Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Right! Underexposed is far more acceptable for slide film than
overexposed. I was thinking that he shot ISO 3200 film at 100, not the
opposite.
Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Henning
Wulff
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:43 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Hate to admit this...
At 10:49 AM -0600 1/10/04, Jeffery Smith wrote:
>A slide film overexposed by four stops? I'm not sure I would waste the
>money and/or chemistry.
>
>Jeffery Smith
>New Orleans, LA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Erik van
>der Meulen
>Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:23 AM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: [Leica] Hate to admit this...
>
>Dear List -
>
>I had this nice little cooking work-shop yesterday. I shot away three
>rolls of Neopan 1600 at 3200 ASA I thought. Only when I went out to get
>them processed this morning, I found that one of these rolls had
>actually been a Provia 100!
>
>My question is if there is any chance of processing this in a way to
>retrieve some sort of information on that, or would it be a complete
>waist to have it processed at all.
>
>Thanks a lot (to that Italian wine too...)
>
>--
> Erik van der Meulen <e.van.der.meulen@avondel.com>
That would be five stops underexposed, but your conclusion seems
correct!
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html