Problems with dark areas of prints

[jeff_walsh]

I am having a problem with some of my prints and hoped I could find

help here on how to correct the problem or at least solve it. Lately

when I get my prints back from my local phot lab, I've noticed an

uneven "spackling", especially in the darker areas. At first I

thought it was the grain, but 400 speed film and 4x6 prints wouldn't

be that obvious. Then I thought it was my newest camera, but film

run thru different cameras got similar results. So I concluded that

it might have something to do with the processing machine at my

local photo lab. I also thought that if the film was purchased by

mail and shipped by UPS or the Post Office, it could be x-rays. The

image link below shows an example of what I'm talking about,

particularly in the dark areas. Thanks for your patience and

assistance.

[john_shriver]

Your film was underexposed. That's what underexposed shadows look like on C-41 negative film, very grainy.

[ivan_dzo]

Jeff, definitely underexposure. I get it on gig photos where it's very dark. Easy to correct in photoshop if you're doing your own printing though.

[discpad]

It is either underexposure and/or underdevelopment: Since the C-41 process is all but idiot-proof, most photogs automatically blame exposure or the film.

 

 

Tell us the camera and film. Also, are you metering with a hand-held meter? It could be waayyy off.

 

 

Was the "ISO thingy" set properly to 400? If you rely on the DX coding on the cassette to set the ISO, sometimes a dirty contact on one or more pads can cause grief.

 

 

In any case, the grainess is in the underexposed/underdeveolped shadows: Look at the negs and you'll see they are rather "thin" looking.

 

 

Also, don't rule out the lab having a problem, too: Their color developer bath could be below 100.0F and/or weak; and since most color neg film has a tendency to be overexposed anyway, the operator wouldn't notice it. Shoot another roll and take it to a different lab -- Even a Wal-Mart -- to get a reality check. Also, shoot a five shot bracket in 1 stop increments (-1, 0, +1, +2, +3 stops) to try to narrow it down.

[robert lee]

It's likely a combination problem with your metering technique, and the lab's automated corrections.

 

First, I assume you just used the camera's matrix-whizbang metering for this frame? The dynamic range in this scene is huge, and not everything can be captured. The camera can only guess at what part to expose for; it likely selected mostly the single light source and left everything else in shadow.

 

Second, when this image is printed, the minilab tried to balance for the "typical" 18% grey scene; after all, it doesn't know what your capture intent was. The lab tried to print with some detail in the hats, but it can't pull out what was just barely captured to begin with. This is why you get the grainy, underexposed areas.

 

The easiest thing to do is to shoot digital and inkjet print yourself. You get the instant feedback on the correctness of exposure, and you don't have the problem of an automated minilab imposing what it considers as the correct print.

 

If you want to continue with film, use an incident light meter for scenes like this. Meter at the position you want correctly exposed. If your camera has a spot meter, you can use that too; meter off of a gray card at the position.

 

For photofinishing, find a good lab with an actual human operator you can work with (or again, print it yourself.)

[jeff_walsh]

I am using a Canon Rebel 2000, a Canon Elan IIE and a Minolta X-700 with either Kodak BW400CN or Kodak High Definition 400 film, at the time. The results are the same with any three cameras. I've noticed in other pictures the dark areas are similar, even in a shot in bright sunlight or with a flash. Eveything else in the bright areas seems to properly exposed, just the dark areas are "muddy". After reading the replys, I think maybe I'll switch photolabs. The one I used before I my current lab, I did not have these problems. With my current lab, I'm realizing Target should stay out of the photolab business or hire people who know what they are talking about. I've had problems in the past with my current lab...

If I use a new photolab and I no longer have the problem, I'll assume its bad chemicals or processing and the previous mentioned photlab.

Thanks to every one who replied.

[phule]

You can try and ask for no corrections when getting prints or, like I did, abandon the idea of prints all together and get a film scanner.

[toytrain]

...and some people say digital is good? pah!