Shot a roll of T-MAX P3200 at 6400...

[paul_b._davis1]

<p>And took it to a reputable processing lab in the Seattle area, along with a few other rolls. I specifically took it to them because I wanted the roll of P3200 to be processed by a professional, to make sure it was 100% right.</p>

<p>I asked for a contact sheet for the P3200, along with developing, and left them with instructions to follow the Kodak directions for 6400 ISO development.</p>

<p>A few days later, the lab calls and says that all but two of the negs turned out completely blank, and they couldn't really tell what was on the remaining two.</p>

<p>What gives? Any ideas?<br>

The lens cap wasn't on, and at least 10 of the shots were taken in lamp-based evening lighting, so there WAS LIGHT in the room when those shots were taken. The rest were shot in a dark nightclub, with a wide open aperture (1.4) and slow shutter speeds. I used a light meter in both cases, and typically over-exposed by a stop in the nightclub. Surely <em>something</em> should have turned out, even if it was dark, mushy blurs.</p>

<p>After exposing the roll, I kept it at room temperature in its original canister <em>and</em> box, for about 25 days before taking it in for processing.</p>

<p>I'm thinking maybe I should have done the processing myself. Do you think they just screwed the pooch on this one and didn't develop it long enough, or did I hang on to the film too long after exposing it, or what?</p>

<p>I'll try to get the negs and post some samples this weekend. :(<br>

-Paul B. Davis</p>

 

[chris_waller]

<p>Difficult to say without seeing a scan but have you considered the possibility of mechanical failure in the camera? As you say, even if the developing were off, you would see something. Keeping a film for 25 days would make no difference. I have processed film that has sat around for years and there is still an image. I would be inclined to check out the shutter.</p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p>I've timed the slower speeds of the shutter with an audio recording and plotting software, and things seem to run at the right speed.</p>

<p>In addition, I've put two rolls of generic 400 kodak color film through the body, and they both came out exactly as expected (at Walgreens).</p>

<p>It's an old camera, so I'd be willing to accept that the timings are not exact, but they're close enough to have produced typical results in other processing scenarios,</p>

<p>-PBD</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll try to get the negs and post some samples this weekend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When you do that, could you include the entire width of the film, including the sprocket holes and beyond? That should show the film labels exposed at the factory. If the problem is processing, those labels will not show properly. A one stop push by the lab shouldn't affect them very much.</p>

<p>BTW, one of the things that can be more likely with an old camera is an intermittent problem with the film advance.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>If they developed it correctly as a +1-push, the writings on the P3200 should be _very clearly_ readable. If so, it may have been your camera's fault.</p>

<p>Different scenario: Could it be that you handed in an altogether unexposed TMZ and still have the exposed one in your bag?<br /> (Please take no offence, I'm extrapolating from my own experiences...)</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Sorry, Hector, jumped in without reading your middle paragraph. You got the copyright to that idea!</p>

[maesphoto]

<p>Also speaking from own experience, I'm working regularly with more than 40 vintage camera's, for some reason the film has not been advancing and you must have rewound an unexposed film, like previous responders suggested already. I don't think there was anything wrong with the film itself.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I doubt it was lab failure. Push processing offers only a marginal improvement anyway. If they'd developed the film normally for the rated box speed the negatives would still be usable - if the exposure was appropriate for conditions.<br /> <br /><br />There's another problem. You said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"After exposing the roll, I kept it at room temperature in its original canister and box, for about 25 days before taking it in for processing."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />The latent image in underexposed film must be developed promptly to retain any image. I've experienced this problem before. Several years ago I rated an ISO 400 film at 1600 and shot the first half in a very dimly lit building. I waited a month, then finished the roll in comparably dim lighting and developed the roll immediately. There was barely any image on the first half, but usable frames on the second half. So if you intend to push process film that's been deliberately underexposed, do it immediately.<br /> <br /><br />You also said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's an old camera..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />The main challenge to low light photography is accurately estimating exposure. Reflective light meters are easily fooled in typical low light scenarios. That includes all camera meters: TTL, whether averaging and center weighted or more sophisticated matrix or evaluative types; and the simple non-TTL meters found on older compact rangefinders, TLRs, etc. The problem is that in most dimly lit scenes there's a single very bright light isolated against a dim background. Whether it's stage lighting in a nightclub or indoors at home, the challenge is the same - estimating exposure without being fooled by a bright light source in the frame.</p>

<p>Whenever I plan to push film - which means choosing to underexpose the film now in hopes of salvaging it later with extended development - I'm very careful with metering:</p>

<ul>

<li> * If I have a spot meter, I'll use that to meter the subject. If the subject is a person I may open up one half to one full stop beyond that. </li>

<li>* If I have an incident meter I'll try to meter the actual light falling on the subject. If it's stage lighting this is sometimes feasible if I can get close to the performance area. </li>

<li>* I'll try to get into light similar to that falling on the subject and meter off my open palm. Then I'll open up one half to one full stop.</li>

</ul>

<p>When photographing light skinned people, especially in tricky lighting, this is critical. Otherwise you may actually be underexposing a full stop *more* than you'd planned. So an ISO 3200 film, which actually has a true speed closer to 1000-1200, intended for pushing at 6400 may actually be exposed as for 12800. That's a huge push for a film with a true speed of 1000-1200 and really beyond the reach of TMZ or Delta 3200.</p>

<p>I'd bet in this case the two combined factors - the light meter being fooled, and delaying development - were the main reasons for your disappointing results.</p>

<p>The most adventurous push I've attempted was <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=318832">T-Max 400 at 6400</a>. But it produced usable results because I metered off my hand in the same lighting as my subjects. If I'd neglected to meter properly the negatives would have been ghostly thin.</p>

<p>The best method I've found for salvaging barely-there images is scanning. Conventional darkroom enlargement is far more difficult for this type of challenge.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1594321-lg.jpg" alt="" width="514" height="640" /><br /> T-Max 400 at 6400, dark paneled room lit by single halogen torchiere reflected off ceiling. The push was needed because I was using a very slow variable aperture f/3.5-4.5 zoom and wanted to keep the shutter speed at around 1/15th-1/30th. I souped the film in Microphen 1+1 for 30 minutes. Undiluted Microphen for around 15-20 minutes probably would have been better.</p>

<p>The negatives were very thin and I had to scan them to wring out any image - this would have been much more difficult in the darkroom with an enlarger.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The mistake many people make when pushing film for indoor available light shooting is that they wind up metering off of a light source in an otherwise very dark place. This is especiallly true when shooting some kind of concert. The light is always changing and it takes some experience to know how to expose the film. When your exposure is not correct you don't really know what speed you are pushing the film to. In the pre-pre-digital days I tried many soups. What sometimes saved me was Agfa Brovira #6 or Kodabrome Ulra Hard. A small extra amount of contrast came from using the Dektol (actually D-72 mixed in the High School chemistry lab) undiluted. There was no TMZ then so 2475 or 2484 developed in slightly diluted Dektol was our best very low light combination. Oiur limit was a f/1.4 standard lens. The only person I knew with a faster lens was our science teacher. He had the 58/1.2 Canon FL for his FT QL. </p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p>Hi folks--Just wanted to give you an update, and take a few moments to respond to a few suggestions.</p>

<p>I wasn't able to make it to the lab last weekend, so I haven't gotten the film in hand, yet. I'll post scans when I do.</p>

<p>Regarding the salient points of the thread:</p>

<ul>

<li>Film not advancing</li>

<li>Waiting 25 days</li>

<li>Turned in the wrong roll</li>

<li>Metering</li>

<li>Development Time</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Film not advancing:</strong><br>

I don't think this is an issue in this case. It sounds like there are two contiguous exposed negatives on the roll, which implies that the film advanced twice (36mm x 2 = 72mm), leaving me inclined to believe that it advanced through the whole roll. Also, I've now put three more rolls through the camera and none have shown any issues in this department after development. These facts combined with a normal "feel" on the film advance/rewind that night also leave me with the impression that the failure wasn't mechanical.</p>

<p><strong>Waiting 25 Days:</strong><br>

Makes sense to me. Maybe there's a little bit of image there and they just didn't notice (or it wouldn't have turned out well with a typical contact print).</p>

<p><strong>Turned in the wrong roll:</strong><br>

This is the first roll of P3200 I've ever bought, and I only bought one. (~$9.00 a piece--Yowza)<br>

:)</p>

<p><strong>Metering:</strong><br>

I should have clarified--I was using a handheld spot meter. In both the house and the bar I followed the spot meter's advice plus or minus one stop, depending on the desired effect. In the bar, I metered darkened subjects in the audience like my wife's cheek and my hand. In any case, I'm familiar enough with the theory to know that if a meter tells me 1/500th in a dark bar, I'll know that I metered the wrong thing. I think typical shutter speed in the bar was something like 1/30th, 1/15th and 1/60th, always at f/1.4.</p>

<p>I also took at least a few shots of the fully lit stage, which I would think should have made *some* appearance.</p>

<p><strong>Development Time:</strong><br>

The person who took my film initially thought I was asking for a one stop push, but I explained that Kodak had specific documentation for varying speeds of this film and that they just needed to follow those directions based on whatever developer they're using.<br>

My main concern here is that they didn't follow the directions, or that they used their own formula/scheme for developing the film and ultimately didn't give the roll enough time in the tank.<br>

I wasn't able to get any information about developer or timing, but I'll ask when I pick up this weekend.<br>

Lex: If you were able to get T-Max 400 to push to 6400, surely my T-Max 3200 will push to 6400? :)</p>

<p>Thanks All--I always appreciate the great discussion here.<br>

-PBD</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>T-Max 3200 should indeed handle EI 6400 very well. Even with a true speed of around 800-1000 - per ISO standard and the usual standard for minimal measurable density over base and fog - 6400 should be an easy push for TMZ.</p>

<p>Given what you described, the most likely factors were the delay in processing and inadequate developing.</p>

<p>Exposure is less likely to be a factor, given your descriptions. In similar situations I don't even bother to meter most shots. After establishing the range of exposure conditions I'll adjust the shutter speed or aperture to suit without metering again unless lighting changes significantly.</p>

<p>I'm about to try a new test. This weekend I rediscovered a roll of Tri-X rated at 1600, but only partially exposed in 2009. I'll finish up the remaining frames - possibly rated at 3200 or 6400 - and develop it immediately. Should be an interesting evaluation of how critical it really is to process underexposed film immediately. So far I haven't waited more than a month for any film intended to be push processed.</p>

[ed_farmer]

<p>Paul . . . An interesting problem and you have waited almost a month to come back and tell us what happened!</p>

<p>From personal experience, I don't think that the lag in getting this roll developed is the problem as long as it was stored properly. The fridge would have been better, but at least it wasn't sitting on the dash of your care . . . Was it? It also seems from what you have said that the film did advance through the camera.<br>

<br />You DO need to get the film. The first thing that you should do is check the edge markings. They should be nice and dense with the extended processing. If they are NOT a processing error is really the only solution. It doesn't matter what you did, the markings should be there.</p>

<p>With all of that, why don't you process your own film? I can understand not making prints which require much more gear, but you can process your own film in a kitchen sink and get much better results than just about any lab is going to give you anymore. If you then want to send them off for a contact sheet or proof prints, you can still do so.</p>