I really need some help! [lots of photos, all horrible]

[TheTyro]

Ok, well I am quite confused now. I changed several things for this new roll and the underexposure problem appears obsolete.

Here is what we did differently.

New film, Kodak High Definition film, 400. ( I don't know if high definition actually means anything, or if its just a marketing thing based on HD tv and bladdy blah, but it was the only other 35mm film at the cvs shop when I went.)

Set the speed on 400 to match the film.

Took pictures the way I have been doing, matching the needle thing.

Took it to a Walgreens across the street from the CVS.

Printed on glossy instead of matte.

The pictures look normal. I'm kind of sad I didn't expect them to turn out nicely, I was a little sloppy when I took the photos (went to the zoo, fast moving animals + slow and inexperienced manual camera girl= some slightly blurry animal photos)

So....many factors changed. Could it have been CVS, and not me?

 

[dxqcanada]

The under exposure was pretty severe.

Look at the negatives.

Compare the density of the images.
Do your older ones look very thin compared to the new roll you just got developed ?

There would have to be some major problem with their machinery to cause that kind of affect.

 

[TheTyro]

I just looked, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by density though.

The older film looks about the same, in terms of thin-ness. I am guessing you mean from the side and not the flat surface.

The quality of the negatives for this new roll of film are no doubt more defined, darker than the other ones, but that's the only difference, aside from the older films being Kodak 200's and this one being Kodak HD 400.

I can't imagine that they could have a problem that big with their machines and still allow us to develop them there, particularly 3 times in a row. Seems really unlikely.

But I have no idea why these pictures came out. I did everything the same as before.

 

[dxqcanada]

Yes, what I mean by density is what you describe ... the darkness of the image on the negative.

The 400 ISO film you describe have a better exposure balance ... the lighter looking negatives are "thin" meaning less exposure.

This can be caused by either the camera or by the photofinisher (using old chemicals) ... or the film is 30 years old.