Scanning Underexposed Negative

[RMD]

Any tips on scanning a b&w negative underexposed due to flash failure ?

 

[Bruce Watson]

Any tips on scanning a b&w negative underexposed due to flash failure ?

There's nothing special to do. There's no difference between scanning an underexposed negative and a properly exposed negative. Just make sure you don't clip either end of the density range and you'll get all your scanner can get.

That said, the scanner isn't going to miraculously pull data from your shadows when you didn't record any on the film. You know that, right? But it may find significant data where you can't see it on the light table. So go ahead and give it a try. What do you have to loose?

 

[RMD]

Bruce..
Thanks. I've been doing what you suggest but still can't get a 'good' scanned image - chalk this one down to experience,and fix my flash I think.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've done what Bruce suggests to rescue an unrepeatable family photo that was about two or three stops under. Not quite sure what happened on that one, but maybe I forgot to check that the shutter speed or aperture was where I meant for it to be. In any case, I was able to print out a usable neg on Pictorico using my HP B9180 from the original scanned 4x5", and it made a decent 8x10" B&W contact print on Efke Emaks G3.

I don't recall offhand, but I probably also intensified the neg in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1+3, 8 min., before scanning to push up the highlights about one zone, which is what I would normally do with a flat neg.

How much underexposure you can get away with by scanning depends on the film and the developer, but it's another tool in the bag.