Under exposed Mamiya 6

[stevebarry]

It would appear that the shutter in both my 50mm and 75mm lens is faster than it should be? Is that even possible?

I would guess by 3 stops. I am getting BARELY printable negatives with all types of proven (for me) film/developer combinations.

I am not sure what else could be wrong. I was thinking electronic shutters, maybe battery problem?

I have scoured the net looking for people with similar problems.

It is not the meter - I have checked it against my handheld as well as F5.

 

[stevebarry]

This was shot at 1/125 F4.5 arista100 hc110 dilutionH 8:00 minutes. Flat, shady light - confirmed exposure with handheld.


M6-2013-06-11-027 by steve_barry, on Flickr

 

[stevebarry]

This, I used nikon SB700 at full power from 3.5 feet away. 1/60 F4.5 arista100 hc110 dilution H 6:00 minutes.

After I developed this, I mounted the flash on my D700 - iso100 and matched the exposure, and it totally blew everything out - almost a full white frame.

So I am pretty sure the shutters are somehow fast on the Mamiya? Any other ideas?

BTW I have NO idea what these dots are on this negative. Its not water spots.


M6-2013-06-11-033 by steve_barry, on Flickr

 

[250swb]

Steve, I took the liberty to copy and paste your underexposed picture into Photoshop, and with a few tweaks of the Levels the image looks perfectly normal to me, plenty of shadow detail (so not under-exposed) and plenty of mid-tone and highlight detail.

So I suspect it is a scanning problem perhaps, and that you haven't done any post processing? As this a APUG I won't go on about it too much, but you may want to check your histogram in the scanning software and make sure the sliders for shadows and highlights are set at either end of the 'wave', use the middle slider to adjust mid tone brightness. You should aim for a flat sort of scan containing all the information possible that can be adjusted to the final image in Photoshop (or whatever). I can post the image I came up with if you give the say so.

For the spots, well it looks like measles, but as the sofa can't catch measles I'd say bubbles have formed on the negative at some point in the development process.

Steve

 

[stevebarry]

Hey Steve - you are right no post processing. All corrections turned off in Epson scan too. The adjustment needed on the first photo is major. Very flat light too so I would expect the shadow detail that's there even underexposed .

The photo with flash needs very minor adjustments but when I match the exposure and distance on my nikon with same flash setting - the resulting photo is very over exposed. Leading me to believe something is wrong with the shutter on the mamiya.

Please post your Ps result but I know how to scan and post process

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ic-racer]

To check your camera's meter and shutter, look up "zone I" film speed test. After processing, the properly exposed "Zone I" negative will cut one-third of a stop of light (compared to a blank frame) when held over your hand-held meter.

 

[stevebarry]

Thanks ic

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Klainmeister]

BTW, my friend did extensive testing with HC110 and found it to be 8:00 minutes, but at a film speed of 64 --- with the Fomapan 100 (Arista.edu)

 

[Tomf2468]

Shoot a roll of E-6 slide film, that will remove the developing and scanning and arista film variables and just leave the camera variable. In "general", shutter speed doesn't effect flash exposure, as flash is generally 1/500 second or faster. Your shutter would have to be VERY fast, or your flash sync very slow, to effect that!

 

[250swb]

Steve, here is the version with a few simple tweaks. It could be much better with a bigger file size to work with. The shadow detail is there, the highlight detail is there (JPEG rendering aside), but essentially it was the mid tones that needed lightening.

If the negative looks normal, I'd say it was the scanning and lack of post processing (always essential for the best scan), or if your negative looks thin and flat it may be due to where you made the exposure reading from. Choose a mid tone like grass or the palm of your hand for a reflective reading, not the white wall, or make an incident reading with an invercone on the meter. You probably know that already, just saying by way of 'belts and braces'.

Steve

 

[stevebarry]

KS - makes sense. I had a feeling maybe the film might be slower than 100. I will try and rate it at 64 and then develop a little longer. This was very flat light. That would be about 2 stops.

Tom - gotcha. I know nothing about flash photography. Nothing. What you said makes sense though.

Steve - I appreciate what you are saying, but the negative is way under exposed. That adjustment for me would be giant.

 

[stevebarry]

Ran TMAX400 through and problem appears to be fixed. So must be something I was doing with the arista and other films I had tried lately. That is texture on stucco not grain above the brick. Thanks all.


M6-2013-06-12-043 by steve_barry, on Flickr