I was shooting a station last night using Rollei retro 400s pushed to 1600 and I think I under exposed by a stop. I scan using a dslr and macro lens. I initially used the histogram when scanning but I read that the histogram in live view isn't a good guide, so I aim for exposure to be ±0. Is there a magic formula for getting the best out of underexposed negatives?
You can try to 'reinforce' the film by treating it in Selenium 1+3 (K.R.S.T.)
is it done with altering the bleaching or the redevelopment?
Nope, underexposed is underexposed which means the negative didn't capture all information in the scene. You scanner cannot "re-create" what isn't captured on the negative.
I now think the negatives were underdeveloped as the blacks weren't dense enough.
Sepia works particularly well for making alt. process prints as the silver selenide apparently does a very good job blocking UV. It also builds overall optical density as long as the toning is set to brown instead of yellow; there's a real difference between UV-transmission and visual spectrum here...
Perhaps, but they for sure are underexposed by a huge margin. 'Pushing' as such doesn't really work as you might expect; all it does is take the weaker image and boost it to a 'normal' contrast by increasing development, but this only affects the mid tones and highlights. Shadows that aren't recorded won't be developed, regardless if push processing is employed.
Given the examples you posted, I think the 2-stop underexposure is exacerbated by the bright light sources in the frames, which will trick most meters into underexposing even further. Hence, it's no surprise your shadows ended up empty.
Not quite. If you have a scanner that has a high DMax then some of the very faint traces of exposure will be captured but as Beemermark has said if there is nothing there, a scanner won't re-create it.
My flatbed Epson V600 has a DMax of around 3.6. A V750 and later have one of 4.1 and the last Nikon film scanners were the best of all 4.3 and could scan in RAW as well so virtually nothing is lost so long as there was a trace in the film of an image.
I suspect you meant sulfide there.
@Cerebum technically speaking, Rollei Retro 400S is much closer to ISO 100, so rating it at 1600 is already a 4 stop uprate. If you underexposed a stop on top of this...
Not quite. If you have a scanner that has a high DMax then some of the very faint traces of exposure will be captured but as Beemermark has said if there is nothing there, a scanner won't re-create it.
My flatbed Epson V600 has a DMax of around 3.6. A V750 and later have one of 4.1 and the last Nikon film scanners were the best of all 4.3 and could scan in RAW as well so virtually nothing is lost so long as there was a trace in the film of an image.
I suspect you meant sulfide there.
In a situation like this is it best to incident meter or spot meter on an area that is as mid tone as i can get?
Yes, you're right!
For instance. Or meter a deep shadow area where you want detail and then underexpose that by, say, 1 or 2 stops or so. It all depends on what you want to achieve. There is no single best way to meter a scene.
A scanner with high DMax will not help at capturing shadow details on a negative.
A scanner with low inherent noise and high bit range will help in those cases, but realistically it will make very little difference.
I will have to disagree.
I was looking for a look similar to what I got
I have a bulk roll and experimentation is fun. I hadn't thought of shooting it at 100. I will try that
I had pushed the film two stops when I shot it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?