lot of detail in underexposed slides even if they are too dark to display. It's analogous to underexposed digital raw files (see what I did there?)

I would suggest the OP ask the lab for a 1 stop push, then try to rescue any good frames by copying.

Accidentally super lowered ISO of a slide film, very sad, can it be pushed ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency