Ugly test roll results...

E

ElectroWNED

Well-known
Local time
1:18 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
485
Location
New York
View My Gallery
I recently bought an Electro 35 that appears to be in mint condition from a fellow here on RFF. I shot a test roll of Ilford HP5 and had it developed at Ritz, having them make a CD of the scans as well. While I'm overseas and have only seen these 4 shots from the roll, I'm less than impressed by the amount of grain (400 speed film!?!?!?) and the poor range of black and whites.

Here are the 4 shots I've seen:

ritzleovw0.jpg
(maybe poorly focused 🙄)

ritzgraffitidb2.jpg
(I forgot to focus the shot... 1st roll jitters 😛)

ritzbradyth7.jpg
(This one I'm particularly upset with. What is the deal with the softness and the lack of tonal range?)

Let me know if I am simply using the camera in the wrong ways, or whether I should actually have something to complain about. I haven't had a chance to touch these photos at all with Photoshop, but based on the test rolls from a number of other members on here, I shouldn't have to manipulate anything to get some really great shots... 🙁
 
The grain ad lack of tonal range maybe due to the Ritz processing more than anything.
I would encourage you take a roll of color film before you decide to toss the camera away.

IMHO the 1st foto seems very nice, maybe you shot fully open with the focusing on the middle of the dog (chain and heart are in focus) more than in the face.
The 3rd is a very tricky one, the lighting was difficult, and maybe the scan is poor.... how does the negative look?
 
You have to look at the negatives to determine what's going on, not the prints. The machine at Ritz is trying to get a good print out of what it has to work with. Is the negative too dense? too light? Did you set the ASA/ISO dial before shooting? More info needed!
 
januaryman said:
You have to look at the negatives to determine what's going on, not the prints. The machine at Ritz is trying to get a good print out of what it has to work with. Is the negative too dense? too light? Did you set the ASA/ISO dial before shooting? More info needed!
Click to expand...

ISO is set to 400.

I am in Germany right now, so I can't look at the negatives. Even if I had the negatives (I wont until the 18th of August), I'm not sure what to look for as this is my first time shooting film.

Maybe I should just invest a couple hundred dollars on a scanner if these are going to be typical of the scans from Ritz...
 
Last edited:
titrisol said:
The grain ad lack of tonal range maybe due to the Ritz processing more than anything.
I would encourage you take a roll of color film before you decide to toss the camera away.
Click to expand...

I brought one roll of Provia here and shot it in Prague and Dresden. I took some (what I think to be) very nice shots, so when I get those developed and scanned, I'll post some more shots.

What makes color photos a better indicator of camera quality?
 
Scanners and digital machines (like Ritz) are calibrated to work with color film, preferably print film.
I think your PROVIA picutres will show a lot more whether the camera is working fine.
They get lost in exposure and show LOTS of grain when scanning real silver film.

ElectroWNED said:
I brought one roll of Provia here and shot it in Prague and Dresden. I took some (what I think to be) very nice shots, so when I get those developed and scanned, I'll post some more shots.

What makes color photos a better indicator of camera quality?
Click to expand...
 
If you plan on shooting a lot of film, a scanner is a good idea. But before you blame the camera, you should try getting a roll of 24, shoot some stuff as a test and bring it somewhere else. I had Ritz screw up on me only in 1 roll when the machine was acting up. But it happens.

Good luck!
 
Just to put it into perspective... here's the same film (developed myself) and scanned. (Also a portrait of a dog as well)

2063575697_a3cdc44fba_o.jpg


So yeah... its not the film. Chances are it's ritz.


I'm sure if you re-scaned those negatives you could get the results your looking for.
 
I really don't think that your third shot looks soft at all; a quick adjustment in Levels should be able to bring the contrast to normal levels.
 
When I develop film, especially B&W I always specify "no adjustments" because more often or not the pimple-faced kid behind the counter might think my shots are wrong and adjust the prints for me.

Having said that the CD's are usually made from the negs and probably not adjusted.
 
Having "flat" (low-contrast) scans isn't a bad thing, actually. You can always add contrast in photoshop as long as the information is there in the file. What's far worse is when a lab scans in a way that blows out all the highlight detail or loses shadow detail on the negs -- when that happens, you can't get that information back without re-scanning.

The third shot looks underexposed to me -- or perhaps bad veiling flare from a light source. My Yashica GSN does the same thing (very flat, low-contrast) when it is significantly underexposed.

The first two look like all they need is a level adjustment layer in PS to have that contrast "pop".
 
erikhaugsby is actually correct. I took the liberty of downloading the third photo and doing a very quick levels adjustment (the histogram was all crammed on the right half!): moved black point (significantly) and gray point (just a tad). I'll put it (temporarily) on my flickr so I can post it here. Makes a big, big difference.


2742967460_5490d78480_o.jpg


Looks sharp to me (highlights in the dog's eyes are sharp). Just low-contrast is all -- either a poor scan or originally underexposed, I think.
 
Last edited:
What are you doing taking HP-5 to Ritz for developing? HP-5 isn't a C-41 process film. For that you need XP-2 or Kodak BW400CN. No wonder you aren't satisified with the results.
 
gb hill said:
What are you doing taking HP-5 to Ritz for developing? HP-5 isn't a C-41 process film. For that you need XP-2 or Kodak BW400CN. No wonder you aren't satisified with the results.
Click to expand...

I don't believe ritz processes anything except C41 films. I am not sure what regular b&w looks like in C41, though I have seen C41 film developed in D76 actually come out. What do your negatives look like? The focus looks okay (as long as you meant to focus on the dogs eyes, and not the nose) and the sharpness is fine. Your Provia shots should tell you all you need to know about exposure. If you get decent exposures with slide film, you will be good to go for print films.

The reason to shoot color print for a test roll is that you can find really cheap color film in the dollar store, shoot it on the walk to the drug store, and then see what you have to adjust next within an hour..
 
gb hill said:
What are you doing taking HP-5 to Ritz for developing? HP-5 isn't a C-41 process film. For that you need XP-2 or Kodak BW400CN. No wonder you aren't satisified with the results.
Click to expand...

Ritz 'sends non C-41 black and white to their lab' and has it developed there. For C41, they develop in-house.

However, shooting XP-2 or BW400CN is probably going to be a better idea, both for my wallet and for turn-around time. And the shots will probably look better being scanned (as somebody else mentioned)
 
Thanks for the suggestions and comments guys. When I return home I'll have the Provia developed and scanned, and maybe post some of the shots in this thread.

If the Provia shots come out looking nice, I'll probably be investing in a scanner right away.

Any suggestions for a decent scanner for around $200?
 
I have an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner - no longer in production, but one of the later ones will do a great job. You will be better off waiting until you can buy a decent one. It will pay off with less time scanning and better quality in the final scan. The Epson V700 is running about $500, but a good refurbished one would serve. I chose flatbed because the single negative at a time process wouldn't work for me. Too time consuming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom