I'm a virgin again! I need your wisdom here.

OK.....now that I got your attention.....

A while back, I bought a Pacemaker Speed Graphic camera. I bought a 135mm lens for it and a Polaroid 545i loader and proceeded to buy Type 55 film so I could have a negative. I wanted to use the Polaroid instead of film just for the heck of it. Don't get me wrong, I've bought film, but I have yet to use it.

So, today, I took a couple of "sheets" of the Type 55 with me and went to our local Walgreens, set up the camera and loaded the 545i. I took my exposure meter up to the door and took an incident reading which was 5.6 at 1/30 with the ISO set at 50.

Being new at using this camera, I got my "workflow" slightly out of order. I threw a dark towel over my head and focus the camera with the lens opened up. Once I did that, I put the 545i on the camera, pulled the envelope out and proceeded to cock the shutter and take the picture. Well, duh! I forgot to close the shutter BEFORE I pulled the envelope out. Needless to say THAT sheet was wasted. To me, this film is priceless. I dare not waste it since there is a finite supply now.

Since I'd heard that you get better negatives with the ISO set at 25, I decided to shoot the next one metered for that ISO, which was f5.6 at 1/15.

THIS time, I got my "workflow" correct and made the exposure.

I returned home excited and anxious to process it, which I did "by the book".
I had mixed up the sulfite solution earlier in the day and was all ready. I set the 545i by the book and pulled the envelope all the way out and started my stop watch and waited the 20 seconds like I was suppose to (it was 70°F in the house). What I got surprised me to say the least.

When the time came, I peel the envelope open and pulled the print off. I saw nothing; there was BARELY an image on the print. "Hmm.", I thought. When I looked at the negative it was black. I processed it in the sulfite solution anyway. I watched as the backing and developer dissolved away and continued to swish the negative. After about 5 minutes, I washed it and put some Photo Flo in the bath and swished it around, then hung it up to dry.

The negative appeared extremely dark, but I could see an image on it. Once it dried, I scanned it and THIS is what I got. The picture has NOT been retouched in anyway with the exception of adjusting the histogram, which only darkened it VERY little, in the VueScan program which I used to scan it.

To me, it looks very flat, not what I was wanting. I notice some slight unevenness in development, but that is not what I'm going for here. I'm looking for a nice printable negative. To me, it almost looks under exposed.

Suggestions?

Steve

Are you sure that the camera's shutter is accurate?

Over and under-exposed negatives are always flatter then a properly exposed negative because of where the majority of tonal values end up.

Yes, I find with T55 that if you rate the ISO below 50 one gets a richer negative, but perhaps one-stop is to great for your shutter/exposure meter set up?

Was it an overcast day? That could lend to the flatness in tonalities as well.

I used the shutter on the lens. I bought the lens from a retired camera repairman off eBay. He cleaned it, but DID say that he couldn't check the shutter speeds as he didn't have the equipment anymore. So, I guess enough said from THAT respect.

I DO have a new lens that I got from Calumet, so I'll try that one next.

The picture was taken in late afternoon. The sky was clear.

Steve

Is the film fresh or past date? This film tends to die pretty quickly.

John Koehrer said:

Is the film fresh or past date? This film tends to die pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. How old is the film?

There appears that there may be some flare in the lower right hand corner of the image. That might also cause extra overall density and lowered contrast in the neg.

Maybe some sort of light leak somewhere, maybe a pinhole in the bellows? Or the fiilm holder may not have been absolutely seated as you took the shot?

Regardless, keep at it. It takes a while to make the workflow second nature. Regular film may be a cheaper way to sort out your process.

C

Film date

Snapshot said:

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. How old is the film?

Click to expand...

It expired in Jan 2008, not that old.

I'm thinking it's probably the shutter.

I only question the return to being a VIRGIN. In my experience conversion to non-virgin status is rather permanent. =)

The image looks like there are some shadows under the cars, not hard line shadows, but they're there nonetheless. If you were shooting "sunny 16" with ISO 100 film, that would be an f8 situation with the soft, hazy shadows, so that would put you at 1/125 at f8.

Now, extrapolate your exposure of 1/15 at f5.6 (ISO 25) in terms of ISO 100, which is 2 stops faster, and you'd want to close down that # of stops to get the equivalent, so that's 1/30 at f8, therefore you were 2 stops overexposed, hence the dense negative.

I'd say check your meter first, also make sure the incident sphere is fully emerged rather than retracted.

Regarding being a virgin "again".....well I've heard stories.......but that's ANOTHER story.

Thinking about what PVia said, I went back and looked at everything again, and I believe that
you're right.

I had used my Gossen Digipro F to get a reading. So, today, I decided to take a different
picture. Today is a BEAUTIFUL, nice, cool and sunny day. So, I took out my Digipro F, set the
ISO to 25 and took an incident reading. f/11 at 1/500. Hmmm. Didn't sound right. So, I got
my trusty Gossen Luna-Pro and took an incident reading. f/5.6 at 1/30. I took the Digipro BACK
outside and did another reading, f/5.6 at 1/125. What the heck?! ALL the readings were in
incident mode with the Gossens, BTW.

Ok....still questioning everything, I got my Pentax Spotmeter out and metered the cheek of
the figurine. f5/6 at 1/125. I set my camera to THAT setting and took the picture. (I'll post it as
soon as it drys and I can scan it.)

The negative is VERY impressive, even the picture came out pretty decent. Finally......

So, NOW I wonder what is up with my Gossen meters. The Digipro is relatively new and the Luna-Pro
I've had for about 20 years; it has never failed me. The batteries are new, I know that for sure.
I'm surprised at the Digipro. I've used it to set up studio lights for some wedding portraits that came
out very well. Maybe I just wasn't holding my mouth right. I don't know.

Look for the picture shortly..........I'm impressed.

Steve

The figurine picture

Ok, here's the figurine picture that I talked about in the previous post.
I'm talking about the boy and the book figurine.

It turned out MUCH better.

Steve