#exposure

I misread the meter and overexposed by one stop. I shot a 135 roll of Kodak Tri‑X 400 on a 35mm SLR while documenting a Neolithic pottery shard. The meter read 1/200 at 400, but I set the shutter to 1/125 by mistake. After developing in D‑76 for 5:30 minutes, the print shows excessive grain and washed‑out contrast, with iron‑oxide stains faint. I tried: re‑checked the meter, reduced dev to 4:45, printed with 0.8 stop negative, and used 1.1 stop contrast filter. Still no improvement. Added: the meter was on 200, but I thought it was on 400, so the shutter was too slow.

Went out with my 35mm for a quick shoot, set the meter to ISO 400 because that was the box speed The sun was blazing, I dialed in 1/500 and felt good. Got home, loaded the roll, and the first few frames are practically black. Turns out I forgot to pull the film leader out enough and the whole thing slid back when I closed the back – the whole roll got an extra half‑exposure at the start. Now I'm stuck with a half‑finished roll that looks like a night sky. Anyone else had that sneaky slip-up? Any tips to catch it before you shoot, or is there some way to salvage half‑exposed frames?

I've been shooting the same 24‑70mm f/2.8 on a full‑frame 45‑MP camera for years and finally decided to test the hype around ND filters. I set the ISO to 1600, used a 0.9‑stop ND, and compared the RAW files with and without the filter. The histogram shows a clear compression of the shadows, and the highlight roll‑off is noticeably harsher. Even though the filter claims neutral density, the extra glass introduces micro‑refractions that the sensor's high‑resolution Bayer array amplifies, effectively reducing the usable dynamic range by about 2‑3 EV.

What makes this more interesting is that the in‑camera noise reduction algorithms can't compensate for the extra scatter, so the final JPEG looks flat, and the RAW still shows increased noise in the shadow detail. I've tried brand‑name filters, variable ND sliders, and even the cheap screw‑on types – all of them produce the same loss, just at different magnitudes.

Bottom line: if you're shooting at high ISO for low‑light or street work, ditch the ND. Use a faster lens or adjust your aperture and shutter speed instead. Anyone still swearing by ND filters for creative exposure control should reconsider the trade‑off they're making with image quality.

Thoughts? Have you measured similar dynamic range drops, or do you think this is just anecdotal?