Pulling Overexposed Images

[bootsydan]

Hi

I have a few already processed shots which are overexposed and I am considering pulling them in a re-process. Is this advisable? I've never had film pushed/pulled before and I've no idea if it works in a re-process.

I should note I didn't overexpose by incorrectly setting the ASA, I just fluffed the exposure. You can see with some low quality scans (which still accurately match the exposure on the negatives) below.

1)

2)



Would also be interested to learn how many stops overexposed you think these are? And whether those blown highlights would be retrievable in Photoshop without re-processing. (I currently don't own photoshop, or any other decent editing software).

Any help is much appreciated.

[bootsydan]

Also, to see the images larger, and a few other examples, click here:

1) http://timlutherborrow.files.wordpre.../london7-2.jpg

2) http://timlutherborrow.files.wordpre...4/scan0049.jpg

3) http://timlutherborrow.files.wordpre...4/scan0024.jpg

4) http://timlutherborrow.files.wordpre...4/scan0020.jpg

5) http://timlutherborrow.files.wordpre...04/jasper3.jpg

[wfooshee]

Well, you can't "re-process," all you can do is re-print or re-scan. The negatives are developed, and compensation for exposure (usually pushing, for higher than rated ISO) is done during development.

Of course, you can't compensate for what you didn't know was there in the first place. Nor can you do part of the roll or just a few frames.

OTOH, did you have these printed, or just get the negatives? What are you scanning them with? This may be a scanning problem and not a film problem, unless the negatives are obviously darker than you're used to seeing.

I was able to do this fairly quickly in Photoshop, using the Levels adjustment to reduce white level, and then Color Balance to add some blue and reduce yellow..... But highlights are not going to come back from a JPG. It wold have to be attempted in a new scan. Basically all you'd be able to repair in the JPGs is some color adjustment and shift highlight/shadow levels.



I use Vuescan software on my Nikon film scanner, and it can produce RAW files in DNG format, which gives Photoshop a little more to play with. That's why I asked how they're being scanned.

[bootsydan]

Well, you can't "re-process," all you can do is re-print or re-scan. The negatives are developed, and compensation for exposure (usually pushing, for higher than rated ISO) is done during development.

OTOH, did you have these printed, or just get the negatives? What are you scanning them with? This may be a scanning problem and not a film problem, unless the negatives are obviously darker than you're used to seeing.

I had them printed a few years ago, however I am definitely going to have them rescanned now, so long as I think they can be saved. I've had a close look at the negatives again, and it seems there is a tiny blow out (black patch) on the clock of that Big Ben, however it is also possible that the place I had them printed (which were a cheap place) didn't do a completely accurate job, and a more professional place might be kinder to them.

I've since spoken to the professional place, who do advertise a re-process (1/2 to a full stop), however it seemed inadvisable, so I think I might just go with the re-scan and hope those highlights aren't as noticeable as what was printed.

Looking at negatives is at this stage a little confusing to me. What seems like a full black sky on one negative came out as a perfectly blue sky on the print, but on another occasion of what seems like the same black sky on the negative came out as a blown sky on the print. Either I'm not yet experienced enough at noticing the subtle differences of negatives, or the place I had the prints done wasn't accurate.

At least it's pretty much been confirmed, by that professional place and now by you, that a re-process is either not done or is not a good idea if it can be done.

Thanks very much for your reply.

[Photo-John]

Looking at negatives is at this stage a little confusing to me. What seems like a full black sky on one negative came out as a perfectly blue sky on the print, but on another occasion of what seems like the same black sky on the negative came out as a blown sky on the print. Either I'm not yet experienced enough at noticing the subtle differences of negatives, or the place I had the prints done wasn't accurate.

I worked in labs for a long time and I don't remember anything about re-processing film. It could be I've forgotten because it was so long ago. But it doesn't seem likely to me. I expect a better print is possible, though. What kind of lab did you have print them? If you're interested in someone else evaluating the negs, you could try doing a flatbed scan and then post that here.

[samanada]

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

[speeddome]

Thank you very much for sharing =)

[roberthenrya]

good to know

[Sammy388]

Seriously thank you! I tend to take quite a few photo on the overexposed side...