Mar. 16th, 2010

The Hell

Mar. 16th, 2010 10:07 am
madamkerrington: (Crimson)
I don't know what the hell is wrong that my negatives keep turning out like shit. I don't even know if it's my fault or if there's something wrong with the camera.

I mean, the last roll I shot, I was using the exposure time the meter was telling me for the shots I was taking with f16. Then I was clicking down f-stops and increasing the time by the same increments, and taking the same picture with those settings, despite the meter telling me it was too much light.

And when I developed the negatives, the negatives the meter told me were exposed correctly were very underexposed, and the ones the meter told me were overexposed were correctly exposed. What the shit?

The roll before that, I took all the pictures correctly metered. Switching back and forth between f22 and f3.5. And half of them turned out, and half of them didn't. I don't know which ones. I think it was the f3.5 ones that turned out correctly.

But, what the fuck? So the meter was wrong 100% of the time on my latest roll, and 50% of the time on the one before that? I just put a new battery in that thing. This is totally irritating. I've developed two rolls so far, and so far have not been able to develop a SINGLE pair of correctly exposed negatives of the same picture with different f-stops. Could the teacher have assigned a more impossible assignment?

I just don't understand why so many of my negatives turn out completely fucking underexposed when the meter says I'm using the correct settings. I can understand if there's some giant, bright-ass sky in the picture that is going to throw off the meter, but in the majority of the underexposed negatives there's no sky at all.

Is the problem possibly that it's too light out to use 400 speed film and I should be using 100 instead? Wouldn't the meter compensate for that? Isn't that why there is a setting on the camera to select what speed film you're using? If the camera treats all speeds of film the same, why have a setting for it?


And the pictures I took in high school, and the pictures I took at my aunt's over the summer were all correctly exposed. Under- and overexposure pretty much didn't exist. I think it must have been because I think I had the camera automatically select the correct aperture. Why can I not manually set the aperture on the camera without butt-fucking my negatives? Am I supposed to completely disregard what the camera is telling me and wing the settings with some kind of superior knowledge while the camera is telling me WRONG WRONG VERY WRONG to get these negatives to turn out correctly? I'm really supposed to be able to do that in Photography 1?

Why can't I do this shit right? It is driving me up a wall. I don't know why I have an A in this class, since I clearly have no fucking idea how to use a camera.


Developing film grates on my nerves, too, though I know how to do it by now and have yet to botch a roll of film THAT way.

Profile

madamkerrington: (Default)
Madam Kerrington

October 2010

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920 212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

About

--

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags