pbajzek Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 OK, I've just committed the dumbest mistake of my photographic life: I was working with a model on a nude shoot, using FP4 rated at ISO 100, using studio flash metered for f11. After a whole roll of excellent work on the model's part, I realized that I had forgotten to set my aperture to f11, and had been shooting at (wait for it...) f2.0! OK, now that everyone is done laughing at me, is there anything I can do to try to salvage this roll, or should I just scrap it? We went back and recreated our earlier work (better the second time, I think/hope), but obviously I'd like to save something if at all possible. I'll mention that I do not do my own processing, as I usually shoot slides and digital. In fact, my intent was to send this roll to DR5 to make B&W slides because I love their process, but that's out the window now; I'll have to go to a local lab if I do anything at all. Fire at will. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen sullivan Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html Develope as if you shot it at EI 32 and hope for the best? Or, repost question under Forums: B&W Film and perhaps Lex will be reading. I'm sure that he'll have a better suggestion than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert himmelright Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 call dr5 and see if they pull it that much? On a related note, since I scan most of my film, and prefer slides to negs, are the results they talk about on their site really as great as they make them out to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juergenf Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Peter, that's 5 full stops of overexposure. To be honest, even with b/w print film, I don't think you can save this roll. The fact that you don't do your own developing makes it even more difficult because you have to instruct someone else on what to do. You could ofcourse look at it as if it were a 'high key' shoot :-) You might still be able to produce some excellent high key prints from these negs. Just hope and pray that the recreated shots meet your standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Shoot another roll of FP4 and overexpose it by five stops. Then have it developed as recommend and see if you like the results. If you don't like the results try another recommendation and repeat until you are satisfied. Then do the same with your model film. Having overexposed (and not pulled) quite a lot of frames myself, I guess the roll is salvageable. But my mistakes mostly happened with Pan F, whitch is very forgiving when it comes to overexposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 DR5's price sheet shows that FP4's "normal" exposure is EI 64-100; while you shot it at EI 3! On the other hand, shooting it at f/2.0 will produce a nice, creamy blurred background, so you'll want to salvage the roll. Besides, why are you complaining about reshooting a nude... Unless it's a guy, that is! I'd suggest a Very Low contrast developer, such as Technidol or (surprise! C-41 dev). Also, Bueh has an excellent suggestion by shooting another test roll under the same conditions: Shoot a roll of 24 exposures (if you still have the lighting set up) and shoot a repeated sequence of, say, 5 shots, so the person processing can run several clip tests to experiment with different devs, since this is so far off, and you're in salvage mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbajzek Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Thank you all for the informative answers. I had assumed I wouldn't even bother giving this one to DR5, since their process is supposedly not very forgiving. I like the idea of burning another roll in the same way and seeing what results I can get before writing this one off. I'm not usually such a bonehead, but I'm not afraid to laugh at my own mistakes... As to DR5, I have sent a few projects to them (mostly on Scala, which was formerly my favorite film) and I have to say the results have been breathtaking. I was originally a slide shooter before moving to digital, but the quality of their slides is in large part what has pulled me back to film recently. The slides have much more shadow detail than my Coolscan V can capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasma181 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No need for shame. If I was shooting a gorgeous nude model, I probably couldn't find the shutter release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbajzek Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Maybe I'll use that as my excuse. This time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 And please post some results from that five-stop overexposure film. I don't care if it is a nudie pic or anything else from that second test roll, I just want to see what happens when you screw up a film like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbajzek Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 OK- should I post it even if it's solid white? I'll have to wait and see, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 On this thread <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008mLp>Click here</a> you can see the result of overexposing color negative film 5 stops. I imagine it would be the same in B&W. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasma181 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Here is a night shot that is grossly underexposed. I'm guessing by about 6 or 7 stops.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Robert,<BR> Peter is concerned about a film that is overexposed not underexposed. James G. Dainis 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