Gregory Fraser wrote: > > I estimated the 101 year old > shutter speed to be 1/30 second. However [...] The negatives are > almost solid black with only the faintest discernable detail. Let's assume your estimate was reasonable, and that you didn't stuff up with film speed, setting aperture, etc. To be as dark as that would mean quite a few stops overexposure (with normal film and development) Let's assume it's more than 4 stops (4 stops overexposure would take your mid-tones up to where all but the brightest (specular) highlights would normally be. You'd (all other things being equal) expect to see shadow detail very well exposed. Now, that would mean that the shutter was open for more than 1/2 sec or your aperture failed to stop down. Either is possible (as is a combination). The easy way to tell is to look closely at the neg with a loupe. If the image you see is very streaky, but otherwise sharp (i.e. the streaks are sharp) then the problem is shutter speed. If there is little evidence of motion blur, but whatever foreground and/or background features you can identify are out of focus, then the problem is aperture. > actually seeing the negatives which I didn't even bother fixing. Go and fix them this instant! Seriously, if you are curious then the negs will tell you quite a bit. Also, if they're not fixed then they *will* look much darker (but I expect you know this). > 2. While taking these photos I was only wearing one black sock and a lime > green thong. Was I overexposed? The black sock is probably not an issue, unless the thong to which you refer is an item of footwear. In this case, the exact placement of the sock can certainly change the legal definition of exposure, even if the absolute degree of exposure is relatively unchanged. Steve
