Problem With Commercial Film Processing

[parkview112]

I dropped off my roll from yesterday and picked up the roll I shot last week that I had the camera shop develop longer. While the results did not completely identify the problem, they did produce some indications that the meter being one stop off is the culprit.

I bracketed for some of these shots and for a couple that I took outside I used the "Cloudy f8 Rule." I've attached a few of the results below:

1. This was taken with the Cloudy f8 Rule and seems just fine except that to me, the highlights seem just a tad overdone.

2. I bracketed this shot and this is the one that I shot one stop lower than the meter reading indicated. Again, it looks fine in general but with the highlights a bit bright I think.

More examples are posted below.

I'd be very interested in comments on the results.

Thank you again.

Rich

 

[parkview112]

[FONT=&quot]3. This shot was at the meter reading the first is as I received it with longer developing and the second I enhanced slightly in Photoshop.

[/FONT]

 

[parkview112]

4. This shot was also at the meter reading the first is as I received it with longer developing and the second I enhanced slightly in Photoshop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Books are one thing, hundreds of thousands of processed images and prints are another.

I believe my client list will speak for itself, and to pervert a Popeye saying "I knows what I knows".

Dear Alexis,

In a sense, it is foolish for me to keep arguing with you, as you are convinced that you and you alone are right, and that the rest of the world -- including film and developer manufacturers and the world's leading theoreticians -- is wrong. The main reason I continue to argue is not because I hope to convince you, but that others may be interested in hearing the more widely accepted (and in the view of most, more accurate) version of what happens.

It is after all perfectly possible to do something empirically -- e.g. develop and print -- without actually understanding much (or indeed any) of the theory behind what you are doing, whereas writing books (and illustrating them, often with B&W pictures) generally requires a bit more theory. As for your client list, no, that doesn't support your theories at all. Nor does it suggest that you (or they) necessarily understand the theory behind what you are doing. After all, I can drive a car without learning the precise design of steering mechanisms and gearboxes, and I need to learn even less in order to hire a chauffeur. the parallels with printing, and hiring a printer, are exact.

In other words, like you, "I knows what I knows" -- and I also knows what film and developer manufacturers and people like Haist, Crawley, Coote, Glafkides, Clerc and every other sensitometrist knows. Which is not the same as what you know.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

[FONT=&quot]3. This shot was at the meter reading the first is as I received it with longer developing and the second I enhanced slightly in Photoshop.

[/FONT]

Looks good to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[parkview112]

OK, here they are. These were taken Sunday afternoon with mostly cloudy but breaks of sun on Tri-X 400. I set my Weston handheld meter to 200 as previously discussed above to compensate for it being one stop off. I did bracket most of my shots but have selected those taken at the actual meter reading. The film was developed normally and I did not do any tweaking in Photoshop.

I should say that I do not mind adjusting in Photoshop since I would do the same in a darkroom, up to a point. My goal is to get the best shot I can on the negative and adjust as little as possible given all the variables and subjectivity in creating a nice print. In other words, I want the best foundation I can get.

In general, what do you think of these? What recommendations, if any, would you make?

Thank you.

Rich

By the way, these were taken with a Leica iiif with an Elmar 5cm f3.5 lens.

 

[parkview112]

Here are some more.

 

[parkview112]

Some Feedback Please

Some Feedback Please

Hello everyone who responded previously. I would really appreciate some feedback on the photos in my last two posts. From my perspective I think the problem has been identified as exposure and I believe after adjusting my meter I'm now getting the correct readings but I would like to hear what others think.

I also want to say again that looking at both the developing and expsure aspects has been very helpful and I now have a much better understanding of what I'm looking at. So I have really been grateful for everyone's input, none has gone to waste.

Anyway, please let me know what you think.

Thank you again.

Rich

 

[SCLim]

Looking at your initial post and the most recent ones, I would say the problem is mainly due to scanning/ adjustment of the scan for brightness and contrast. Your exposure and development techniques seem fine although you will get better with more practice. The newest scans show good detail in the shadow areas and the highlights are not too hot. What more can you want?

After you develop and dry your film, take a look at it on a light box. Examine the highlight and shadow areas and see if they have the detail you are aiming for. I'm sure you know, highlights are fine tuned mainly with development time and shadow detail is mainly due to exposure.

 

[parkview112]

Hi SCLim,

Thank you very much for your comments which were helpful. I do think the current batch came out good. As an experiment I had them in Photoshop and tried an Auto Correct and virtually (no pun intended) nothing happened which, at least to my relatively inexperienced Photoshop eyes was a good sign in addition of course to just looking at them.

Good point about the highlights and shadows in the earlier photos. I was getting detail in both places that showed up after basic adjustment in Photoshop and now that I realize all of those were taken at least one stop under it explains a lot. Of course, I want the closest to correct exposure to come out on the negative even if I decide to tweak it a bit in Photoshop.

Thank you again.

Rich