From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Postprocessing help!
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:58:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Sep30.215810.5883
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Sorry, but I think that's all she wrote...

Maybe, (if you're feeling adventurous or desperate) you'll be able to
go to one of those custom do-it-yourself enlarging machines to try to
print out one of the bright spots on the film (singer on stage?).
Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath or try it if they're going to
charge alot for a failed attempt.

A couple of things can be salvaged, ie. some knowledge, kinda sorta. 
Although I glanced through the FAQ a couple of weeks ago, I don't
remember if all of this stuff is covered there.  So there's another
source.

To keep things simple, let's only talk about print film like Kodak Gold
200. The film in the camera records a latent image which is developed
into the "negative" image that you can physically observe on the film
(now referred to as the negatives).  The negatives are treated in such
a way that they are no longer light sensitive so that your original
image doesn't fade away so to speak.  The negatives can then be
projected onto light-sensitive paper (which also records a negative
image, leading to a overall positive image -- it's easier to think of
B&W than color) which is processed to become non-light sensitive,
semi-permanent, etc.  If you underexpose a picture, a dimmer latent
image is recorded, and this ends up as a more transparent negative
(called a "thin" neg).  In the extreme case, the picture is so
underexposed, that the negative has nothing on it, and so the resultant
print is black.  The sensitivity of the film, ie how well-rendered the
original latent image is, for a given exposure is shown by the film
speed (ie 200).  400 speed is twice as sensitive or "fast" as 200, 1600
is 4X, etc.

So, if that part makes sense, you can see the two places that you might
be able to rescue underexposed pics:

1) They can be "pushed" in the negative developing stage, ie. extra
processing is done to try to recover/enhance as much of the latent
image as possible. Essentially, the film is processed under the
assumption that you (intentionally) exposed the film as if it were
faster than rated (ie to a smaller amount of light).  Sounds promising
in this case, right.  But, TANSTAAFL, so you get increased graininess
and odd color balance and contrasts (which is sometimes good, but
usually undesirable).  Also, you have to know/guess how underexposed
you pics really are.  Pushing processing is usually only done by a
factor of 4X, and success depends on the film type and speed.  Pushing
your 200 film to 1600 was probably not possible to do successfully. 
And I'm not sure that the light level was such that apparently 8X more
light hitting the film would have had an appreciable effect.  But some
hope is better than none.  Unfortunately for you, your film has already
been developed, and it's not possible to recover that latent image (the
portion not recorded on the negative) once developing has been
completed (except in hi-tech spy thrillers, so who knows ;-) ).

2) The other thing to do, if enough density exists on the neg is to try
to compensate in the printing process.  Usually this can be done for up
to around 2 stops (ie 1/4 the ideal amount of light) of underexposure
to get a passable final image (same prob's as above).

So if you had been lucky and willing to gamble some bucks, you could
have told the photo place to push the film to 1600 and hoped the person
on the developing machine had the patience to try to salvage the negs
during printing.

In low light situations, alot of people try to shoot with film rated
at/pushed to 1600 or 3200 or higher, and use "fast" lens and long
shutter speeds.  You didn't give too many details on your cheap
automatic, so I assume you don't really want to know if it was remotely
possible to get decent pics with that camera.  Also, cheap flashes
aren't particular effective beyond 15 feet, so if you tried (or noticed
others) all you're doing is wasting battery juice and film, unless you
are interested in the back of the head of the person in front of you. 
It's personally amusing to me to watch people take pics of large
national landmarks and objects hundreds of feet away with little dinky
flashes, but I digress...

Hope this was helpful, and better luck next time.

JT

_____
Yup, live and don't learn, that's us.  "Calvin & Hobbes"