Some of you may remember me mentioning that I had a roll of Ilford Delta 100 in my camera. First time using it. When I got the roll back I wanted to cry.... Somehow half-way thru the roll I must have accidentally changed the ISO of the film....I always check my film when I first put it in to make sure it's correct. When putting in a new roll after finishing this roll I noticed that the ISO was set to 6400...I thought to myself "hmmm....how did that happen?" So in essence I pushed half of my roll of Delta 100 as 6400 of course it wasn't processed properly...either way I would have lost images, but look at the mess....... :~( And I was so excited about the tree images...those were at the end of the roll...... I don't know how I did it, but from now on I'm keeping my eye on those controls and double checking periodically.... Here's the good image.....

Here's the very next image on the roll.......

And here's one of the one's that made me want to cry.....cause these had lots of potential to be great photos......

Michelle - I feel your pain (sympathetic, non-pervy hug here). I was shooting at the Seattle Museum of Flight last year when I had to change rolls while outside. It started to rain and I ran for cover. I quickly loaded a new roll and headed out as the little drizzle subsided. On my way back to my car, I noticed an old rusty Spitfire - that they must have been taking into their restoration shop - just sitting in a side parking lot. I had total access to it and got some great shots. It wasn't until I dropped my film off that I realized I had one less roll of exposed film and one more roll of unexposed film than I should have. That's when I realized that in my rush to get out of the rain, I mixed up my exposed and unexposed roll of film and loaded a shot roll back into the camera (at the time, had it set to leave the film tongue out on rewind). 18 out of 24 frames were double exposed. Went back and the Spitfire was gone. :( -=>Donald

During Thursday's snow here in Nashville while stuck in traffic I was just shooting whatever out of the car, trafficcshot here and there, people on the side of the road, found some snowmen folks had made downtown, people just out and about trying to make the best of an ugly situation. shot about 70 pictures on the digi, got home, put the smart card in the reader and guess what, it wouldn't read it. put it back in the camera and there were my shots on the card. put it back in the card reader, no pics available, had to reformat the card and lost every shot....oh the pain, the pain....so I feel your pain...

ja, Did your camera come with a USB or Seriel connection to the camera? If the camera could see the images you should have been able to pull them striaght from the camera then after you had them format the card. Magick Mcihael

she shot it on Delta film mistah magick

incidently, this happened to me once. Not sure if you did yer own developing, dont think ya did, but when it happened to me, I guessed where i messed up on the roll when unloading it, cut it in half, and wasn't too far off.

Wow! Six stops underexposed! [Maybe more, depending on what zone you set the snow at.] And still, #3 has sort of a neat, bleak, wintery feel to it. This does say something about the dynamic range of this film! [Still, see why you are upset. Bet #3 would have been fantastic if exposed correctly.] :-( You 'prolly did not bother cleaning off the dust real well, (and your version of digital ICE wouldn't work with conventional silver B&W). I know it's off topic, but those scratches worry me... It would be interesting to clean the negative, and try to get as good a scan as possible out of #3, then tweek in Photoshop. Fraid it's never going to be fantastic, but would be a good learning exercise... In chemical darkroom, there is a solution called "intensifier" you can soak greatly underexposed negatives in. I've never found it to work real well, but it does find any traces of silver at all, and builds up some density. It does not need darkness, but is pretty poisonous, so take care. Again, not going to be fantastic, but may be a learning experience for the bag of tricks... [In the other direction, greatly overexposed negatives can sometimes be rescued with a solution called "Farmer's reducer", (nothing at all related to vegetables or weight reduction).] These chemical techniques were developed back in the olden-days, before digital.

I found some links on intensifier. Not for the faint of heart, (but then, didn't you do dental technician type stuff in a prior life, so maybe are comfortable with chemistry?). Maybe Alpha has some clues? I'd just try to get the best scan possible first. Donald --any suggestions? http://www.photoformulary.com/ http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mukluk/misc.html#anchor1 http://www.geocities.com/fmahbub/vmatter/tech-formulas.htm http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/2002/jun02/0108.htm

michelle, try solarizing some prints of the last two, and any other "phucked" negatives... the dynamics in those pics along with the strange exposure might make for some interesting effects if you try a few dif solarizing exposures. I wouldnt trust a PS filter for it tho, try darkroom style if ya can.

Misha - I've looked at that last photo a dozen times now trying to figure out how she could salvage something out of it. Unless taking an "artistic" route like Slynky suggests, I don't know what else you could do. I mean, -6 stops...yeesh! There is almost no shadow detail what-so-ever in this. What you may be able to do is to clean it up and then edit it to look like a night shot. -=>Donald

Yea...took a closer look. Maybe if you could get the boys at NASA to run the negative through their fuzzy logic image reconstruction software they use for deepspace telescope images, you might get it all back. :) Was fun playing with it though, could make an interesting night shot. Michelle - hope you don't mind my playing with the image and posting it. Any chance you can go back and take that shot again? -=>Donald

i just realized... you mustah breifly thought that iso 100 film was strangely versatile ... ya didn't notice you were taking shots a 1/125 or so when it shoulda been more like 1/15? just a random thought at 2am is all... heh heh

@ Slynky I don't know what the ph*ck I was thinking......smacks head again for good measure @ Misha thanks for those links! Your right I didn't bother cleaning anything and that is a really low res scan didn't think it was worth it...and yes dear I used to take x-rays and developed them, kinda the same thing isn't it? @ Donald.....OMG!! that looks awesome, and yes I can go back the location is less than a minute away (literally), just have to wait for more snow and 3PM sun.

I feel for ya, girl. I committed the same mistake myself. Those could've been real wikked pics. I like what Donald did, too! (*

Wow Donald! Ya, I don't think much can be done from the posted scan. [But you did a wonderful job, given that.] What I'm wondering is, if 'Chelle (first cleans the negative really well), and then goes back and does another scan, adjusting the scanner levels to get as much detail as possible, can one then try the NASA Photoshop magic? The result is likely not going to be great. Six stops! But should be very interesting...

awww Michelle ~hugs~ (& Donald & jacoggins) There has to be a heaven for all those great images that were lost :( Donald did do a pretty good job there! :) there's some ray of hope (I use to take x-rays & develop them too- I think we were one of the few Dr. offices left in the country that still use diptanks...TG for FixOff to get the spots off my uni.)

With a good scan and time, you could probably get something close. Would take some creative manipulation. For instance, because of the lack of shadow detail, I had to create some. On the closest tree on the left I cloned the texture from the lighter bark areas to the shadows. If this was one of those "I'll never be able to shoot that again" photos, I think you could get a pretty passable reconstruction from PS. Would take a few hours of work. -=>Donald