I did a Boo Boo....

Took some pics of a civil war reinactment with 400 speed film....But had the camera set on 200 speed ( yes I know...next time try a camera that doesn't use a flashpan)

Seriously, did I screw the pooch or can I just let the developer know about my faux paux and let them fix it?

He may be able to push-process, but I doubt it, because the color development process is usually highly automated.

Quoted: I did a Boo Boo.... Took some pics of a civil war reinactment with 400 speed film....But had the camera set on 200 speed ( yes I know...next time try a camera that doesn't use a flashpan) Seriously, did I screw the pooch or can I just let the developer know about my faux paux and let them fix it?

You may be able to find someone who does custom processing that can fix the problem (mostly).

Otherwise, try scanning them with a good scanner and adjusting them on a computer. You can do just about anything that way and there are a lot of good programs that will get you there very easily. Picasa is one. It is free.

Quoted: He may be able to push-process, but I doubt it, because the color development process is usually highly automated.

NO no no no no.

ASA/ISO 400 speed film exposed at 200 is an OVER exposure, push processing is for UNDER exposing.  The proper correction would be to PULL process this film.  A typical development time for C-41 film is 3minutes 15 seconds.  A typical one stop pull would lower that time to 2 minutes 25 seconds.

You've overexposed your film by one stop, to correct for that it needs less development not more.

It's important to know what kind of film you shot because the recommendation will be different for each one.

C-41 process color/B&W negative film, you can skip making the correction, but if you were shooting under very contrasty lighting conditions you may want to have the correction made.  

C-41 process color negative films tolerate overexposure very well, 5-6-7 stops of overexposure and the negative may still be printable  although the end product will suffer greatly.

E-6 process transparency film the correction needs to be made.

K-14 process transparency film the correction needs to be made..

Traditional B&W films are all processed at various times depending on the film/developer combination so let your lab know what happened and they can make the correction easily.  While traditional B&W films are tolerant of overexposure it's not to as great a degree as C-41 process color negatove films are although the same advice about the lighting conditions apply.

Walmart, etc will not be able to change their processing time to make an adjustment for you, their equipment won't easily allow for it. (I can though) It's an every day thing for a professional lab though.

Quoted: Quoted: He may be able to push-process, but I doubt it, because the color development process is usually highly automated. NO no no no no. ASA/ISO 400 speed film exposed at 200 is an OVER exposure, push processing is for UNDER exposing.  The proper correction would be to PULL process this film.  A typical development time for C-41 film is 3minutes 15 seconds.  A typical one stop pull would lower that time to 2 minutes 25 seconds. You've overexposed your film by one stop, to correct for that it needs less development not more. It's important to know what kind of film you shot because the recommendation will be different for each one. C-41 process color/B&W negative film, you can skip making the correction, but if you were shooting under very contrasty lighting conditions you may want to have the correction made.   C-41 process color negative films tolerate overexposure very well, 5-6-7 stops of overexposure and the negative may still be printable  although the end product will suffer greatly. E-6 process transparency film the correction needs to be made. K-14 process transparency film the correction needs to be made.. Traditional B&W films are all processed at various times depending on the film/developer combination so let your lab know what happened and they can make the correction easily.  While traditional B&W films are tolerant of overexposure it's not to as great a degree as C-41 process color negatove films are although the same advice about the lighting conditions apply. Walmart, etc will not be able to change their processing time to make an adjustment for you, their equipment won't easily allow for it. (I can though) It's an every day thing for a professional lab though.

Send it to him!!! Thanks for the reminder btw Phil, I may need to send some prints off in the next month or two. (A X-Mas project I have been planning)

[highjack] What kind of shelf life for infrared film kept in the frige?

It's the 21st century.  Go digital.

Quoted: It's the 21st century.  Go digital.

I did, but I still like to be able to take pictures without batteries.    Call it my SHTF backup.  

Quoted: Quoted: It's the 21st century.  Go digital. I did, but I still like to be able to take pictures without batteries.    Call it my SHTF backup.

Quoted: It's the 21st century.  Go digital.

Can't use infrared film in a digital camera. If your storage unit dies, you've lost the picture, whereas film is a physical backup, and you can scan it in for a digital file. No digital medium or large format.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

[arfcom]USE BOTH.[/arfcom]

Quoted: No digital medium or large format. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. [arfcom]USE BOTH.[/arfcom]

Not true there are medium and large format digital capture backs.

Digital and film both have their strengths and weaknesses, that is correct.

Quoted: [highjack] What kind of shelf life for infrared film kept in the frige?

For Kodak B&W infrared
It generally has an expiration date of no more than a year from the time of purchase (it will be printed on the box) and as this film is supposed to be kept in refrigerated storage you'll find that date to be pretty fair.

As it ages it picks up more density across it's range, this density is most apparant at the bottom of the curve (D-Min).

If you don't process it yourself, make sure that you use a lab that has experience in the film.  The exposure/development combination is critical for this film and the lab can provide you with guidelines.

We always had problems with people bringing their film in that they thought they'd exposed correctly but when it was processed to spec it was WAY overexposed, bulletproof is the slang term best used to describe the resulting negatives, we created a tip sheet for them to use and if they followed it their future results were always much better.

Quoted: Quoted: It's the 21st century.  Go digital. Can't use infrared film in a digital camera. [arfcom]USE BOTH.[/arfcom]

That's true, but you can do infra red photography with a regular digital camera, depending on the exact make and model camera you have (some can do it better than others).

http://www.echeng.com/photo/infrared/
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
http://infrareddreams.com/
http://www.apogeephoto.com/may2003/odell52003.shtml

The short answer is that unless you have really critical work there is nothing special you need to do.  One stop overexposure on consumer color negative film will probably not produce any noticable undesirable effects.  Many overexpose color neg as a normal practice for a little higher contrast and color saturation.  I'd just have it developed and printed normally.  Only a custom / pro lab is going to be able to pull process it anyway.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the 21st century.  Go digital. Can't use infrared film in a digital camera. [arfcom]USE BOTH.[/arfcom] That's true, but you can do infra red photography with a regular digital camera, depending on the exact make and model camera you have (some can do it better than others). http://www.echeng.com/photo/infrared/ http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/ http://infrareddreams.com/ http://www.apogeephoto.com/may2003/odell52003.shtml

Recording the short infrared wavelengths is only a portion of looking like infrared film, for example the effects from the lack of an anti-halation layer would have to be added in post processing, I'm sure that there are others too.

I think somebody told me the focal length is a little off when using IR film, too.

I think I'm just gonna shoot it and get regular processing, it's way past the expiration date anyway.

Maybe try some after-dark long exposures with it mounted on a tripod & with shutter release.
Now I found information that it doesn't pick up radiated IR, but reflected, so my idea of a picture similar to a night-vision image is way off......

Yes, it's B&W, by the way.  Using a Pentax SLR (broken light meter).

Somewhere there's an IR gel filter, but at the time I didn't have the money to buy the filter holder.

Quoted: I think somebody told me the focal length is a little off when using IR film, too. I think I'm just gonna shoot it and get regular processing, it's way past the expiration date anyway. Maybe try some after-dark long exposures with it mounted on a tripod & with shutter release. Now I found information that it doesn't pick up radiated IR, but reflected, so my idea of a picture similar to a night-vision image is way off...... Yes, it's B&W, by the way.  Using a Pentax SLR (broken light meter). Somewhere there's an IR gel filter, but at the time I didn't have the money to buy the filter holder.

It's not the focal length that is off it's the focus.  The IR wavelengths focus at a different plane then the visable spectrum does.  If you look at the focusing scale on the barrel of your lense you will see an extra mark on the Depth of Field scale, that is your auxiliary infrared focusing mark, you use that to adjust your focus if needed.

You are correct that IR film does not pick up the most thermal radiation, they are far too long in wavelength for the film to record.  Something that is very hot, just short of being glowing hot (250C sticks in my head) may be recordable.

For best results you do want to use a #25 filter on the lense (for B&W that is) an 87  can be used for a different effect as they will essentially block all visable light passing only the infrared (and beyond) to the film.  I've used an 87 over a flash before to take photographs in very dark situations without anyone seeing a flash firing.