before I got my light leak in my XA2 fixed, this is the result of flash at night:

then fixed in photoshop

This was self developed, pushed to 800.

After I got my light leak fixed, I shot some 400 speed film at 800, at night, with flash. This was developed at a shop.

Here is the result:

then fixed:

As you can see the flash is a lot less powerful in the 2nd one. Anyone know why this could be?

Could it be the camera after the lightleak fix? It's the same flash.

Could it be the developing? It was pushed from 400 to 800 but with same c41 400 developing time.

Could it be something else?

Any help appreciated.

  • 3
    I don't see what is supposed to be wrong in these pictures, and no evidence of a light leak. The flash looks too narrow angle for the lens, you have a lot of dust on your negatives, and of course the big problem is not pointing the camera at something anyone would want to look at later. However, there is nothing indicating equipment problems here. The issue is not with your camera, but what's behind it. – Olin Lathrop Dec 6 '15 at 13:49
  • The light leak was fixed, I wasn't posting to ask if there was one. Thanks for the help, but I chose any old image to give an example and not to show "what's behind it". – user46685 Dec 7 '15 at 3:08
  • Since the light leak appears to be irrelevant, can I suggest that you edit to remove it from the question. – James Snell Dec 7 '15 at 13:33
  • Not really, as it used to have a light leak, and it then got fixed at a shop. – user46685 Dec 8 '15 at 13:14

I shot some 400 speed film at 800

If by this you mean that you loaded your camera with ISO 400 film but set the light meter to ISO 800, then you are already underexposing by one full stop.

The lighter image is much noisier, possibly from trying to compensate for the underexposure:

It was pushed from 400 to 800 but with same c41 400 developing time.

I will admit I'm not really familiar with film development procedures, but any time you take an underexposed shot and then push the exposure later, you are making even the slightest noise far more visible.

I agree with what Olin Lathrop wrote in a comment to the question: I can't see any evidence of equipment issues in the pictures you have posted. They look pretty much like I'd expect pushed underexposed negatives to look.

If the pictures you posted don't in your opinion illustrate the problem, then you should take care to find some that do and edit your question to make the before/after distinction more clear.

| improve this answer | |
  • Yeah thanks I understand it was underexposed but not overdeveloped. – user46685 Dec 8 '15 at 13:15

If I understand it correct, you exposed for ISO 800 but developed for ISO 400? Then the film is not pushed, but just underexposed.
But this new image was devloped at a shop, so they should have gotten it right, however we will never know about that. Try again yourself. How do you meter your light and flash? Maybe the flash output is just too low. I also don't understand what your 'fixed' means. But if you, starting at the original scan, correct the exposure +1 stop everything should be fine (assuming the shop developed for ISO 400). Except from the problems which were already pointed out, mainly the huge fallof due to the flash vs. lens angle.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.