Dodgy camera or bad processing (or bad exposure)?

[tnewell]

hey everyone - wondering if i can have a little help/feedback. I have a mamiya rz67 pro 2 camera , and have been testing it out. At first the battery was dead so i used it on the 400th shutter speed option for a roll or two until a new battery came. These films came out fine. When the battery came i tried using it for a shoot on the regular settings and used a few shutter speeds - the location was a climbing gym and there was lotttts of light- and i also had a strobe ...so if anything i was expecting maybe some frames to be overexposed. I got my film back and nothing is of use...all completely seeimingly underexposed. I have attached some pics for reference because i'm hoping for some feedback as to what has gone wrong? You can also see in the images the shadow from the flash....yet still extrememly dark. Is this a camera issue? if so what could it be? or is it underdeveloped film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

That looks like the flash either didn't fire at all, or your sync was set to M instead of X. In the latter case, the flash would fire and be over with before the shutter opens. Either way, the aperture selected to correctly expose with the flash was a gross underexposure with (effectively) no flash.

 

[tnewell]

the flash was firing , as you can see in the shadow behind the guy kinda - the whole 3 rolls look like this The lighting in the room was tonnes of overhead light too...techincally didnt even need a strobe at all but i like the effect of some added. so even if it didnt go off it should have still been fine. I was using the hot shoe sync , not the lens...is this why?

 

[Donald Qualls]

If those shadows are from the flash, it must have been on a stand, i.e. well and truly off camera. And if that's the case, it implies a more professional lighting setup than an ordinary on-camera flash. You may have had the aperture set for full power but the flash on auto exposure or reduced power. If it's an auto flash, you might also have had a disagreement between actual film speed and the ISO setting on the flash. This looks like (by eyeball) about two stops under.

The hot shoe on the body and PC connector on the lens should go to the same contacts, that is to say if you had flashes on both, they'd fire together.

 

[koraks]

This looks like (by eyeball) about two stops under.

At least.

@tnewell I'm sorry your shots came out underexposed. The most likely cause IMO is a major error in determining exposure / metering.
Can you tell us how you determined the determined flash level and lens aperture? Plus I assume you're using some kind of flash exposure meter? I wouldn't want to try this without one - or at least have a digital camera act as an impromptu 'meter', which usually works reasonably well (depending on a couple of factors).

Also, a hall may look extremely brightly lit to your eyes, but the human eye adapts very readily to low light levels. What feels very bright to you may in reality be many stops below daylight - and probably is, in the case of an indoor space.

 

[tnewell]

If those shadows are from the flash, it must have been on a stand, i.e. well and truly off camera. And if that's the case, it implies a more professional lighting setup than an ordinary on-camera flash. You may have had the aperture set for full power but the flash on auto exposure or reduced power. If it's an auto flash, you might also have had a disagreement between actual film speed and the ISO setting on the flash. This looks like (by eyeball) about two stops under.

The hot shoe on the body and PC connector on the lens should go to the same contacts, that is to say if you had flashes on both, they'd fire together.

yeh the strobe was on a stand, synced to 1/32 on the lowest setting because i didnt want too much considering there was already a lot of light in the room. But even if say , it didnt go off...wouldnt there still be something to go off on the negatives?? this is what i don't understand. I had open aperature and 1/125th and even 1/60th ...i just don't understand the tone and darkness of the frames at all...which is why i'm wondering if it's a camera fault or processing

 

[tnewell]

At least.

@tnewell I'm sorry your shots came out underexposed. The most likely cause IMO is a major error in determining exposure / metering.
Can you tell us how you determined the determined flash level and lens aperture? Plus I assume you're using some kind of flash exposure meter? I wouldn't want to try this without one - or at least have a digital camera act as an impromptu 'meter', which usually works reasonably well (depending on a couple of factors).

Also, a hall may look extremely brightly lit to your eyes, but the human eye adapts very readily to low light levels. What feels very bright to you may in reality be many stops below daylight - and probably is, in the case of an indoor space.

haha thanks for understanding the pain! film was iso 400 - my aperature was 5.6 and my flash sync was 1/32 and was shooting between 1/60th and 1/125th shutter speed on the camera - this has sort of been my go to in the past ...but not indoor usually studio so i figured it would be ok? i had my digital to test the light but of course due to this day being cursed it died off the bat due to packing the wrong battery pack....so i had to sort of wing it. Having said that...even if the flash etc was all off does it still explain how SO dark the pictures are? 1/60th with 5.6 has gotten me through some wayyyy darker lighting conditions!

 

[Sirius Glass]

That looks like the flash either didn't fire at all, or your sync was set to M instead of X. In the latter case, the flash would fire and be over with before the shutter opens. Either way, the aperture selected to correctly expose with the flash was a gross underexposure with (effectively) no flash.

The lighting and shadows do not show that the flash was synched with the camera. Start out taking a roll outside with a light meter and Sunny 16 and then we can evaluate those and go from there.

 

[koraks]

film was iso 400 - my aperature was 5.6 and my flash sync was 1/32 and was shooting between 1/60th and 1/125th shutter speed on the camera

Shutter speed should be fairly irrelevant as long as it synced. Given that you can see the shadow, it did. The shadow does suggest the flash was positioned fairly far from the camera, so 1/32 might not have been enough for 400 speed film. I'd suggest using a flash meter to verify proper exposure, or lacking one, using a digital camera to make a test exposure with the lighting setup and then shoot the final work on film. I sometimes do this as well when I can't afford to mess up and a quicker way is not feasible.

 

[Donald Qualls]

With ISO 400 film indoors (even a very well lit area) you're looking at 1/30 at f/2.8 or f/2 (I shoot this lighting with available light regularly). If the flash failed, your f/4(ish) and 1/125 would be four stops under; f/5.6 at that speed would be five stops. And 1/32 flash is probably not enough even if it worked perfectly, depending on the distance from flash to subject and whatever light modifiers you might have used.

I don't have much experience with stand lights, but an on-camera flash would need a Guide Number around 35 if you were even six feet from the subject -- for a compact flash, that's often full power. Your stand lights were probably twice that distance, so you'd need GN 70 or so. I just don't know how Guide Number translates to Watt-Seconds.

 

[cramej]

Dodgy camera or bad processing? Neither

With the information presented, it's poor exposure. If my calculations are correct with a SB-800 for example, you would have correct exposure for ISO 400 and 1/32 power at just under 1.5ft from the subject (somehow that doesn't sound right, but could be). You really need to be metering your exposure instead of guessing in this situation.

 

[albada]

In both pictures, the shadow of the man's head is below his head, indicating that the light was above him.
Also, the shadows are fuzzy, indicating diffused light.
Is your flash-stand taller than the man? And do you have a large diffuser (such as a soft box) in front of the flash? If you answer 'no' to either question, then the shadows are from the room's light, which would indicate a sync problem with the flash.

 

[MattKing]

How far was the flash from the subject? Are you using straight flash, bounced flash or flash modified in any way?
It is the light output of the flash, the effect of any light modifier and the distance between the flash and the subject that determines the exposure setting on the camera.
Donald Qualls' post above illustrates the approach.

 

[tnewell]

In both pictures, the shadow of the man's head is below his head, indicating that the light was above him.
Also, the shadows are fuzzy, indicating diffused light.
Is your flash-stand taller than the man? And do you have a large diffuser (such as a soft box) in front of the flash? If you answer 'no' to either question, then the shadows are from the room's light, which would indicate a sync problem with the flash.

i used a softlighter umbrella -5ft wide , with diffuser...and it was around 5ft away from the model , i sometimes moved it a bit closer or further away though. The flash was going off with the shutter so i assumed it was all synced which is why i'm a bit confused

 

[tnewell]

How far was the flash from the subject? Are you using straight flash, bounced flash or flash modified in any way?
It is the light output of the flash, the effect of any light modifier and the distance between the flash and the subject that determines the exposure setting on the camera.
Donald Qualls' post above illustrates the approach.

around5 ft away, sometimes less but not much further away then that. If its incorrectly exposed like others are saying , would this not provide at least some light? these photos are the brightest...some are nearly completely black

 

[foc]

i used a softlighter umbrella -5ft wide , with diffuser..

Hi, sorry to hear about your problem. Did you point the flash head through a diffuser into the umbrella and the light was reflected onto the subject?
Do you use a flash meter?

Maybe you could supply a photo of your flash setup. (showing the flash head, umbrella, diffusers, etc)
And while you are at it, a photo of your negative, showing edge markings, please.
(something like this)

 

[MattKing]

i used a softlighter umbrella -5ft wide , with diffuser...and it was around 5ft away from the model

I'm confident in my guess that you need a lot more light from that flash, in that setup.
You lost 5 stops of light due to the 1/32 setting.
You lost at least another stop - probably 2 - 3 stops - due to the umbrella setup. So as much as 8 stops less light reached the subject.
If your flash guide number was a very hefty 225 (feet) a straight flash exposure would have needed an aperture of f/45. (225/5 feet). If the flash setup reduced the light by eight stops, you would have needed a lens aperture eight stops larger - f/2.8 - to properly expose your subject.
An additional complicating factor is that your model appears to have very dark skin. That exacerbates any problems with under-exposure.
All of these numbers are of course based on a guess about the power of your flash, as well as the light consuming properties of your umbrella setup. When I used to do a lot of this sort of work, I experimented ahead of time to learn about those sort of numbers from my light sources. That included using a flash meter, as well as using flashes (e.g. Metz CT-60 series) with built in exposure automation.
.

 

[GarageBoy]

Are you guessing your flash exposure? You're talking about using 1/32 power, so I'm assuming you're using full manual, not auto flash, or ttl. If you are not using a flash meter, or doing guide number calculations, you're just shooting in the dark

 

[koraks]

you're just shooting in the dark

I couldn't resist but chuckle at that one
You're right though!

 

[tnewell]

thanks for all the replies...i think i should also note the reason why i was concerned with it being the camera is that my first frame i tested when i got the new battery was also super underexposed. This was the first quick tester shot of some text on a mirror to test the shutter -it was taken on the same roll as the others above...but it was pretty much full diffused daylight inside with lots of windows, on 1/125 of at 5.6 on 400iso. Using this camera a lot in natural light it seems weird to me this would be this underexposed...
and i appreciate the feedback , i just still trying to wrap my head around how the others were so dark when the gym has flooding fluorescent light already there , and the flash went off ...like i said i usually meter and stuff with my digital but it wasn't available at the time. i'm more so just very underconfident now when i sort of thought i knew what rough results this camera gives me usuallly. I think i'll test it outdoors in natural light and see what happens too.

 

[tnewell]

i'll be picking up my negatives in a day or so! and yes flash was mounted with an umbrella facing towards the subject, with a white diffuser - one of those inbuilt ones - a softlighter. Like everyone is saying, maybe it's just not powerful enough on the setting i had.

Hi, sorry to hear about your problem. Did you point the flash head through a diffuser into the umbrella and the light was reflected onto the subject?
Do you use a flash meter?

Maybe you could supply a photo of your flash setup. (showing the flash head, umbrella, diffusers, etc)
And while you are at it, a photo of your negative, showing edge markings, please.
(something like this)

View attachment 320143

'll be

 

[koraks]

I think i'll test it outdoors in natural light and see what happens too.

That's a good idea. Make sure to spend lots of attention on metering. Perhaps carry a digital along to verify what you're doing so you can compare the digital exposures to film; within a certain bandwidth they should come out comparably if the digital is set to the same ISO as the film.

One more thing you might check is if the aperture functions correctly. It's the one equipment failure I could imagine playing a role, although I still think a lack of exposure control/metering is the actual cause of your problem.

i'm more so just very underconfident now when i sort of thought i knew what rough results this camera gives me usuallly.

You'll get there But keep in mind that very few of us can reliably nail an exposure, let alone using flash on location, without metering.

 

[Donald Qualls]

very few of us can reliably nail an exposure, let alone using flash on location, without metering.

It takes lots of experience to get good exposure in other than outdoor daylight conditions without a meter. Then again, for available light, a given set of conditions will be very consistent -- where I work, I can shoot any time at ISO 400, f/2, 1/30. As long as all the equipment works right, of course...

 

[MattKing]

But keep in mind that very few of us can reliably nail an exposure, let alone using flash on location, without metering.

Or having successfully used the equipment involved a whole bunch of times previously!
I'm out of practice - haven't been doing much flash photography recently - so I would definitely be employing the flash meter(s) today.
There are some things I can evaluate by eye, but flash intensity isn't one of them. But familiarity with equipment and setup does lead to being able to get things "into the ballpark".

 

[MattKing]

And by the way, I'm updating your thread title slightly