# my film always fails



## den9 (Jul 8, 2011)

this was a 4 hour shot, i have no clue what the hell happened, it definitely failed, and it looks like there is light leaks, my camera has a viewfinder curtain too.

this was used with fuji 100f, even my regular daytime photos looked like ****.

heres a snapshot in broad day light with a fast shutter speed, the film looks horrible, very grainy.





what gives? half the reason why i bought film is because my dslr sensor was overheating on exposures over 20 minutes. i even tried 30 second exposure with tungsten film and had failure. it sucks paying 20 bucks everytime and getting bad results.


----------



## shortpants (Jul 8, 2011)

If you've used several different types of film and have the same weird results, I would guess it's your camera. Were you shooting through a window on #2? It almost looks like there's a reflection in the sky. Plus with the vignetting it looks like you shot this with a toy camera. It's been so long since I've used film I can't really tell you what's going on, but you should probably just try to get a hold of another camera for a test roll.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 8, 2011)

What do the negatives look like ?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 8, 2011)

den9 said:


> this was a 4 hour shot, i have no clue what the hell happened, it definitely failed, and it looks like there is light leaks, my camera has a viewfinder curtain too.
> 
> this was used with fuji 100f, even my regular daytime photos looked like ****.
> 
> ...



I haven't a clue what the magenta cloud is, was the film old or heat damaged? Nonetheless you have the same problem with both pictures: extreme underexposure (with probably cheap film, the only 100F's that I know fuji makes are Provia and Velvia). I'm assuming you're using negative film. 

This is an easy fix, just expose for longer. Are you going off what your meter is reading? In the bottom picture it looks like it could have been spot metered for the white paint on in the center, and the top picture is just underexposure. 


Film and Digital are very Very VERY different. They _cannot_ be treated the same.

Let's assume you're shooting negative film (because it's cheaper and more flexible). With digital, when you expose, you need to nail your exposure. If it's overexposed, it gets blown out right? With negative film if you overexpose all you do is add more information to work with (to a point of course). negative film likes density, the denser your negatives the more information you have in the shadow areas, the thinner your negatives (like what you have above), the less information you have and the more pronounced grain gets and the muddier the images look. It's like underexposing a digital shot 2 stops and trying to recover it. Doesn't work well does it?


SO. Next time you go out shooting with your film camera if you have ISO 400 film, set the camera's ISO to 200. Meter for the shadows. If you do that, you'll get beautiful results. By shooting at a stop slower you'll get more density and more information to work with, and by metering for the shadows you'll keep them brighter and less grainy. 


Things like that are one of the areas film is a far superior medium to digital. Kodak's new Portra 400 (incredible film) has about 18-20 stops of range in it! You can shoot Portra 400 at ISO 100 and the only difference in IQ is the shadows get richer and more detailed. Photographers have pushed Portra 400 to 3200 and get results that are pretty good, i've shot it at 1600 and it looks great. I usually shoot it at ISO 200 though just so i can get a richer negative.




Portra 400@200, spot metered the hands. Because it's been "overexposed" by a stop and I metered for the hands, see how they aren't lost in grain? but also see how the background isn't blown out either? Film has highlight latitude digital shooters can only dream of. 






Portra 160@80, spot metered for the darker skin tones. See how rich the color is? That's what a nice, dense negative will give you. If I shot this digitally with the same settings, almost the whole image would be paper white except for the horses, her pants, hair, and the rope. 





Both of those are straight from the lab, I didn't do any color adjustments at all. You just need to slightly overexpose your film and it will look great. If you're not sure about exposure, just overexpose. Don't worry about exposing 2 or 3 stops over, it will look just fine. 



Also, look up reciprocity failure. Digital is alot easier to shoot at night. Film loses sensitivity. A 5 minute exposure on digital may take up to 45 minutes on film for good density. When shooting stars at night with negative film, open the lens aperture up, and let it expose for longer than your best guess is. I've done exposures up in the mountains for probably 2 hours and they were still so far underexposed it was almost impossible to pull a usable print from them.






I really hope that helps, i reiterate: Buy better film (Portra 400 is very forgiving), rate the film at half the box speed, meter for the shadows. Film is beautiful, alot of digital shooters try to emulate it, but why emulate when you can go directly to the source and not have to fuss with anything after the fact?


----------



## shortpants (Jul 8, 2011)

Sw1tchFX  while I think you're response is excellent and informative in general, I  really don't think it's applying to the problem here. Underexposure is  clearly not the issue, I've shot hundreds of rolls of film pushed,  pulled, under and over exposed, and completely screwed with development  and never had anything turn out like the OPs unless it was from my light  leaking plastic Holga.


----------



## Pgeobc (Jul 8, 2011)

#1 is reciprocity failure. Not only does film need time compensation, but long exposures require color correction filters, too. When you have a 4 hour exposure, almost any little source of light, that might not otherwise be noticed, can become significant

#2 has a problem with light fall-off (vignetting), rather badly. Perhaps you have the wrong lens shade on it or maybe one too many filters. Some lenses exhibit this characteristic wide-open and even 1 stop down from max.


----------



## den9 (Jul 8, 2011)

i was using 100f, slide film

i was using a canon 1N, flagship 5k dollar camera back in the day, solid as a rock

i used no filters

i used a super wide angle lens, 17mm, i have no clue about the vignetting or why that happened, i did shoot through a bus window, just a snap shot

the first shot i think i had it at f/8 and it was a 4 hour exposure

can you tell me alittle about the filters for long exposure like that, the shot i took was up the mountains clear sky 0 pollution, only light was from the house. i even tried T64 as reccomended once and it failed at 1 min exposures.

can someone tell me alittle bit about the metering, i assume it was on spot.


i never really has problems during the day shooting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/denbeighley/4766486645/in/photostream


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 8, 2011)

In your night shot you are picking up stray light from the house and possably a street lamp causing it to fog. 

The light leak... do all your exposures have this same light leak problem? If not you don't have a light leak, it's just the stray light in that shot, a passing car or street lamp or the house lights. 

Shot #2 your lens shade is clipping the corners. 

Yeah photography is tough and takes some practice n lots of film to get it right.


----------



## den9 (Jul 9, 2011)

makes sense with the lens hood, i just cant remember if i used it or not.

as for the stray light, this was in the middle of no where, cant even get phone service. no street lights, 1 traffic light in the whole county lol. how come the light from the house would effect this though, when i see shots like this

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs27/i/2008/036/2/e/Star_trails_by_kopfgeist79.jpg


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 9, 2011)

4 hour exposure of the house lights is overexposing and fogging the film. Middle of nowhere with a house is not the middle of no where. Next time turn off the lights in the house, put them on at the last moment of your exposure and you'll see a big im[provement in your shot.  You can also "paint" in certain parts of your pic by selectively flashing it.

The obseratory shot looks as if it was staged in a few part exposure. The stars were shot using a long exposure, then the lights of the buildings were flashed later as was the grounds in the background.

Yuor light leak is a weird one, maybe you used a flash light to see the camera at one point?

Try it again n have fun flashing in parts of your scene.


----------



## Pgeobc (Jul 9, 2011)

"can you tell me alittle about the filters for long exposure like that, ..."

Well, you will have to go to the manufacturer of the film and get their recommendations for that specific film. Kodak has, in the past, often published recommendations; I'm assuming that Fuji, et al., would too. Kodak even made recommendations that distinguished which films were recommended for long exposures and those that were not. Films vary considerably in their tolerance to this phenomenon. Remember, too, that one will have to add time for the added filters AND time for the reciprocity failure.


----------



## den9 (Jul 9, 2011)

ill look into that, my next film im using will be fuji velvia 50, any experience or reccomendations with filters?

would film fail the same was if you do ten 20 seconds exposures, instead of 200 seconds in one shot?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 9, 2011)

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf

Refer to Long Exposure Compensation

Velvia 50 is an excellent film ... when I ran out of Kodachrome 25 I switched to Velvia.
Lovely saturation. Great colours. 
I always under-exposed by about 1/3 stop.
The only filter I ever use is a PL.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 9, 2011)

Velvia 50 is gorgeous film in the daytime, but I've heard it's awful with reciprocity failure, I wouldn't shoot it at night. Velvia 50 is also REALLY contrasty and if you're having a lab scan it on a Frontier or Noritsu, you can have problems with clipped highlights and blocked shadows unless the lighting is really flat. 

Negative film in my experience scans much easier in minilabs than slide film. Those scanners can pull more out of the negative, especially when color needs to be corrected for. For slide film, Provia 100 has good reciprocity characteristics, no adjustment needed until you're past 10 seconds, Ektar 100 and Portra 400 are both good with longer exposures, Ektar has this really old school look that i'm not a fan of and will really exaggerate color. Portra will be more neutral. I shot this last week on the ektar (nasty color):







In the B&W films, Acros 100 is the best for reciprocity.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2011)

It's B&W, but you should try some Fuji Acros 100.  Probably the best film there is when it comes to reciprocity...


----------



## den9 (Jul 10, 2011)

i will try that black out white film out, maybe it will be better for star trails.

im pretty dissapointed to hear veliva 50 is bad with reciprocity failure, i shoot night scenes 80 percent of the time. they also use a noritsu scanner where i send my film.

would taking multiple short exposures prevent failure? also any recommendations on filters? i heard 81A is a good filter? any examples or comments on that?


edit



*Fuji Velvia 50*
Up to 1 second - No exposure compensation required
From 4 seconds - +1/3 and 5M colour compensation filter
From 8 seconds - +1/2 and 7.5M colour compensation filter
From 16 seconds - +2/3 and 10M colour compensation filter
From 32 seconds - +1 and 12.5M colour compensation filter
Above 64 seconds - not recommended


what exactly are these filter numbers, i tried searching with no luck


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 10, 2011)

den9 said:


> i will try that black out white film out, maybe it will be better for star trails.
> 
> im pretty dissapointed to hear veliva 50 is bad with reciprocity failure, i shoot night scenes 80 percent of the time. they also use a noritsu scanner where i send my film.
> 
> ...


 
That filter is a tungsten to daylight color balance filter.... it cools, not warms the image.  It will make the lights in the house whiter.


----------



## den9 (Jul 10, 2011)

i cant seem to find these filters, are there other names for them besides 5m, 7.5m etc

i think im going to try some acros 100


----------



## Pgeobc (Jul 10, 2011)

It has been a long time since I got into color correction and I try mostly to avoid it. The filters recommended will be CC or color compensating filters and come in y=yellow, m=magenta, and c=cyan, IIRC. The value, or strength, is given by the number and the numbers are additive. The code for these things will look something like "CC5M" and means Color Compensating, decamired value of 5, and Magenta in color. You will need to go to a pro outfit like Calumet or The Filter Connection and have them special order what you want. Better you should use B&W film.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 10, 2011)

12 magenta is alot. Try color negative film, slide films have never been good for night time exposures. Buy a roll of Portra 400, rate it at 200, and expose for longer than usual and you should get better results. Not to mention, color negative is cheaper than slide, or B&W to process.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 10, 2011)

Just look up WRATTAN FILTERS and you'll get this chart explaining em......

Wratten number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correction... it is a warming filter. I once used it to shoot tungstin lights to make em look cooler on daylight film. Still stumped on th e warming thing.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Not to mention, color negative is cheaper than slide, or B&W to process.


Not true if you do it yourself - which you should be doing if you shoot a lot of film.  It's really very easy...

Color (C-41 or E-6) isn't even that hard.  A little more expensive than B&W (the chems cost more), but still much cheaper than sending it out.  PM me if you want more information on that...

The ONLY "hard" part about color is temperature control, and that isn't really that hard if you have a water heater (I'm talking about the big one that heats your tap water - not some special thing just for film).


The most 'high tech' thing you need to develop color film is a thermometer.


I will admit it - developing color film sounded scary before I did it...  Now that I've done it, it's so easy that I don't even know what I was worried about.

The hardest part is waiting for the chemicals to get to the right temperature...


BTW - if you shoot B&W, you really should be doing it yourself...  There are so many different film/developer combinations that DO affect the end result...  Why leave that up to a lab that likely processes _everything_ in D-76 (because it is like a general purpose developer that will generally give OK results for any film)?


----------



## den9 (Jul 10, 2011)

when you develop black and white film i understand a typical scanner doesnt give the same results as printing the pictures. do you usually print all 36 to see which ones you want to keep? it seems like a lengthy and expensive process.

i reallllly want to learn how to develop and print, i hope to take a class at a community college


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2011)

You'll want a film scanner.  Not the same as printing, but comparable to displaying digital photos on the computer.  (By scanning, you're basically converting it to digital)

I only scan the 'keepers'.  Figure anywhere from $150 to $1000 for a film scanner - depending on which model you get.


Developing is easy, and you don't even need a darkroom.  All of the steps that must be done in the dark can be done in a changing bag.  Printing - yeah, you need a darkroom for that.  (Or a bathroom that you can make light-tight.)  The initial investment (tank, reels, bottles, etc) will maybe be around $150 or less.  The first batch of chems will be about $40.  That will be good for a hundred or so rolls (B&W)...

For $200, you can have everything you need (other than a scanner) - chemicals included.  Less if you are a frugal shopper...


----------



## den9 (Jul 11, 2011)

isnt the whole point of black and white film to print it on special paper? doesnt bw film not scan well?

sorry for all the questions i just did any of this stuff. i did watch videos and understand the developing part.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 11, 2011)

den9 said:


> would taking multiple short exposures prevent failure? also any recommendations on filters? i heard 81A is a good filter? any examples or comments on that?
> 
> 
> edit
> ...



I'll try to answer some unanswered questions.

I find that it is better to think about reciprocity failure as being more a light intensity issue rather than an exposure time issue. Star trails are a good example - the exposure time does not have much effect on the brightness of an individual trail, it only affects the length of the trail.

When film is exposed the energy in the light (in the photons) temporarily creates unstable single atoms of silver. Those single atoms can either join up with other single atoms and become stable latent image centres, or they can turn back into silver ions. (This is all very simplified) At low light levels (low light intensity at the film plane) this means that the chance of a stable latent image being formed decreases. Therefore that game of chance has to played for longer than a simple reciprocity calculation would suggest. Thinking of it this way suggests that a series of short exposures is no better than one long exposure, which is usually borne out in practice.

CC filters are available in the six primaries - the three additive primaries (red, green and blue) and the three subtractive primaries (cyan, magenta and yellow). The number represents the optical density of the filter in that particular colour. The optical density is measured in log units, so they can be added (ie a CC025M plus a CC10M makes a CC12.5M (The usual designations don't have decimal points in them, for example an 025 can be read as a 2.5). These numbers have nothing to do with decamireds, which are used for colour temperatures and colour temperature differences.

The easiest and cheapest way to experiment with them is to buy the flexible polyester (often incorrectly called 'gelatin') filters made by Lee and others. (There are real gelatin filters, which are very high quality and very expensive) If you are shooting negative film. or reversal (slide) film for scanning but not projection, you may not need the CC filters - just correct in printing or scanning. 

When shooting reversal film for documentary/journalism purposes I used to carry CC10M, CC20M and CC30M filters, but that was mainly for shooting under fluorescent light. A CC10M filter is fairly pale, by the way, and of marginal benefit. I arrived at these filters by testing with polyester filters, then bought B+W screw-in filters in the strengths that seemed worthwhile. I'm afraid that neither I nor my clients were fans of Velvia, so I have no experience with it for long exposures.

B&W film can scan very well - usually the higher the scanning resolution, the better the more the scan looks like the film.

An 81A was/is very common with daylight reversal film, used in daylight or flash. It warms the image slightly, which is felt to be preferable to the technically correct colour rendition. A colleague of mine always uses an 81A fixed behind his lens when using reversal film, even though it is always scanned before use.

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Jul 11, 2011)

thanks for the answers, do you have an answer for the film printing question, as in do you print all of them or would scanning then printing the ones you want be the way to go?


----------



## Helen B (Jul 12, 2011)

I look at the negs with a loupe, then decide which ones to scan or print. If you are just learning to 'read' negs, the scan them all at low resolution or do a contact print if you have a darkroom. (This answer refers to B&W neg film processed at home)

Best,
Helen


----------

