Learning the hard way...PLEASE HELP!

[gary evans]

<p>OK, I recently got a Nikon F100 and have been playing around with

rating the film slightly differently than the DX code. Today, I was

at the National Zoo shooting Portra 400UC at 320. When I got to the

Panda pen, I took the last three shots on the roll as one of the

Pandas sat down 15 feet away from me to eat bamboo. I quickly

reached in to my bag, grabbed an unopened box of Reala 100 (I think

you can guess what happened now...) and loaded the camera and began

shooting. I didn't realize I had underexposed the film until I was

more than halfway through the roll, so I left the camera set to

320.</p>

 

<p>So now I've got some great pictures that I cannot easily

reproduce (Zoo is 100+ miles away and always crowded and I was lucky

enough to have this panda sit right in front of the railing was at,

no obstructions) that are 1 2/3 stops (maybe even 2) underexposed.

Should I ask the lab to push process the film? One stop or two?</p>

 

<p>FYI, I called Fuji just last week to ask about the exposure

latitude of Reala and they said it would be good from 1 stop under

to 2 over...</p>

 

<p>Have you ever had to push Reala 100 two stops? What can I

expect? Increased contrast and Grain, I know, but how bad will it

be? Does anyone have any examples of a negative film they've pushed

2 stops they could post?</p>

 

<p>TIA for all your help...</p>

[pboraschi]

Definately it will increase the grain. I often shoot using Kodak 320 T on daylight

situation pushed to 1600. You should tell to process exactly at what you rated the film.

You never know, it may surpprise you!!

[staticlag]

Are you positive that you underexposed it? Usually unless you have disabled automatic DX ISO setting (via custom functions), whenever you put a new roll of film in, it should set the correct film speed.

 

But this is exactly why it is better to just exposure compensation +1/3 of a stop with auto DX coding on and go from there with the adjustments, rather than manually setting the ISO.

 

Once I pushed royal gold 200 to 800 iso (long story), it was bad. But I was using it under sodium vapour gym lights and they accurately color corrected for the lights also(pushing the film even more to its limit). I'll try and find the pics, but they were bad. Blocky colors across the board, no shadow detail, insane contrast. The pics were fairly usable for their purpose(though they looked semi-picassoish), but not if you were intrested in fine grain and smooth even texture.

 

If you were in good light, I would try and just push one stop, but then again, I have never had an opportunity to test my theory.

 

best of luck,

Dan

[scott_eaton]

I strongly suggest pushing this film a stop by a reputable lab.

 

Old Reala, which is still available in 120 format, does not push that well. I've had to fix a lot of under-exposed 120 Reala for clients shot at EI 400, and the results even when pushed a stop were not that good.

 

35mm Superia-Reala is more pushable than the older film. My own intuition is that pushing this material 2 stops will not benefit over a one stop push. Leving it 'as is' will result in worthless film since Reala doesn't have much under-exposure lattitude.

[hans_beckert]

Do not do this next time. Throw it out. The film is toast.

[James G. Dainis]

Gary Evans,<P>Have them push it one stop. Post the results that you get on this thread. I would like to see an end to this issue of pushing/not pushing film.

[bernhard]

Push at least one stop.

 

Panda bears? You might consider making B&W prints, in this case 2 stops might work out, especially if the contrast was not too high.

[el_fang]

<i>"Do not do this next time. Throw it out. The film is toast." - Hans Beckert</i>

 

<p>Dumb advice as usual from a photo.net bedsore. The other answers are correct. You'll be fine with a 1-stop push.

[marshall]

Push it a stop. It won't be what it was, but it might well be usable. Automated prints probably won't be the best way to judge the potential of the negatives. I have pushed one of the 160 films (wish I could remember which) a stop after a similar accident, and it worked ok.

[hans_beckert]

Lesson learned. Toss. Toast.

[bjmarkowitz]

Go to a good photo lab, tell them what happened, and ask what you should do.

[gary evans]

<p>OK, I think Reala may be the greatest film ever!!!</p>

 

<p>I just got back from Walmart with the offending film (actually happened to a whole roll and the last 10 on another roll - I just got the roll with the last 10 frames underexposed developed at Walmart).</p>

 

<p>It looks like the negatives are fine!!! Maybe a little thin and a tad contrasty, but certainly printable!</p>

 

<p>Here is a scan (cheap flatbed ConoScan 5000f at a mere 75 dpi. The only work I did with this scan was Autocolor, tweaked the brightness and contrast, and a little bit of USM. To top it off, this is from the 37th frame, which I had to scan by itself in the negative carrier of the scanner, and those always come out a little screwed up.</p>

 

<p>And I KNOW that this frame (and the 9 others)was exposed at the exact same ISO as the other roll - 320. Right after we left the Panda pen, I checked the settings on the camera without changing anything, including the ISO and it was set at 320.</p>

 

<p>Amazing, but true!</p>

 

<p>As I said earlier, Fuji recommends 1 stop under to 2 over on Reala 100, and 1 2/3 under is still pretty damn good!</p><div></div>

[hans_beckert]

Your conclusion is wrong. Because the frame includes a lot of dark area in the center, the meter allowed extra exposure. So, you did not really expose it at 320, but perhaps closer to 160.

[James G. Dainis]

... or maybe they gave him the wrong film. Maybe there was someone else taking pictures at the zoo at the same time, using the correct exposure, and they gave him that film by mistake.

[panos_voudouris]

Did you get the lab to push process the film in the end? If so, how much? Also, I am just wondering, how did you manage to get half the roll at ISO 100 and the other half at 320, given that the 320 was at the end of the roll? That would mean you changed the ISO setting to the wrong one mid-roll!

[gary evans]

<P><i> how did you manage to get half the roll at ISO 100 and the other half at 320, given that the 320 was at the end of the roll? That would mean you changed the ISO setting to the wrong one mid-roll!

</i></p><p>P - </p><p>I shot 22 framse of the roll a few days earlier, did a mid-roll rewind, and then reloaded the film at the zoo after having shot some Portra 400UC at ISO 320</p><p>Hope that answers your question of how I did it...</p><p>As for pushing the roll that was underexposed on every frame, I have my wife bringing it to the only good lab in town today. Unfortunately, they are only open from 8-5 M-F and I am at work all of those hours. Plus, the lab is a good 30 minutes+ from my work, so I couldn't even get there on my lunch. I wrote out what I had done with the film and included a sample strip of negatives from the frames that were developed normally and told them to do what they thought best to get the best density on my negs. I have never used the lab (too expensive for your average amateur), I have heard they do excellent work. I'll post the results when I get them back...</p>