Help a noob understand the exposure conundrum

[TimberwolfII]

She was looking to my left in real life. Neg is in right way round then?

Holder goes in from top of camera. I believe I put the film in so the notches are at the bottom hinge portion of the holder i.e. Notches end up at the bottom of the camera.

[Mark Sawyer]

Oh, sorry, I got turned around by everything being reversed, upside-down and inside-out...

[cowanw]

She was looking to my left in real life. Neg is in right way round then?

Holder goes in from top of camera. I believe I put the film in so the notches are at the bottom hinge portion of the holder i.e. Notches end up at the bottom of the camera.

Assuming the shiny side is facing us in the photo, yes.

[Leigh]

My brain is hurting trying to juggle which way the notches/emulsion/head direction is cos everything turns upside down and back to front.

The emulsion is ALWAYS toward the subject (in camera), or toward the paper (in enlarger/contact).

When you load film into a filmholder, the notches are at upper-right so the emulsion is toward you, and toward the opening at the front of the filmholder, thus facing the subject when in-camera.

- Leigh

[Tim Meisburger]

If she was looking left, then the film was loaded correctly, and I'm stumped. Strange....

[TimberwolfII]

Assuming the shiny side is facing us in the photo, yes.

Obviously same neg. Held the same, shiney. She was looking north, to my left, up the garden. Not me loading film backwards. One down.

"Once you illuminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth" Arthur Conan Doyle

I'll contact print the three negs with attendant data, see if that throws owt up. Might be a blind alley and I just make a conversion chart for this set up; but it's niggling me.

[koraks]

Maybe it's just me, but that negative looks unbelievably dense and it may even be fogged as well. Are the edges completely clear, or is there density running towards the outer edges of the film, at least in some places?

Hypothesizing a bit: if the film was fogged (severely), then it would take a huge additional exposure to get any separation between the fog and the image. That could explain the 8 stop overexposure necessary to get an image at all. The underexposed images should still show density (fog) if this is the case. And the 'correctly' exposed images would be low in contrast and rather grainy as the entire image would be compressed onto the shoulder of the curve.

It would greatly help to see these negatives (photographed) on some kind of light box.

[TimberwolfII]

Ok, best try. No light box so improvised with a bowl and an led floodlight...
#1 First one, imho underexposed

BIG light leak from bottom flap of holder (its cobbled together from laminate and ply) in fact light leaks on all negs; hope to improve in film holder mkII.
Data:
Film HP5 rated 200 5x7
Weston lightmeter said asa200, no.8, 5.6 1/30th. This was taken INDOORS.
Camera 6.8 1/5th (because I've had under exposure issues previous so I was guessing)
Dev rodinal 1:25@20 c 5mins 30 sec initial agitation the 10sec per min.

#2 Second try no model, so a tree, looking for more light so came outside.

In person looks 'okish' Defoe not good or great, but printable with effort. Vignette is mostly the bowl acting as lightbox.
Same film.
Meter set asa 200, no.11, says f8-5.6 and 1/250th
Camera set f6.8 for 1 sec (shutter)
#3


Wife comes back!
All settings the same as#2 again maybe a 'useable' negative.

#4


Everything the same as #2 & #3 but 4 seconds manually timed with B on shutter. Looks 'overexposed' in person.

[TimberwolfII]

#2


#3

Not okish. Nightmare. Low contrast, and the lens obviously isn't covering the neg.
but there is still summut else. And yes absolutely, fog sounds right but what causes it? Never experienced this sort of thing before.

[Vaughn]

My advice -- take care of the light leaks before trying to determine exposure and development times. Sort of like testing one's car's gas milage with flat tires. Use photopaper if you want to go cheap and easy.