really, really mad

[santino]

I'm really mad :evil:

got my mf roll of Fuji NPH 400 back, all pics are just crap!
underexposed and stuff, but I've exposed them correctly (it's not like I can't expose a pic properly )

what the hell went wrong?
wrong neg. processing or what.
any ideas?

 

[Jamie R]

Fuji NPH400 is better rated at ISO 320 or even 200 in my experience (I do weddings with this stuff). It's fine grained as well - beautiful neutral colours.

What went wrong? Have you checked your negatives? Usually if you stick an NPH film in a Q lab, Agfa lab or a digi-lab - anything other than a Fuji Frontier, it doesn't do too well.

I'm presuming you rated at ISO 400 and the mini-lab operators took little care in trying to compensate or attain the best for the negatives.

Don't give up - it's a great film. If you're feeling too disheartened with Fuji NPH400, then Kodak 400VC is worth a shot. Maybe you could scan the negs to show the problem?

 

[santino]

the negs. look pretty underexposed. unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to scan them, but I got the prints.
and yeah, I rated it at ISO 400 (it was my first roll of NPH 400 ).

btw. Kodak Portra is great stuff, hope it was just the mini lab that developed the negs. wrong.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Shooting 320 film at 400 should be fine, so IMO that not the problem

 

[ZacKrohn]

broken light meter maybe?

 

[santino]

light meter works pretty good, it's a Gossen Lunasix 3S (shot some rolls after the NPH and no problems occured).

 

[BernieSC]

First of all what did you shoot with the film? NPH is pretty low contrast because it is made for portraits and wedding shots.

Second does the edge markings on the film, frame no. bar code look destictive and clear or are they faint or transparent looking? Sometimes when you can barely see the edge markings or they are not distictive looking compared to the unexposed part of the film usually means the film was not properly developed or exaused developer.

Just a thought.