[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a lot of over-exposed negatives: what to do?
You're right in your terminology and the person who corrected you probably
misunderstood what you were saying. If you exposed at 320, when the speed
was "really" 400, you would have overexposed. However, regardless of the
terminology, as others have stated the difference is insignificant ,
certainly nothing that would require you to "salvage" the negatives.
----- Original Message -----
From: "shannon stoney" <sstoney@pdq.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: a lot of over-exposed negatives: what to do?
> ><< That is, I thought my film speed was 320 for alt-process as for
silver,
> >and it's
> > probably really closer to 400. >>
> >
> Dave wrote:
>
> >You are probably not using the term accurately because according to the
> >description above, you should have underexposed, rather than overexposed,
but
> >even so, the difference would not be big at all as mentioned by others.
>
> Well, when I developed for 12 minutes, the highlights had a density of
> about 1.8 (in zone VII) and the shadow areas (zone III) had a density of
> about 0.5. So maybe I was overexposing more than a third of a stop. Or,
> maybe this is not out of the range of acceptable density for zone III
> shadows?
>
> But I am confused about what you mean when you say I should have
> underexposed, because when I change my film speed on the meter from 320 to
> say 400, the meter indicates less exposure. For example, if my film speed
> is 320, it might tell me to set the shutter at f/16 for a one second
> exposure, but if my film speed is say 600, it tells me to put it at f/22.
> So, if I thought my film speed was 320 and it was really 600, then I
> overexposed.
>
> --shannon
>
>