Film problem. Any suggestions?

[HarryBaker]

The last couple of rolls of film I've put through my classic M6 have come out

really weird. They have been processed by the main University photographic

service who have done all my films for years. The film is Kodak UC400. I bought

it about 9 months ago and it has been in my fridge (not freezer) ever since.

I've compared the exposure meter in my M6 with that in my 5D and get the same

readings so don't think it's that. Attached is a scan done by my University. I

haven't attempted to scan. The negs are very thin. Any suggestions?<div></div>

[zane1664879013]

Overused development chemicals?

[noah]

Well, it's impossible to tell anything from the scan, but if your film is thin there are a

couple of possibilities.

 

Your film could be bad, though this is extremely unlikely. Film of that age seems unlikely

to have lost any speed, and it was stored cold so it should be fine.

 

There could have been processing problems, as Zane suggested. Bad chemicals are

certainly possible.

 

Your film could have been underexposed. You say you checked the meter, how about your

shutter? If it were off it could cause underexposure.

 

Are the markings on the film (frame numbers, brand markings ,etc.) also thin, or do they

look normal compared to "good" film? If the markings are also thin, you're probably

looking at a film or development problem. If they're fine and only the images are thin, it's

the exposure.

[HarryBaker]

Thanks, both. I've looked at the frame numbers and labels and they look pretty thin too compared with other films, so it looks as though the development is off.

[michael_dimarzio]

Basic question Noah, what do you mean by thin film?

 

I kind of like the look.

 

md

[andrewlamb]

Why don't you put a roll through another lab, like Snappy Snaps, for a comparison?

[noah]

<<Basic question Noah, what do you mean by thin film?>>

 

Thin means underexposed, or as it seems in this case, underdeveloped. It's a more

accurate term with negatives, where your underexposed frames are more clear, or have

less density, than properly or overexposed frames.

 

The reason I asked about the framelines is that they are burned into the film with light,

and at a constant value, so if they look less dense than normal, then you're looking at a

development problem not an exposure problem.

[simus]

Did you metered using your 5D?,

 

Very Often, many DSRLs real ISO is much much different from the ISO you set in the

camera.

I have, sometimes, read about 1,5/2 stops differences.Try to compare with an external

lightmeter to see if this is the case,

 

 

 

 

 

Ciao

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Sounds underdeveloped to me, if the frame numbers are thin, too.

[michael_dimarzio]

Thanks Noah.

[HarryBaker]

Thanks for the discussion. I've checked again comparing the M6 with my Hexar RF using the same lens, with a 5d and 350D using same focal length and with an old 10D. They all give an f11 @ 250th (400 ISO) of the same view at the same time, except the 10D which gives about a stop more exposure. So I'm thinking the M6 is OK. What's more, my 40 year old Weston Master V gives f11 @ 250th sec!

[bobmichaels]

Harry, do you know what a normal daylight exposure is for iso 400 film? I mean on a sunny day and what it is on a overcast day? It's printed on the inside of the film box I believe. That old "Sunny 16" thing, remember that?

 

Would it help to put all the light meters away, including the digital cameras, and retrain your brain to some basic exposure guidelines?

 

Then you would have some basic confidence in your exposures. When you then have thin negs, you would know that it's the shutter closing too fast (very unlikely), the iris closing down too much (also very unlikely) or bad processing.

[michael s.]

If I'm remembering this correctly, that film was introduced around 5 years ago, when I was (i) really new to photography; and (ii) shooting film nearly all the time.

 

And it took me only one roll -- two at most -- to recognize that I didn't like it one bit. I got strange and unpredictable colors when compared to the plain old Kodak and Fuji consumer films I had been using.

 

Now that could've been due to any number of reasons, but ignorance is bliss: I simply chalked it up to that film and never bought it again. :-)

 

Just a thought.

[luke_ballard]

I kind of agree, change films, and I think after reading everything here it is a development issue. Could be not only under developed, but also not completley fixed. Just a thought. I may be way off.

 

I also use my digital 5D when I use my Contax 2A to meter. I will set the ISO's the same and I ALWAYS get perfect exposures, but I NEVER forget the basics. The good old sunny 16 rule.

 

I need an external light meter SO BAD, but wow they can be expensive as heck! Im gonna break down and get one soon though. I had an old one that a friend gave me as a gift, but it finally crapped out on me so if my old cameras don't have meters, I just use the digital meter or sunny 16.

 

Good luck, I hope you get your prob fixed soon!

 

Luke