Hockey

[photo101]

well, I got back my second roll of film and I am not sure why they came back "ghosted" for lack of a better term. Not sure what would have caused this as both rolls of film were shot under the same conditions, etc.

Fuji ISO 800 used in both.

Any ideas?

Jared

[Mike T]

Have you compared the negatives to see if they look the same, maybe the second roll was printed wrong.

Mike

[h2oskierc]

well, I got back my second roll of film and I am not sure why they came back "ghosted" for lack of a better term. Not sure what would have caused this as both rolls of film were shot under the same conditions, etc.

Fuji ISO 800 used in both.

Any ideas?

Jared

I've got nothing for you on that, but what exposure settings were you using? I am going to be at a local NHL game comming up, and I was thinking about finding some 1600 or 3200 speed film so I could use me 300mm lens. Do you think the shutter speeds were in the 1/300th range?

[photo101]

I used 1/250, iso800, f11 i believe

[Photo-John]

Jared-
My guess is that the first image is very underexposed. I'd say that the negative is probably "thin", meaning that there's not much detail and that frame is mostly film base. That usually results in a very flat, grainy-looking print. Take a look at the film and you'll be able to tell. A well-exposed image will have a very broad range of density in the film emulsion. A poor exposure won't have any dense areas.