maclean Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I had posted about a week ago regarding some 160NC that I underexposed by shooting at 400 accidentally. The lab suggested I process normally and it would hopefully be ok, but better than any possible color shifts that would result from pushing 2 stops. I went (hesitantly) with their suggestion and the shots turned out fine, at least in my opinion. Here is one of them: <p><img src=http://photos15.flickr.com/19878476_6fd2774a74_o.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Looking at the detail in the white shirt I'd say the film was shot no more than a stop under regardless of what your metering says. Next, the harsh contrast is a sign you're trying to correct the thin neg with level adjustments or the B-W point during the initial scan. The neg is also grainy, so I fail to see what we've salvaged here other than proved an under-exposed neg can be fixed (somewhat) with scan adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maclean Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 well, I guess at the least I've proved I need a new scanner. I agree the contrast is too high, I'll give it another go and see if I can improve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgar_njari Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I've seen many pictures that have this kind of contrast intentinally, so "wrong" contrast is subjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I'm trying to make some decisions about film for "general purposes" and scanning. I shoot a lot in very contrasty situations and want to see into shadows. 160NC sounds like one good possibility...and I'm impressed by what's shown here with extreme underexposure, dark (black) complexion and shadows... What other color negs work this well? Alternative preferences? Djon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 NPS is the only fine film that's as low-contrast as 160NC (I wouldn't call Agfa XPS a fine film, and Konica 160 Pro is discontinued), however most people find that 160NC is easier to scan. Fuji 160S, this summer's replacement for NPS, might be better and the datasheet says it will be less grainy. There's something to be said for a high-latitude fast film (400UC or Portra 800), but then you are forced to do lots of postprocessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now