| Author |
Message |
    
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 19
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 03:04 pm: | 
|
I recently acquired a 1950's (??) Balda Baldessa.
It's non-automatic and there is no focussing guide, i.e. it's all guesswork. The pictures taken at 1/125 @ F11 in bright sunshine were OK but in duller weather or darker conditions the results were poor, the best description being hazy pictures lacking definition, almost like looking through a thin mist. Can anyone add comments to this? (There does not appear to be any adjustment on the camera to account for film speed - I used ASA 200.)
Any suggestions as to where I went wrong? Whatever, it's in the cupboard for occasional use on nice, sunny days! Thanks, all. |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 13
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 08:20 am: |
|
If you're using color negative film and having it printed commercially, there's a good chance that the printer is attempting to compensate for underexposure, and when that happens the prints will often come out hazy and noisy with bad contrast. I have had this problem often with night shots in which there is a lot of black, because automatic printing machinery sees the dark areas as an exposure error and overexposes the prints badly to compensate.
Check the negatives and see if they're clear but not dense enough. If so, you may just need to give it more exposure. |
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 21
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 02:29 pm: |
|
OK, thanks for that. I have looked at the negatives and I think your explanation is probably right. The negatives themselves (the ones taken in dull conditions, that is) do appear rather underexposed,wishy-washy and ill-defined. If I use the camera again I'll try longer exposures in dull conditions.
Many thanks once again. John. |
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 22
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 01:40 am: |
|
No, I've got that the wrong way round, haven't I - the rather burnt out wishy-washy negatives are OVERexposed, aren't they. So it looks as if I compensated too much for the darker conditions and overexposed them. Can you comment, please. |
Adrian
Tinkerer
Username: Adrian
Post Number: 16
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 06:09 am: |
|
Hi John,
I had a similar problem with my Baldessa 1b (? - the one with the coupled rangefinder). Fine - very good in fact - in bright light, but in low light overexposed negatives and hazy prints. Not sure now of film, but probably 200 as that is what most off-the-shelf films seem to be nowadays if you don't ask for a specific speed.
I was using a hand-held lightmeter to get the exposures right so I suspect that what is happening is that the slower shutter speeds are getting sluggish with age, and the shutter is open for longer than advertised. I would try a 100 speed film, and/or (perhaps try one first, then the second, to avoid overcompensating) setting the shutter speed one notch faster and the aperture one notch smaller than you usually would and seeing if this helps.
Let me know if you try it how well it works (unless someone else has a better idea of course!)
Adrian |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 16
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 01:41 pm: |
|
You were right the first time. If you you were to click the shutter with the lens cap on (the ultimate underexposure) the film would be transparent, and if you pop open the back of the camera (the ultimate overexposure) it would turn black. Black becomes white on the print and vice versa. So if your negatives are lacking density, and looking thin, they're underexposed. If printed without compensation the prints would be very dark, but automated machinery will try to avoid that darkness and overexpose the prints, usually turning all the blacks to a grainy, ugly gray. |
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 23
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 04:05 pm: |
|
So, is the following correct? The film you put in the camera is basically dark in colour. When you expose it to light (i.e. take a picture) the light fixes the dark as dark on the negatives.
Upon printing,the dark shades on the negative strips comes out as light shades on the prints. (I am talking about colour film.) |
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 24
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 04:11 pm: |
|
And likewise dark areas in the actual scene bleach out the negative to opaqueness, which upon printing come out as dark shades on the print. Is that correct? |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 90
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 08:10 pm: |
|
You should use the camera in the same way as many people did when it was new, use the exposure information that is presented with the film. Given the exposure latitude of colour negative film, you should be able to get more than adequate results under the lighting conditions quoted by the manufacturer. The only way that anybody can offer proper help, is if you state the exposure data for the poor negatives.
For a clear explanation of how an image is formed on film, search Wikipedia via Google or any of the many other sites that are found. Bleaching plays no part in the production of the image on negative stock, the process is a very basic photochemical reaction. Chemical bleaching is a stage in the development of reversal/slide film - but that is another story. |
Johnlees45
Tinkerer
Username: Johnlees45
Post Number: 25
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 03:12 pm: |
|
Thanks, Glenn. I've looked at some sites and will continue looking. My use of the word "bleach" was wrong. I didn't mean it in that sense. What I meant was that, as I understand things, what is light in reality appears as dark on the negative and what is dark in reality appears as light on the negative. |
