Just processed some negs......

[Matt5791]

I shot a roll of 120 a couple of days ago. All 12 shots of an old Norman church - the weathered stone, old windows etc. The sun was low in the sky and hitting the one side of the building creating lovely light.

I am fairly new to my own darkroom and processing etc, and I find I am trying to learn how to judge negatives.

Looking at the negs I ses that half of them appear reasonably exposed - there is a good range of tones. However the other half are "weak" looking - sort of mainly light shades of grey.

I am guessing this is underexposure?

All these "thin" negatives included sky and I was using a yellow filter on these shots - I am sure I opened up a further half stop - but mabey this was not enough? The shots were all metered separately (ie I didn't just take one reading and then shoot a number of similarly lit scenes on the same reading) and they all look equally underexposed.

I thought half a stop would be adequate?

Mabey I did something else wrong?

Matt

 

[timeUnit]

Did you meter with a spot meter or incident or "average" meter? If it's an "average" meter, you might have included a little too much sky in your reading. If it's incident, did you meter in both light and shadow? What yellow filter did you use? Are you sure about the filter factor?

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I agree. An average meter could have been the problem, especially with the sun just hitting one wall. Do you have an ambient meter with invercone? I find that works well for virtually any lighting situation.
Also, I think some darker yellow filters can need more than half a stop compensation.

 

[glennfromwy]

A K-2 (no.8) yellow filter will generally require one full stop of added exposure. A yellow no.15 filter will require 1 2/3 to 2 stops. This can vary slightly with film type. It sounds like you just needed to expose a little more. As mentioned, take care to not let your meter be influenced by reading too much sky, which will fool it into reading too little exposure for the rest of the scene.

 

[gainer]

Yes, I lean toward undercompensating for the filter. I don't remember seeing a yellow filter that didn't require at least a stop extra.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you're using an averaging meter, pointing it towards the scene, which would be mostly sky, would give this type of underexposure. It considers everything you point it at 18% gray, same as a gray card. If the real scene is brighter than that, then voila, underexposure. Use either a gray card, or a meter with a 'dome' on it.

I have a Gossen LunaPro, and find I don't need a spot meter using the 'dome'. At least for roll film. Sheets is a different story.

- Thom

 

[johnnywalker]

I have a Gossen LunaPro, and find I don't need a spot meter using the 'dome'. At least for roll film. Sheets is a different story.

- Thom

You've lost me here. You mean that you use the incident (dome) meter instead of a spot? Why the difference between roll and sheet film?

I bought a Lunapro F recently, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for the ideas.

Refreshed my memory with Ansel Adams The Negative book and I think that I might be needing at least a stop, mabey 1 2/3 - 1 1/5 stop.

I took reflected light readings from the shadows and highlights on the stone walls, being careful not to allow extraneous light to affect the meter.

I was placing the shadows 2 stops below the meter reading (should be zone III?)

Thanks for the help everyone.

Matt

 

[timeUnit]

In that case it must be the filter factor. Or the human factor...