Weichold
Is the following assumption correct:
If a positive print looks too washed-out and the shadows aren’t defined enough – in other words, if it looks overexposed overall – then the negative must have suffered from underexposure. :unsure:
MirkoBoeddecker
Well, sort of.
Maybe. Or maybe not.
You need to look at the negative to be able to say for sure.
If the exposed leading edge (the end that was sticking out of the cassette) is a nice black and the frame numbers (which can only be used as a rough guide, as they are exposed to varying degrees depending on the manufacturer) are clearly visible, the negative is probably affected by underexposure and the film has been developed correctly.
If everything is too pale and faint detail is visible well into the deeper mid-tones/shadows, the film was probably correctly exposed but underdeveloped.
If everything is pale and the shadows are washed out right into the mid-tones, the film may have been underdeveloped and subject to underexposure.
However, if the underdevelopment is too severe, the last statement can no longer be made with certainty.
Regards,
Mirko
