 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / May 2005Are these pics under/over/poorly exposed?
I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I need advice. I shot Tri-X 400 spd 400TX kodak, with a "Quantaray" R2 coloured Filter. I used (old, from a tin can, but still clear and clean when cut open) d-76 developer and kodak fixer. Development time was per specs, (which was I beleive 6 mins 15 secs at 70 degrees) I then scanned the negatives with a nikon Coolpix negative scanner and for the most part converted them to jpgs. I'm not really too familiar with this film tho and what it should look like (I suppose it should look 'good' tho right!), or the whole process either. These are from the second roll of film I've developed, the first I loaded horribly and almost none of the pics were any good. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image1.jpg Is it just that there is far too much sky in this one? I should've increased my apeture f-stop? Is it possible to tell the diff between poor expose and incorrect development times?? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image5.jpg There seems to be a distortion around the tree to the left, not the big one upfront, but the smaller one behind it, with the shrub growing next to it. The distortion seems to be at the height of the shrub. What is it? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/IMG001.jpg Boring? Sure, however it seems to have come out alright. Perhaps then the issue isn't one with development, but initial exposure. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/IMG002.jpg http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/IMG003.jpg I don't understand why these two look yellow, and the sky in the second one hurts to look at! http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image4.jpg Considering how bright the sky looks in this one, I am surprised that there is any detail in the dark rocks, or texture in the granite barrier. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image2.jpg Similar, what can I do about that sky? Is it the filter that is causing a problem? I suppose I can use a circular polarizer eh? Any contrastiness I am hopping to get from the filter I can acheive by developing for, what, 30 seconds longer or so?? <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I > need advice. If you are asking if they were over exposed during shutter time - I couldn't tell without seeing the film. It could be that the exposure was correct, the development was off. I've had mixed results with scanning my B&W film. I've found that it takes a few passes at diffent scanner settings then combined as layers in PS to get the best results. Mostly I get results like you see here, but when I use the negs to make prints with photographic paper I don't have any trouble at all. It's difficult to tell, but it looks like there's plenty of detail in the highlights in the last 2 images, so probably a little burning at print time will make them work out. If you haven't already, you might want to check out Ansel Adams' "The Negative". There are interesting techniques on over/under exposing and adjusting negative density at development time to compress and expand the tonal range. > I don't understand why these two look yellow, and the sky in the second > one hurts to look at! Scanner settings? Didn't scan on grayscale? BTW, it seems really odd that your skies are so bright when using a red filter. Was it sunset or sunrise time? Here's a link to the film you used. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/triX.jhtml?id=0.1. 18.14.23.16&lc=en or http://tinyurl.com/dgcr4 and reading this couldn't hurt.. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jhtml?i d=0.1.18.14.23.16.14&lc=en or http://tinyurl.com/cyw4n I'm not an expert by any means, but maybe this gives you some ideas to follow up. Hope it was helpful. Cheers! :)  SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I > need advice. > > I shot Tri-X 400 spd 400TX kodak, with a "Quantaray" R2 coloured > Filter. <snip> BTW, with a little levels work in PS and some gamma correction... http://marklauter.com/albums/hawes/img.jpg It's pretty contrasty. Either the development or scan is my guess. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I > need advice. You don't seem to have any featureless dark areas, so your film exposures are probably ok. You do seem to have a problem with your highlights, which with darkroom printing would mean that your printing exposure was too short. I don't know much about scanning film, but I have heard that some people find that scanning B&W negatives as transparencies and doing the inversion and contrast corrections manually afterwards works better than the default negative scan settings. As a general rule with negative film, actual overexposure requires really overdoing it. If you were to take a series of exposures one stop apart starting from seriously underexposed then you would generally find that the first few exposures are low in contrast and lack detail in the dark parts of the picture, these are followed by several exposures which give almost identical prints, and these are followed by a series of increasingly dark negatives which will also print if you have patience, but may show a bit of a reduction in contrast, and increase in graininess and a decrease in sharpness. The first of the exposures which give nearly identical prints is the "correct" exposure. Doing a series like this could be a useful experiment for you. > I shot Tri-X 400 spd 400TX kodak, with a "Quantaray" R2 coloured > Filter. A red filter will darken blue sky quite a bit, but will have little effect on skies which are not blue. It will reduce the effect of the kind of haze you get on a clear day where distant parts of the scene are bluish. This "haze" shows up more in B&W film with no filter than your would expect when looking at the scene. It has no effect on white mist or fog. > There seems to be a distortion around the tree to the left, not the big > one upfront, but the smaller one behind it, with the shrub growing next > to it. The distortion seems to be at the height of the shrub. What is > it? > > http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/IMG001.jpg This looks like the kind of mark you get when you get a kink in the negative when loading it on to the reel. It will look like a dark crescent shaped mark on the negative. Most beginners have this sort of trouble when loading film on a developing reel. With more practice these marks will become rarer. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net As far as color casts...convert your scans to grayscale and they'll be "pure" black to white. The distortion looks like it could be a mark on the negative, are you using plastic or stainless steel processing equipment? The mark is sometimes called a half-moon or thumbnail. Try scanning as a transparency, then inverting tones and adjusting levels in Photoshop. Older scanner? Try Ed Hamrick's scanner software: Vuescan. Ed supports a lot of scanners that the maker's have abandoned, like my LS-10 Nikon. He has scan software for Linux, too. Not a recommendation but he seems to know his stuff. Your mileage may vary, yada yada. Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I > need advice. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > contrastiness I am hopping to get from the filter I can acheive by > developing for, what, 30 seconds longer or so?? > Try scanning as a transparency, then inverting tones and adjusting levels in > Photoshop. Older scanner? Try Ed Hamrick's scanner software: Vuescan. Ed > supports a lot of scanners that the maker's have abandoned, like my LS-10 > Nikon. He has scan software for Linux, too. Not a recommendation but he > seems to know his stuff. Your mileage may vary, yada yada. Wow! I was about to sell my slide scanner on ebay cause it was so crumby, but I just got the best scan ever from it! I'm really impressed. I'll toy around with it some more, but I'm pretty pleased. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use film, you must make prints yourself in a darkroom with an enlarger. To show you what a good print looks like, see: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 > It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W > conventional film hmm, not much sense in me processing film in a dark room then. This is asort of 'inherited' darkroom, all the tubs and equipement are there, along with a large stock of developer. I only had to purchase some fixer, stopbath, and wash aid. Even the film scanner and slide scanner didn't have to be purchased. Not planning on making prints on paper, paper seems ludicrously expensive. >> It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W >> conventional film [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > didn't have to be purchased. Not planning on making prints on paper, > paper seems ludicrously expensive. I pay $30 Canadian for a pack of 100 sheets of 8x10 inch RC paper. A pack of paper lasts for around 10 evenings in the darkroom. For me this is a modest price for a recreational activity I enjoy. If I'm going to be printing a lot from a single film, I will usually cut down the paper to a smaller size. An 8x10 yields 2 5x7s or 3 4x6s plus some test pieces. If you already have an enlarger, you should really give it a try. I find it a lot of fun. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >>It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W >>conventional film [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > didn't have to be purchased. Not planning on making prints on paper, > paper seems ludicrously expensive. Paper is ridiculously cheap compared to the price of a scanner and printer that can give you output comparable to chemical processes. Don't forget that even with a computer printer you need really good paper to get really good results. So you will always have the paper cost. Work the chemical side for a while. You may just change your mind. Francis A. Miniter > Paper is ridiculously cheap compared to the price of a scanner and printer that > can give you output comparable to chemical processes. Don't forget that even > with a computer printer you need really good paper to get really good results. > So you will always have the paper cost. And the printer paper I use is more expensive than the fiber based B&W Ilford paper I buy. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W >conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use film, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I know a professional photographer who get superb images from scanned B&W conventional films. But, he goes to a provider with a very expensive scanner and gets large digital files that represent fine scans of the negative. This is not the equipment that the average person will have at home. Francis A. Miniter > I know a professional photographer who get superb images from scanned > B&W conventional films. But, he goes to a provider with a very > expensive scanner and gets large digital files that represent fine scans > of the negative. This is not the equipment that the average person will > have at home. No, drum scanners aren't cheap. :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com Correct. The scanners that are availabe in the retail market for under $1000 won't cut it... > >It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W > >conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use film, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I know a professional photographer who get superb images from scanned > B&W conventional films. But, he goes to a provider with a very > expensive scanner and gets large digital files that represent fine scans > of the negative. This is not the equipment that the average person will > have at home. > > Francis A. Miniter OT, I know, but how did you digitalize those images if you don't like scanning from film? Do you scan the darkroom made RC/FB print? Jan | It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W | conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use film, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 These were scanned prints. I thought that was obvious... > OT, I know, but how did you digitalize those images if you don't like > scanning from film? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > | you must make prints yourself in a darkroom with an enlarger. To show > | you what a good print looks like, see: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 "To show you what a good print looks like, see: " Yes, from prints! > OT, I know, but how did you digitalize those images if you don't like > scanning from film? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > | you must make prints yourself in a darkroom with an enlarger. To show > | you what a good print looks like, see: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539 http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 OK, that's claer by now. Looks like I'm the guy that needs triple confirmation befor I believe something. But it's great to observe that others adhere to the methods I use myself... Purely by lack of good filmscanner and photoshop knowledge, I stuck to this method but found out it's still the most usefull: I adjust my images in the darkrooom printing phase and only carry out very simple overall contrast adjustments on the PC after the scan. | "To show you what a good print looks like, see: " | [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | > | | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540 Sort of feel I have to comment on scanning B&W negatives. I am far from an expert and have successfully scanned many varied B&W negs. It bothers me when I see it repeatedly said they can't be scanned and thus discourageing new people from trying it. I have used a nikon LS 2000 and 4000 ED and an Epson 3200 for medium format and all work fine. With certain automatic features like Ice you get quite a few dramatic faileurs. So generally I don't use Ice. I find a small amount of unsharp mask is fine though. I use both RGB scans and Greyscale scans, scanning as negatives which gives you a positive image. RGB might be a bit better but usually greyscale is lots of info. I don't see where scanning as a positive would make any difference on the film scanners but see where it might make a difference on the 3200. I haven't tried it yet but plan to sometime. I find processing your own B&W film and then scanning to be a very useful workflow althought trying to keep making SG prints too. On a little Epson printer with Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper I get quite nice prints 8x10 that might be thought real prints. Just want people not to give up on scanning Tri-X without trying it. >Sort of feel I have to comment on scanning B&W negatives. I am far from an >expert and have successfully scanned many varied B&W negs. It bothers me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >features like Ice you get quite a few dramatic faileurs. So generally I >don't use Ice. I find a small amount of unsharp mask is fine though. >I use both RGB scans and Greyscale scans, scanning as negatives which gives >you a positive image. RGB might be a bit better but usually greyscale is >lots of info. I don't see where scanning as a positive would make any >difference on the film scanners but see where it might make a difference on >the 3200. I haven't tried it yet but plan to sometime. >I find processing your own B&W film and then scanning to be a very useful >workflow althought trying to keep making SG prints too. On a little Epson >printer with Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper I get quite nice prints 8x10 >that might be thought real prints. >Just want people not to give up on scanning Tri-X without trying it. Agreed. I've done little else to be honest with my Tri-X negatives. I do not think getting a good scan is any harder than printing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.