Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, Thank you for your reply. After examining the negatives, I found out in frames that I used wide angle lens, the shot is usually underexposed, however, when I use 50mm to 90mm lenses, the exposure is perfect. I suspect it is my technic that is at fault since the white dot on the M6ttl covers a wider scope when a wide angle lens is attached vs a telephoto lens. Where should I point the camera for exposure reading? For 10 years, I am used to Nikon center weighted metering. Maybe this is the problem, my technic in getting proper exposure using the M6ttl metering. However, pictures taken with my Rollei TLR 2.8F is also underexposed on the Fuji NPH using the incident meter on my Minolta Flash Meter IV (outdoor) set at ASA 400. Again, the NPS 160 came out perfect on the Rollei. Regards, Nelson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric" <ericm@pobox.com> To: <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:31 PM Subject: [Leica] Re: Fuji NPH 400 trouble > Nelson: > >> The NPH is giving me headache, almost all my prints came out >> underexposed (I think). color is lifeless and prints are generally >> grainy. Tried shooting at asa 320 but still prints came out lousy. I >> don't know if it is the lab or the film I bought is defective. Should >> I set it at asa 250? > > I'd start off by looking at the negatives to make sure they look fine. > > Here's a recent one I did. Exposed at 400 as determined by a hand held > incidence meter. The batteries in my M6 went dead, and it was quicker to > grab the hand held meter than to find new batteries. :) > > http://canid.com/current/making_christmas_cookies_16.html > > My only complaint is I don't develop C41 myself. I don't necessarily > clean > all the dust off the scans until I decide whether I'm going to keep them > or > not. So there are a few dust spots on this one. > > The largest print I've made from NPH 400 is 8x12, and it wasn't what I > consider to be grainy. Not as fine grained as Neopan 400, but better than > Neopan 1600. > > If your negatives look like you exposed them well, I'd take them back to > the > lab and ask for reprints. > > -- > Eric > http://canid.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information