C41 Negative

Abutate · Aug 15, 2016

Hi everyone!

Can you folks have a look at this negative and tell me if you see anything wrong with it?

Regards

t

BMbikerider · Aug 15, 2016

Without seeing it in front of us, to me the rebate seems a bit dense, possibly insufficient bleach/fix. In fact after taking a 2nd look before updating this seems to more than likely. If it has been done for the required time (usually 6 minutes @ 38C ) the other likely cause is possibly stale or exhausted bleack/fix

Abutate · Aug 15, 2016

10 mins each in bleach and fix on motor drive! its fresh bleach n fix!

pentaxuser · Aug 15, 2016

I'd need a bigger neg scan to hazard a guess and even then it would depend on your scan being an exact replica of the neg but sticking my neck out, I cannot see anything wrong with it.

You will only know when you try to produce a print from it. That is the real test

pentaxuser

Abutate · Aug 15, 2016

Cheers!
Whats the best way to present (scan negative) for sharing purposes with out being converting it to positive

Photo Engineer · Aug 15, 2016

It appears dense and with the background being so noisy, it is hard to evaluate.

Scanning with a scanner would help.

PE

markbarendt · Aug 16, 2016

Abutate said:
Hi everyone!

Can you folks have a look at this negative and tell me if you see anything wrong with it?

Regards

t

No

You could simply try to print it and see.

David Lyga · Aug 16, 2016

1) Perhaps film slightly age-fogged, hence base fog competes with emerging shadow detail.
2) Perhaps insufficient fix or bleach (despite what you said).
3) Seems to be considerable underexposure (color neg film is unforgiving in this regard). As a rule, rate C41 at half box speed.
4) Perhaps insufficient development (developer too cold, too short dev time, too diluted developer, too little agitation).

I 'see' both insufficient bleach fix AND insufficient development in this. But, of course, I could be wrong. - David Lyga

Abutate · Aug 16, 2016

David Lyga said:
1) Perhaps film slightly age-fogged, hence base fog competes with emerging shadow detail.
2) Perhaps insufficient fix or bleach (despite what you said).
3) Seems to be considerable underexposure (color neg film is unforgiving in this regard). As a rule, rate C41 at half box speed.
4) Perhaps insufficient development (developer too cold, too short dev time, too diluted developer, too little agitation).

I 'see' both insufficient bleach fix AND insufficient development in this. But, of course, I could be wrong. - David Lyga

Thank all, especially david with such a detailed write up!

I believe this seem to be my expired Film, Superia 800, Shot at 600! I had confused it with other film.

David Lyga · Aug 16, 2016

For the expired film: do this:

Give two stops more exposure. Develop for at least 10% more time. - David Lyga

Abutate · Aug 16, 2016

David Lyga said:
For the expired film: do this:

Give two stops more exposure. Develop for at least 10% more time. - David Lyga

Many thanks,

So you recommend me using 800ISO at 200ISO and push 10% in developing?

Photo Engineer · Aug 16, 2016

The negatives already look dark. If the film is old, then David's advice makes sense, otherwise I withhold judgment until we see a better scan.

The edges do look dark though.

PE

David Lyga · Aug 17, 2016

Yes, I do think that the film is old because of the dark unexposed edges; hence, in need of more exposure in order to counter the fog. The bit of extra development I think will help as well, in order to increase contrast. Even 20% more would not be obscene.

You have to understand that when dealing with age-fogged film, you get to play with only part of the characteristic curve. The bottom part is absorbed by the fog. Thus, emerging shadow detail must be recorded on the film about one third the way up that curve, instead of from the bottom. As a result, the highlights get compressed because they have less room to expand. This is why a bit more development becomes necessary (B&W and color) in order to regain that lost contrast. - David Lyga

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2016

David, I do not disagree, but an error in development time or temperature or even dilution could do this as well. So, I am unsure of what caused it unless the OP responds.

PE

Abutate · Aug 17, 2016

Thank you david and PE,

Roll from the same batch which was processed in a lab was also like this. its superia 800 expired in 2011. I feel its film.

Abutate · Aug 17, 2016

Can i scan the film with out running it under stablizer?

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2016

Abutate · Aug 17, 2016

Many thanks,
I am going to share more results from todays 2 films, Where Portra 400 is cyaned and superia 400 at the sam dev is excellent.

Abutate · Aug 18, 2016

PE and all experts. could someone shed some light on this. what exactly has happened here? This is direct from scanner. Fuji 400 superia

Photo Engineer · Aug 18, 2016

Severe uneven development. The arc of material on the left under the wood goes from pink to green. Above the wood, there are lines of unevenness in the background. The shift from pink to green from the center downward appears to be another instance.

That is just a guess without seeing several frames.

Of course, this could be uneven exposure to heat or humidity during keeping.

PE

Abutate · Aug 19, 2016

Abutate · Aug 19, 2016

PE,

Thanks. Here is another one!

Just to add, these has been re-bleached/fixed twice for 10 mins each.

Photo Engineer · Aug 19, 2016

The latest one could be fog along the edges.

PE

Abutate · Aug 19, 2016

Cheers,
What could be possible reason?

Regards

Photo Engineer · Aug 19, 2016

Looks like green safelight fog. But it could be a chemical fog or over development as well.

PE

C41 Negative

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency