Any idea why the film turn out like this?

[foreverlovex]

This is my a pic from my first roll of film on my first rangefinder (Leica M3). The film has expired in Nov 07 and is stored in room temperature.

Just wondering the pic turns out like this becoz it has expired and hence chemical change or? The film is developed by a photolab.

 

[sweat100]

Is your negative under exposed? Usually when it is underexposed, the scanner will up the gain, resulting this type of image.

 

[foreverlovex]

Is your negative under exposed? Usually when it is underexposed, the scanner will up the gain, resulting this type of image.

oh....i not too sure. but it seems to happen for all the pictures (at least the 10 i have scanned so far).

But what about the colour? what cause the colour to run off. The film used is konica centuria.

Another example.

 

[sweat100]

Have a look at the negative, does it looks very thin? A thin negative dont have much image, mainly is just the film base colour. The scan seems very strange.

 

[sweat100]

By the way, what you used to scan the negative?

 

[foreverlovex]

By the way, what you used to scan the negative?

canonscan 4400f. The negative looks very thin and hard to see the image as well. But what the reason for that?

Ok with other negatives not from this film.

 

[sweat100]

If the negative too thin, it means that the exposure not right. Likely severely under exposed. Maybe you metered wrongly.
The reason why it become so noisy is because the scanner's algorithm was not able to extract information out of the negative. Thus it will up its gain by a lot to make up the image. That is why you see the ultra noisy image. Since the negative is thin, it also cannot pick up the correct colour information that well, thus you get strange colour cast.

I dont think it is the film at all. What you can do is to make sure the exposure (aperture and shutter) is correct before you click the shutter. Hopefully your next roll comes out good.

 

[foreverlovex]

oh.....ok.

will try another roll. This time round i will try to overexpose it bah.

It is weird that every shot for the previous roll of film.....all underexpose. You can't hardly see the image on the film under a normal light. When I receive the film I thought there is nothing on it.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[brian]

oh.....ok.

will try another roll. This time round i will try to overexpose it bah.

It is weird that every shot for the previous roll of film.....all underexpose. You can't hardly see the image on the film under a normal light. When I receive the film I thought there is nothing on it.

Thanks for the explanation

I dont know what you used to meter your shots, but you shouldn't have to "overexpose it". If you're using your brain to meter, then its time to bite the bullet and use a proper light meter, or use a digital camera with the same ISO setting as your film and note the aperture and shutter speed.

Old mechanical Leicas that has not been serviced for a long long time tend to have slow shutter speeds that is longer than normal (not faster as far as I know). So I doubt that is the problem you're facing here.

 

[foreverlovex]

I dont know what you used to meter your shots, but you shouldn't have to "overexpose it". If you're using your brain to meter, then its time to bite the bullet and use a proper light meter, or use a digital camera with the same ISO setting as your film and note the aperture and shutter speed.

Old mechanical Leicas that has not been serviced for a long long time tend to have slow shutter speeds that is longer than normal (not faster as far as I know). So I doubt that is the problem you're facing here.

oh.....i using a voigtlander meter VC II to meter.

just tried using my dslr to meter at the same object and compare the meter speed. The VC II meter reading is the same as my dslr.

hmm....just wondering the likelihood of underexposing every shot......

 

[sweat100]

I think you have a look at your shutter to see if it "sounds" correct at the speed and also see if the aperture diaphragm is stuck giving you the smallest aperture all the time.

 

[foreverlovex]

I think you have a look at your shutter to see if it "sounds" correct at the speed and also see if the aperture diaphragm is stuck giving you the smallest aperture all the time.

The aperture diaphragm moves accordingly to the size of the aperture. The shutter speed "sounds" correct...if anything, it would be like what Brian mentioned: slower shutter speed.

Think the answer may be clearer after my 2nd roll. This time BnW film before expiry.

 

[enivre]

It's a very long shot, but did you happen to load the film the wrong way?

I ask because I happened to do that recently and although there was an image on the negs, everything looked weird and underexposed.

Not sure if this was it but who knows... :dunno:

 

[foreverlovex]

It's a very long shot, but did you happen to load the film the wrong way?

I ask because I happened to do that recently and although there was an image on the negs, everything looked weird and underexposed.

Not sure if this was it but who knows... :dunno:

load the film the wrong way. Not too sure about that.

What you mean by the wrong way?

 

[enivre]

load the film the wrong way. Not too sure about that.

What you mean by the wrong way?

Face down become face up. In some cameras that's a possibility...

 

[Rangefinder_fan]

How does one load a 35mm film cart the 'wrong way'? I would imagine that most cameras would not allow you to shut the film back if you had managed to insert it incorrectly. Unless this is a bulk roll and you've rolled it wrongly but again that seems like a remote possibility.
I agree with previous posters about the possible causes - a likey incorrect exposure and the scanner not being set up properly. The green cast looks like the scanner is not doing a good job of guessing the exposure. Try closing the scan window (the crop marks that tell your scanner which area to scan) to within the image, ie, crop off the neg edges. It may turn out better. The v700 that I use sometimes gets this colour cast issue as well.

 

[foreverlovex]

the negative itself looks like it is "empty". it is very difficult to pick out the pictures on the negative.

Is that normal? perhaps due to underexpose?

i not using bulk roll film.

 

[Rangefinder_fan]

Oh. Underexposed loh. All the more reason why your scanner is giving you these funny casts; it cant tell where the frame starts and ends. So the film spacing gets 'read' as a part of the image and the scanner tries to guess the correct tones for the 'frame'.
Why dont you just get them printed? Sometimes underexposed negs can print alright, other times there just isnt enough image information on it.

 

[enivre]

How does one load a 35mm film cart the 'wrong way'?

Like I said, long shot, but a possibility nonetheless.. happened to me.

 

[Rangefinder_fan]

Like I said, long shot, but a possibility nonetheless.. happened to me.

The colours that turned out must have been really interesting. Someone on cs tried it before I think. Thought the results were pretty cool.