Re: underexposure

[Colin McKie <colinmckie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay Bartroff wrote:
> 
> Hello everybody,
>         I thought I had my IR metering down but the last three roles of Kodak HIE
> I got back yesterday looked all underexposed by the equivalent of one or
> two f-stops.  It is possible that the guy who did the processing
> underdeveloped them but I am not sure.  Is there anything else that could
> have caused this like storing the rolls at too high a temperature (they
> were out of the freezer for eight days as I was travelling), aiport x-ray
> scanners, or less than perfect loading conditions (in an *almost*
> pitch-black closet) ?  Has anyone else had this problem?  Thanks in advance
> for any advice.
> 
> Jay Bartroff

Jay,

All the other possible disasters you mention would cause fogging, either
locally or generally. The usual way to distinguish between underexposure
and underdeveloping is to look at the frame numbers and film/batch codes
on the edges. If they are as black as normal then you have underexposed.
If they are thin like the pictures, it's underdevelopment.

This is not infallible, but it usually gives a guide to what went wrong.

Good luck, and I hope you solve the problem

Colin
-- 
Mainland Mono
Monochrome & Infra-Red
Oxford, New Zealand

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/8570
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************