Help me identify mistakes of first processing

[ki6mf]

You may have poured in Fixer first! This gives clear negatives every time! A good tutorial for film speed test, ISO test can be found on line at Jerry Orabona's web site. He has step by step methods to get your work flow down properly.

http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

[ki6mf]

Also while figuring all your work flow out shoot a back up negative if the first is bad try and reason why it did not turn out and then proceed with the back up. Do not EVER change film chemistry etc in the middle of your testing. If you decide to change anything pick one element then retest using your entire procedure once you finish the prior procedures! Why? the tests your do on one set of film chemistry will not translate to another set. i.e. Tri X with the above chemistry will not give the same density as Ilford HP5 with the same chemistry.

[Rick A]

The first thing I do when shooting B&W film under artificial (tungsten)light , is rate the film at half speed. Then add in my bellows factor and reciprocity (if speed is very low)factor. I also bracket by shooting first exposure at figured time/f stop, then second exposure giving a half stop more time. Slight overexposure is far easier to print than under exposure.
As for the post that suggests you used fix first, there would be NO image on the negative at all if that were the case.

[Pawlowski6132]

These are scanned negatives.

But you inverted them so we're looking at the positive image.

I think you'be be best served either re-scanning w/o inverting or taking a picture of the negatives.

For all we know, all your problems could be due to scaning issues.

[Brian Ellis]

I was under one second. 1/60th is the lowest I try with kids. That I'm certain about. One thing that I can't recall...and now it's seeming to be the culprit-- is bellows factor. I was using a 210mm and was about 5 feet away from the couch. So right there, I'm underexposed and didn't identify that until I asked the question here.

I was using a Sekonic digital meter, which I've used before with B&W without making a mess like this.

You also mention that it is also underdeveloped. Is this a matter of trial and error to find the right amount of time when using a developer and chemicals that are not matched to one another? I chose 7:20 because someone suggested I split the difference between the 200 and 400 ISO specs. What could I have done differently?

Thanks for taking the time to respond

I don't think that bellows compensation by itself, given the lens and subject distance you mention, would create the severe underexposure problem you've apparently encountered.

You said you used a 210mm lens and were 5 feet from the subject. There's a rule of thumb, which I've found to work well, to the effect that you don't need to factor bellows compensation into the exposure unless the subject on which you're focusing is closer than 8 times the focal length of the lens (some people say 10 times). Using 8 times, 8x210 = 1680mm = 67 inches = 5 1/2 feet or almost exactly the subject distance at which you were working, which would indicate no need for any bellows compensation.

Even if you used the more conservative 10 factor, you still were only a couple feet closer than the distance at which no bellows compensation is needed. That might indicate the need for a half stop or so of additional exposure, which with b&w film is a negligible amount.

So while bellows extension might have caused some slight underexposure I don't think that by itself it would have created the degree of underexposure that you apparently have.

[Bob McCarthy]

I suspect it was a metering problem, either the meter is not working properly or the user didnt know how to use it.

Developing is likely not the issue, even if the time is off it would have created a more substantial negative.

Metering inside is much more critical than outside, (many accomplished photographers dont even need a meter).

Inside, aim it so a light source (window, lamp)is in the field of view of the meter and bang big time underexposure.

like this,


What meter were you using?


bob

[corgan4321]

I suspect it was a metering problem, either the meter is not working properly or the user didnt know how to use it.

Metering inside is much more critical than outside, (many accomplished photographers dont even need a meter). b

Right on. No way, under the given conditions, was bellows extension the problem. If possible, double check you meter readings with both incident and reflected readings. I find incident readings in front of a subject to be most accurate, especially for indoor work.

[Sirius Glass]

Rather than worry about tungsten and artificial light. Go outside, use the manufacturer's film speed and Sunny 16. That will take lightmeters and the way the reading was take out of the equation. You will then be able to see if there is a shutter problem [probably not because shutters tend to slow down rather than speed up when they need to be CLAed] or if there is a problem with the developer and development time.

Once you have the development process understood, you can then go back to artificial light. OR you can get yourself into the endless and mindless film speed testing and spend the rest of your life doing only that because you will never have time to take a REAL photograph! [That alone would help the film manufacturer's stay in business making LF film!]

Steve

[Brian Ellis]

Rather than worry about tungsten and artificial light. Go outside, use the manufacturer's film speed and Sunny 16. That will take lightmeters and the way the reading was take out of the equation. You will then be able to see if there is a shutter problem [probably not because shutters tend to slow down rather than speed up when they need to be CLAed] or if there is a problem with the developer and development time.

Once you have the development process understood, you can then go back to artificial light. OR you can get yourself into the endless and mindless film speed testing and spend the rest of your life doing only that because you will never have time to take a REAL photograph! [That alone would help the film manufacturer's stay in business making LF film!]

Steve

Second paragraph is total nonsense. Film speed testing takes a half hour to an hour at the most and is done once for a particular film. After it's done once it's done for that film and developer unless you make some change in your procedures. IMHO it's a real disservice to totally misrepresent what's involved with film testing and then on the basis of that misrepresentation discourage a relative newcomer from determining what his film speed really is.

[Sirius Glass]

Film testing should take a half hour, but I am amazed that I have come across many people recently who have made it a lifetime career. Jeez, the object of photography is to take photographs, not test every film-developed combination while varying the film speed, developing time, for every combination imaginable or not.

Steve