> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hodges [mailto:shodges@wantree.com.au] > > 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. I appreciate your confidence Steve and I believe I got these correct. > To be as dark as that would mean quite a few stops overexposure (with > normal film and development) > 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). In case I didn't mentin it, this shutter is a Wollensak pneumatic that has only 2 speeds - T and the mystery speed that I get when I set the shutter at 1/100. I set the aperture manually so if it was not stopped down then it was my fault. I can see me doing that on 1 or 2 shots but 4 is stretching it even for me. > 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. Well now the camera was on a tripod and there was no wind. I see no streaking and from what I can tell the focus is OK throughout. Actually the image on the ground glass is quite nice. > > 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). The negatives in question are in the garbage but it had been in fixer for 4 minutes when I checked it. I believe my processing of the negative was probably at least half my problem. Improper agitation I must admit on this, my day of shame. > > 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. After I submitted this 2 part question I thought the second part would prevent anyone taking the first part seriously. However, I have gotten very good response on the first part and very amusing response to the second part. Bobert must be very busy these days. No response from him. Greg
