Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

help: what have i done wrong with these shots?
Old 01-07-2015   #1
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
help: what have i done wrong with these shots?

so, recently was in asia. bright, sunny days, lost a few rolls of 400 asa film to these issues.

here are a few examples.

can anyone tell from these botched shots what i was likely doing incorrectly?

m6/28mm lens

thanks, really appreciate it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg err1.jpg (40.6 KB, 210 views)
File Type: jpg err4.jpg (47.4 KB, 208 views)
File Type: jpg err3.jpg (35.5 KB, 161 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #2
stuart_115
Registered User
 
stuart_115 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 12
What film type did you use(ilford/kodak/etc, slide/print/b&w)?

And did you scan it yourself, or did a lab do it. If the negatives are ok, then it's probably a scan error.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #3
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,105
What is 'botched'? #2 looks washed out, which could be your processing or maybe just the harsh light. The contrast in the others is very high, are the negatives overexposed?

Maybe it is obvious to others what is wrong, but to me these don't look ruined in any way.

P.S. Looking at #2 closely I do see the ugly grain and noise. Is something similar happening to the B&W?
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #4
ssmc
Registered User
 
ssmc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 596
Looking at #2, the grain is so prominent, and the colors so "murky", that it looks like severe underexposure (which the scanner would try to correct). The B&W shots look a lot cleaner - if it's the blown out sky you're referring to, there isn't a lot that can be done if the scene was overcast and white.

Remeber also that the M6/M6TTL meter is much more concentrated and "spot-like" than the usual CW meter. If you don't have a conventional camera with a 28mm lens to compare it to, try metering off the palm of the hand and see how much of a difference you get versus the camera viewing the scene.

Scott
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #5
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
i used kodak 400.

yeah the color ones (2 rolls) all look this way. i had them processed and scan by a very good shop here in the city.

have not seen the negatives yet, but i had a similar experience in fiji a few years back with the noise and grain on the color stuff.

i am hoping it is clear to someone that i am doing something obviously wrong on bright sunny days. should i be using 100 asa film on those days? etc?

i am really frustrated.

thanks so much everyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #6
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
if i severely underexposed, that means i did what exactly?

sorry for all the questions...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #7
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
 
bsdunek's Avatar
 
bsdunek is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 784
It means the film didn't get enough exposure. There could be several reasons - and I don't know what equipment you used, but:
1. Film ISO set wrong on your camera or light meter.
2. Meter reading taken wrong - say meter seeing too much bright background on a darker subject.
3. Camera shutter operating faster than setting. While shutters usually get slower, there are ways wear could make them faster.
4. Did you intend to 'push' the film and then forgot to tell the lab?
5. Was the film stored in a hot environment or is very old?
6. The lab didn't develop the film properly.

As said above, you need to look at the negatives - it could be a bad scan.

Good luck!
__________________
BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

My Gallery
Bruce
Don't take my Kodachrome away!
OOOPS! Kodak did!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #8
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
I would be hard to underexpose ISO 400 speed on a bright sunny day with a Leica M6. Shutter speed only goes up to 1/1000 and most lenses only stop down to f16 so a sunlit exposure 1/1000 at f16 would be at most 1.5 stops under exposed. Not ideal but not a disaster either. Granted most 400 color negative material looks better overexposed a stop.

Regardless, the negatives will tell the story. Are they very thin, almost transparent? That is massive underexposure and would result in muddy, grainy prints. At this time not enough information to offer an opinion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #9
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
i will get the negatives back tomorrow and have a look. hopefully just looking at them should help.

thank you.

i was switching between 100 and 400 on this trip, and perhaps i did not set the asa correctly.

grasping here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #10
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,394
It doesn't seems to be wrong with b/w ISO400 at very sunny day.
First was measured correctly to the darker side, sky above washed out.
Another b/w looks like some overexposure. Color one might be as well.

I never owned, used M6. Does yours have TTL meter? Are you relay on it?
What I noticed with Bessa R is after sometime I stopped to think about exposure and camera was measuring it incorrectly. I was just looking what camera say.
But with wide lens it might be trickier to measure.
Also, sometimes if I'm really into what is happening around, I'll bump my lens and it will change aperture. But I would notice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #11
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrryxgg View Post
i will get the negatives back tomorrow and have a look. hopefully just looking at them should help. ...
There is just as much a chance that the "errors" are purely in reproducing the negatives (e.g. scanning and/or printing) as there is that it was a camera or film processing error. One should never waste much time analyzing such problems without access to the process film itself. Anything gleaned from the reproductions (prints, scans, ...) is purely a wild guess as to the underlying cause.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #12
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,240
I have a nice Pentax P&S camera that I thought was really messed up exposure wise. The first roll I shot through it came back all murky and underexposed. I took the second roll to a different place, and everything was perfect. This also happened with any other camera if I took the film to the first place. So your choice of labs could make a huge difference. But as stated above, a close inspection of the negatives is also in order.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #13
anu L ogy
Registered User
 
anu L ogy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 247
They all look over exposed. How did you meter? If you used the M6's meter, what did you point it at to take the reading? You could try a yellow or red filter shooting outside on days like this. It would darken the sky.
__________________
-Jim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anulogy/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #14
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
... the OP said it was a bright, sunny day, there was no need to meter at all ... the camera should have been set at 1/500 sec at f16
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #15
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
So I went to the shop that developed my film.

They were able to pull up the scans and compare to the negatives. And boy did we find a surprise.

Clearly it states on the negatives that a color implosion film was used. It's a brand I like (adox), but in error I bought the color implosion rather than portrait. They told me my shots were exposed correctly and the effect seen is what the film is meant to do!

Hilarious, right?

I guess i win the donkey of the month award?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #16
hrryxgg
Registered User
 
hrryxgg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
here are some 'better' examples of the ones i thought were taken incorrectly.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg err10.jpg (43.6 KB, 42 views)
File Type: jpg err11.jpg (55.9 KB, 40 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #17
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 975
That's a pretty good story. I kind of like the last two pictures you posted. They're not true to life, but quite interesting.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #18
stuart_115
Registered User
 
stuart_115 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreed2006 View Post
That's a pretty good story. I kind of like the last two pictures you posted. They're not true to life, but quite interesting.
I agree. It's not that bad at all.

So this is what implosion film looks like. Don't worry too much. I've made a lot of error. From misfocussing to incorrect exposures and since recenlty parralex errors. In the end you'll learn from it and over time it will only improve.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #19
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,800
I think stories like this makes film a more interesting medium to use, especially for photographers who don't have to please a customer.

Good photos, I never heard of that film before, the result is quite interesting.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #20
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
Ha! When I read you comment I thought yeah sure, "color implosion", they are pulling your leg. So I checked and sure enough, there is such a film, funky color and grainy. Looks like the Lomography folks have planted a mole in Adox management. Quick, call George Smiley.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.