shooting failure

[dwainthomas]

I've run into some issues while shooting last week.

Here's what I used:
Canon EOS Rebel SII
Fuji 160 NPS (expired in '02)
WL 10k
80" jumbrella (white)
Minolta Flash MeterIV (gives accurate reading)
background: Black seamless paper
Processed @ Cord Camera

Unfortunatley I don't have examples (they're at home), hopefully this would give you a general idea.

Issue 1.

I was shooting normally and had my camera set to the ISO 160, approx F/11 shutter @ 1/60 and all my images that was shot on black background was extremely grainy & dark. Totally not useable even if i tried to correct the grain in PS.

Issue 2:

there is a small strip of black on the image. It almost looks as if I sync'd too fast but, again, I shot at 1/60 on this roll. possibly at 1/125 but no faster. and it's about 1/4 wide. just annoyingly big enough.


What gives??

 

[domaz]

Expired in 02? That's your first problem. 6 years expired???

 

[PhotoJim]

Without seeing the negatives it's hard to know for sure.

If the film was poorly stored, it will tend to have lost speed and be grainy.

If you underexposed it, it will tend to be grainy.

The strips you had in Issue 2 sound to me like a synchronization problem. Either you did not have the shutter speed set to the X-sync speed or slower, or your shutter is not working correctly, or there is some sort of issue with your flash trigger timing.

 

[garysamson]

1. Are you absolutely sure the flash went off?
2. For optimum quality I would rate the Fuji 160 NPS at 100-125
3. Are you sure the light meter ISO was set correctly and that you set your camera, which should be on manual, to the reading indicated by the meter.
4. You made the reading in incident mode at the subject plane.

 

[nickandre]

black band=no exposure. The expired film wouldn't cause that. You bounced the flash...are you sure you exposed correctly with that in mind? My friend had a canon with a failed shutter which produced images only in the middle.

Take a fresh roll of supermarket film, make sure you have the ASA set correctly, and shoot the entire roll in idiot mode outside on a sunny day. Again, check the flash exposure. The film was underexposed.

 

[dwainthomas]

The camera store I bought the film from stored it in their basement which is pretty cool (I can vouch for that) but I have the darndest time trying to figure out why the images are dark and grainy when I set my camera to my meter reading. I heard that I'm supposed to overexpose when shooting old film or film period.

 

[dwainthomas]

black band=no exposure. The expired film wouldn't cause that. You bounced the flash...are you sure you exposed correctly with that in mind? My friend had a canon with a failed shutter which produced images only in the middle.

Take a fresh roll of supermarket film, make sure you have the ASA set correctly, and shoot the entire roll in idiot mode outside on a sunny day. Again, check the flash exposure. The film was underexposed.

it's just a strip of black. I'm using studio strobes.

 

[wogster]

The camera store I bought the film from stored it in their basement which is pretty cool (I can vouch for that) but I have the darndest time trying to figure out why the images are dark and grainy when I set my camera to my meter reading. I heard that I'm supposed to overexpose when shooting old film or film period.

Film storage is a big thing, there are 2 kinds of film, and the rules are different:

Consumer films, that are intended for room temperature storage:
If the film has been stored at room temperature, it should be used on or before the expiry date. Films that have been kept refrigerated from new can extend that by a year or so. Stored frozen can extend that, quite a bit for slow speed B&W films, for high speed colour films much less so. I would test shoot any film stored more then 3 years frozen, before using it for something important. Lots of basements feel a lot cooler then they are. A refrigerator for commercial food handling use must be between 0℃ and 4℃, so a refrigerator for film storage should be the same.

Professional films that are intended for refrigerated storage:
If the film has been stored at room temperature, for more then a couple of days, should be tossed, it can go "bad" very quickly. Stored in the refrigerator it should be used on or before the expiry date. Stored frozen, can extend that, longer for slow B&W films, less for high speed colour films. Again shoot and process a test roll before using it for anything important.

The dark, grainy images sound like a film used past it's prime.

The dark band sounds like a synchronization problem, what is supposed to happen is shutter opens curtain one fully, flash goes off, shutter closes curtain two. It sounds like the flash went off early, before curtain one was fully open, or late after curtain two started to close. I would suggest you buy a fresh roll of film, doesn't have to be high end stuff, but should be the same type (i.e. negative or reversal). Take the camera and do an exposure at 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250. Then using a camera mounted flash, do some more exposures at the flash sync speed, some cameras are as slow as 1/30 some go as high as 1/125, many use a special speed like 1/90 or 1/100, this is something where you need to read the fine manual. The sync speed should be marked on the shutter speed dial. Do another set with the same lighting setup, it could be, if your using a slave unit, that it's running slow. If the camera is the issue, then it needs to be checked out by a repair technician. Same goes for a slave unit.

As for the film, I only buy fresh film, right now that would be film that expires in 2010, it gets labelled with the current date, and tossed into the freezer. I use it within 3 years past the date frozen, and that works well, because I know it's been stored frozen, and there is room on the expiry date.

On over exposing old film, if your not sure of the film, then shoot a test roll, bracketing by at least 2 full stops, over and under, so for ISO 160 film, you would start at EI 40 and go up by ½ stops, so 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 240, 320, 480, 640, use a dry erase board or a chalk board, mark the EI on it, and put it in the corner of the frame.

Tell the lab NOT to correct the exposure when printing, if the film turns out okay, use the best exposure, of the set, for subsequent rolls, ignore the speed on the box, because it may be wrong.

Some people will do this with any new film, others are even more pedantic, they will buy a few bricks, making sure the emulsion numbers are the same, do a test roll, then they know the proper exposure for that batch of films. They retest when they buy that film again.

 

[dwainthomas]

Film storage is a big thing, there are 2 kinds of film, and the rules are different:

Consumer films, that are intended for room temperature storage:
If the film has been stored at room temperature, it should be used on or before the expiry date. Films that have been kept refrigerated from new can extend that by a year or so. Stored frozen can extend that, quite a bit for slow speed B&W films, for high speed colour films much less so. I would test shoot any film stored more then 3 years frozen, before using it for something important. Lots of basements feel a lot cooler then they are. A refrigerator for commercial food handling use must be between 0℃ and 4℃, so a refrigerator for film storage should be the same.

Professional films that are intended for refrigerated storage:
If the film has been stored at room temperature, for more then a couple of days, should be tossed, it can go "bad" very quickly. Stored in the refrigerator it should be used on or before the expiry date. Stored frozen, can extend that, longer for slow B&W films, less for high speed colour films. Again shoot and process a test roll before using it for anything important.

The dark, grainy images sound like a film used past it's prime.

The dark band sounds like a synchronization problem, what is supposed to happen is shutter opens curtain one fully, flash goes off, shutter closes curtain two. It sounds like the flash went off early, before curtain one was fully open, or late after curtain two started to close. I would suggest you buy a fresh roll of film, doesn't have to be high end stuff, but should be the same type (i.e. negative or reversal). Take the camera and do an exposure at 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250. Then using a camera mounted flash, do some more exposures at the flash sync speed, some cameras are as slow as 1/30 some go as high as 1/125, many use a special speed like 1/90 or 1/100, this is something where you need to read the fine manual. The sync speed should be marked on the shutter speed dial. Do another set with the same lighting setup, it could be, if your using a slave unit, that it's running slow. If the camera is the issue, then it needs to be checked out by a repair technician. Same goes for a slave unit.

As for the film, I only buy fresh film, right now that would be film that expires in 2010, it gets labelled with the current date, and tossed into the freezer. I use it within 3 years past the date frozen, and that works well, because I know it's been stored frozen, and there is room on the expiry date.

On over exposing old film, if your not sure of the film, then shoot a test roll, bracketing by at least 2 full stops, over and under, so for ISO 160 film, you would start at EI 40 and go up by ½ stops, so 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 240, 320, 480, 640, use a dry erase board or a chalk board, mark the EI on it, and put it in the corner of the frame.

Tell the lab NOT to correct the exposure when printing, if the film turns out okay, use the best exposure, of the set, for subsequent rolls, ignore the speed on the box, because it may be wrong.

Some people will do this with any new film, others are even more pedantic, they will buy a few bricks, making sure the emulsion numbers are the same, do a test roll, then they know the proper exposure for that batch of films. They retest when they buy that film again.

great info...thanks!

 

[PhotoJim]

Good post, but pro film can handle a lot more than a couple of days without refrigeration. If it couldn't, it would be impractical to purchase it by mail. Further, I doubt most film shipments are done in refrigerated trucks.

Certainly you should keep the film cool, but several days are not a big problem. A couple of weeks are not a problem. Six months will result in some colour shifts, I'd guess (I've not experimented) but no one should need to keep the film unrefrigerated for that long.

 

[wogster]

Good post, but pro film can handle a lot more than a couple of days without refrigeration. If it couldn't, it would be impractical to purchase it by mail. Further, I doubt most film shipments are done in refrigerated trucks.

Certainly you should keep the film cool, but several days are not a big problem. A couple of weeks are not a problem. Six months will result in some colour shifts, I'd guess (I've not experimented) but no one should need to keep the film unrefrigerated for that long.

Well, I work for a delivery company, and we get stuff all the time, that is temperature regulated, comes in a styrofoam or foam lined box, with ice or sometimes even dry ice, so it's possible to ship a refrigerated item, for cooler conditions, even without a refrigerated truck, as long as the transit time is short, Your probably right though, a few days would be okay, although if it's sitting somewhere like on top of a radiator, for a week or more, it could still be ruined at that point. I do see shipments from one of the film companies labelled refrigerate immediately upon receipt, so I assume that's the refrigeration required pro stuff.

 

[dwainthomas]

here's a sample

 

[mabman]

Looks underexposed or underdeveloped to me. I would shoot a roll of known fresh film under similar conditions with the same equipment and see if this was a film-related fluke or you have some other equipment issues.

The other possibility is the store mucked up your development - either underdeveloped it or their chems are shot. Might want to try another store to test as well.

 

[dwainthomas]

fortunatley i only got a cd, I'm going to take it back to the lab and have them reprocess it again.

 

[winger]

fortunatley i only got a cd, I'm going to take it back to the lab and have them reprocess it again.

Are you judging the result based solely on a scan on a CD? With a black background, they could easily have made the same mistake most mini-labs do of making it too light to compensate for what the machine saw as "too dark." This doesn't mean the film is bad, but was scanned and/or printed badly.

 

[dwainthomas]

Are you judging the result based solely on a scan on a CD? With a black background, they could easily have made the same mistake most mini-labs do of making it too light to compensate for what the machine saw as "too dark." This doesn't mean the film is bad, but was scanned and/or printed badly.

No i'm saying, I'm glad I didnt' spend the extra money to get prints.

 

[winger]

No i'm saying, I'm glad I didnt' spend the extra money to get prints.

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

 

[wogster]

No i'm saying, I'm glad I didnt' spend the extra money to get prints.

You evaluated from a scan? (sound of needle scraping across record).

Lots of labs have a relatively low end scanner that scans at a fairly low resolution, typically 1200DPI, computer software then massages that scan so that the laser printer can print it on 6" wide paper continuous paper, 4" along per image. The scan is intended to look reasonable in that form factor. In order to get the most capacity out of the CD they will use a fairly high JPEG compression factor. This means that such images are low quality and loaded with compression artifacts.

This makes it impossible to evaluate the film, because so many of the problems are caused by the scanning and post processing. To really be able to tell the quality of the negative, you need to use one and only one method:

A good hand made 8x10 print, made by putting the negative in an enlarger, and exposing silver based photographic paper and then processing. For film evaluation it should be processed and printed, using decent equipment and done by an experienced darkroom operator, using fresh chemistries.

Even an inexperienced darkroom operator using a cheap enlarger with a cheap lens, will turn out a better print, then you can get out of even the best scanners. These days, you can buy very good enlargers with very good lenses on the used market, for very little money. If you want to work with film, it's a good time to buy this stuff, it's dirt cheap right now. Was at a used camera shop the other day, and they had some nice, slightly used enlargers for $50 each. I have an enlarger, would like a better lens for it though, and space to set it up.

 

[kevs]

You evaluated from a scan? (sound of needle scraping across record).

*snip*

Even an inexperienced darkroom operator using a cheap enlarger with a cheap lens, will turn out a better print, then you can get out of even the best scanners.

*snip*

Really, Paul?

Where did you learn this snippet of information? Please post it here, so we can all have a good laugh.

 

[wogster]

Really, Paul?

Where did you learn this snippet of information? Please post it here, so we can all have a good laugh.

Well lets see, I've seen a lot of scans, some good, some not so good, seen a lot of silver prints, some good, some not so good, have yet to see a scan that could match a good print, even one made from a less then stellar enlarger.

 

[garysamson]

Paul,
I have to respectfully disagree with you. A marginal negative or transparency scanned by a skilled operator and printed on a high quality photographic printer will surpass what is possible with conventional light sensitive materials in the darkroom. Digitallure's underexposed negative actually has the potential to be enhanced with a good scan and proper printing. If he had an optimum negative then certainly a beautiful print could be made in the darkroom, but that is not the case here.

 

[Michael W]

I don't think the problem is with the film or your exposure. My guess it's in how the lab has scanned your negs. As others have stated, scenes that are particularly bright or dark have always been problematic for mini labs to handle. When they are making prints they often print for an average midtone which means that areas that were meant to be black come out a murky grey. When they do this you will also see a lot of grain & it looks really ugly. Here you have the scanning equivalent of that. They might just bang the scans through on an auto averaging setting.
I made a slight curves adjustment to your upload to bring it a bit closer to what it seems you were exposing for. You will see that when the black is set to black all that weird grain look goes away. I think you need to work with a more professional lab or else talk to the current lab & train them to do things your way. eg when you do a shoot like this, tell them when you drop the film off that there is a black backdrop & you want it to be black not grey. Or buy yourself a decent scanner, info about which you can find at the hybrid forum.

 

[wogster]

Paul,
I have to respectfully disagree with you. A marginal negative or transparency scanned by a skilled operator and printed on a high quality photographic printer will surpass what is possible with conventional light sensitive materials in the darkroom. Digitallure's underexposed negative actually has the potential to be enhanced with a good scan and proper printing. If he had an optimum negative then certainly a beautiful print could be made in the darkroom, but that is not the case here.

How do you know? All that we have here is a crappy scan out of a 1 hour mini-lab machine, it's possible that most of the problems are with the scan. The image in question has the age old problem, that the subject isn't an average tone on a background with an average tone, and that plays heck with the automated software that 1 hour machines use.

Having done a fair amount of scanning myself, and some wet printing, I know one thing, and that is that an image that prints well also scans well, and if it's hard to get a good print, then getting a good scan is going to be difficult as well. If your really at the margin, it's a crap shoot whether the guy with the enlarger or the guy with the scanner is going to get a better print. One thing I am sure of, the equipment needed to get a good scan is going to cost a heck of a lot more. The light colour dress on the dark background makes for a histogram that looks like an M hard for the software in the one hour machine to evaluate easily.

We are evaluating a negative here, and negatives are designed to be printed in the darkroom, so a darkroom print is going to give a better evaluation of the negative, and if it can't be printed in the darkroom, and needs all kinds of computer processing to make an acceptable print, then that fact in itself evaluates the negative.

 

[garysamson]

Paul,
To answer your question, my opinion is based on thirty-eight years of experience as a professional photographer and educator working with every film format from 35mm through 12x20 inch view cameras as well as digital SLR's. I am definitely a film devotee (you might want to check out my photographs in the Gallery) but there are instances where digital technology can enhance or surpass conventional film processes and technology. In the last few years both Kodak and Fuji have engineered their films to make them more scanner friendly without compromise to the printing characteristics required to make an excellent print in the darkroom. I have printed thousands of color negatives in the darkroom as well as scanned color negatives for output to photographic quality inkjet printers and both methods can produce exceptional results.

 

[wogster]

Paul,
To answer your question, my opinion is based on thirty-eight years of experience as a professional photographer and educator working with every film format from 35mm through 12x20 inch view cameras as well as digital SLR's. I am definitely a film devotee (you might want to check out my photographs in the Gallery) but there are instances where digital technology can enhance or surpass conventional film processes and technology. In the last few years both Kodak and Fuji have engineered their films to make them more scanner friendly without compromise to the printing characteristics required to make an excellent print in the darkroom. I have printed thousands of color negatives in the darkroom as well as scanned color negatives for output to photographic quality inkjet printers and both methods can produce exceptional results.

You keep missing my point. We are evaluating FILM here, if the film, and most are, is designed to be optically printed, then the best way to evaluate the film is from an optical print. I still think, that the longer you need to spend on the computer trying to get a print, the less your evaluating the film and more your evaluating the computer software and processing.