help with...contrast issues?

mknawabi

mknawabi

photographeur
Local time
1:12 PM
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
170
Location
Irvine, CA
View My Gallery
already explained the problem in the description of my flickr photos, so please click the following links for the problem:

http://flickr.com/photos/helloyama/3093611810/
http://flickr.com/photos/helloyama/3092808595/
http://flickr.com/photos/helloyama/3093649582/


trying to get tones that look more like this:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_hrIwoHYnxgA/R58lE07mgiI/AAAAAAAAE-4/hQFaLCM3FW0/s1600-h/IMG11757s.jpg
http://bp2.blogger.com/_hrIwoHYnxgA/R58lc07mgpI/AAAAAAAAE_w/lwghJ3RXF_k/s1600-h/IMG11751s.jpg
http://bp2.blogger.com/_hrIwoHYnxgA/R58jV07mgLI/AAAAAAAAE8A/TIIoNF6WWxw/s1600-h/IMG11797s.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hrIwoHYnxgA/SQIT2jQjVCI/AAAAAAAAKzI/mTf9WK83ciw/s1600-h/IMG15018s.jpg

he doesnt photoshop, or anything. i've even been using his times, agitation, and scanning method. everything is the same, yet my negs are ****ty and his ain't. anyone got any hints?
 
Last edited:
imush said:
Does the histogram look normal or has it empty edges? Try something along these lines:
http://filmlives.net/content/articles/bw/advancedscanning/

It is for vuescan, but any reasonable scanning software should be able to profile your film.

I think doing these things should not be derided as "photoshop or anything".
Click to expand...

all i know is that he is using nikon scan, and scans them as color negatives then converts to grayscale in photoshop
 
I have a few comments/questions:

What scanner are you using? Is it a flatbed or a Nikon CoolScan V (as indicated on flickr)? These have the fuzzy look of flatbed scans. You indicate that you scanned "shiny side down" on one of the photos, which goes against the instructions given in the CoolScan manual (I have the CoolScan 5000).

A couple of more comments. The b&w photos you show as examples of the look you are trying to achieve are shot in very different light, so the results are not comparable. In your color scans, the fuzziness I mentioned before still seems prevalent. Have you tried scanning "shiny side" up?
 
More comments:

You indicate that you are developing for 9:00 min. @ 22 deg. celcius. I'm assuming you are using Xtol 1 plus 1, which would be too much time. Try 9:00 @ 20 deg. celcius, which is about 7:15 @ 22. Agitate for first 30 seconds, then 3 gentle inversions every minute. Of course, everyone's techniques and results are a little different, so you will have to experiment.

I don't think your negs are muddy, I think there's something going on with the scan.

Edit: Oops, I see that you scanned the same photo twice--shiny side up and shiny side down.
 
Last edited:
mknawabi said:
all i know is that he is using nikon scan, and scans them as color negatives then converts to grayscale in photoshop
Click to expand...
I use Coolscan IV, but with vuescan and am not familiar with their software. You should be able to "profile the film" in it, i.e. lock the base unexposed film color and make it appear as white (i.e. just completely black on the resulting inverted image). If you look at the histogram then, any empty area on the right (white) side would be due to an underexposure.
 
Make sure NOT to use Digital ICE feature when scanning silver BW film. ICE does not work properly and produces weird artifacts when used on regular (not C41) bw negatives.
 
Also, the benefit of "scanning as positive", and using software to invert it depends on the scanner. With Coolscan, I think there is none. It is exactly what it does internally when scanning negatives as negatives.

With generic flatbeds that have no idea what they are scanning, the result depends on the quality of software that offers you to scan negatives. Sometimes it is reportedly better not to trust it and invert yourself.
 
i don't quite think it would be underexposure, but i am trying to figure out how he pulls off 9 minutes in 21/22C with good tones, yet I can't. the only thing I can think of is hard water ruining my developer/negatives. (but then again, i tried mixing xtol with deionized and that didn't do much either)
 
imush said:
Also, the benefit of "scanning as positive", and using software to invert it depends on the scanner. With Coolscan, I think there is none. It is exactly what it does internally when scanning negatives as negatives.

With generic flatbeds that have no idea what they are scanning, the result depends on the quality of software that offers you to scan negatives. Sometimes it is reportedly better not to trust it and invert yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I should clarify. I scan as a color negative, then desaturate in photoshop, exactly like the guy on the blog does.
 
mknawabi said:
Sorry, I think I should clarify. I scan as a color negative, then desaturate in photoshop, exactly like the guy on the blog does.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't read correctly. That is fine.

Assuming your negatives are fine, I think that it is the scanned film base color that needs to be subtracted. What I meant is that if, after you correct for the base, your image is too dim, it t should mean underexposure or underdevelopment, or more politely, there was room for your film to be exposed (or developed) longer.
 
So I started looking at the histograms and the pictures in general, and I think I found a clue that may help. In his photos, the sidewalks are always a nice tone of gray, but mine are almost always washed out and white. Does this mean that I am actually overexposing, or do I need to develop shorter?
 
mknawabi said:
So I started looking at the histograms and the pictures in general, and I think I found a clue that may help. In his photos, the sidewalks are always a nice tone of gray, but mine are almost always washed out and white. Does this mean that I am actually overexposing, or do I need to develop shorter?
Click to expand...

Your images seem to lack detail in highlight, so do look overdeveloped, but perhaps it is the scanning software that loses the highlight detail. Try to make it produce a raw negative file, invert it and see if the highlight detail is there.
 
mknawabi, your light is different, and it may be difficult, or take more effort with exposure-development, to get close to the same "look" as his photos. As someone who has to deal with California light, the developing times that work for me are often shorter than suggested. Let us know what you find out.

Edit: Curves can help with what you consider muddiness of the first one. The other one, it's just bright out and you've exposed for a lot of shadow detail.
 
Last edited:
Here is a bunch of photos of TriX in Xtol, many of these have time/temp/agitation:

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=49958431@N00&q=trix+xtol&m=pool

The general way to get more contrast is to develop longer or/and agitate more. But for me that is to a point. When the negatives start to get overdeveloped (and this is with TriX) then they get muddy. I've never used Xtol, and I don't think this is your case but isn't Xtol the one that has sudden developed death? If it is then be sure it is new developer. Also, the scanner if the histogram has a decent curve on PS (or whatever you use) you should be able to pull it back even with scanner goof ups.
 
I've noticed this happens when my negatives are very dense and the Coolscan's auto exposure has to shine a lot of extra light to resolve detail.

Try developing for longer.

P.S. Severin gets unbelievably good tones. I wish I had his developing and exposure skillz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Double Hot Shoe Adapter, Wide Angle Lens & Flash on the M8
Replies
0
Views
4K
afineman
A
Back
Top Bottom