CopperB
M3 Noob
I got 3 films back from development shot while in Newcastle. The hit rate was low (not surprising as a noob). What's discouraging me is having to adjust contrast and up the black in PP to get decent blacks. They look flat and washed out to me. Outside shots and some indoor shots aren't too bad but other shots still stink. Part is underexposure I think (although I metered). All shot with Arista 400 Premium.
Last edited:
_mark__
Well-known
I think you are being a little hard on yourself! I especially like the second two.
Perhaps develop them yourself?
Perhaps develop them yourself?
NathanJD
Well-known
What lens did you use? is it clean or foggy? young or old? why did you choose arista? did you shoot the film at 400?
the reason i ask is that all these things can affect the contrast in an image. in fact scanning negatives on to the computer is a fiddley business and they very often come out requiring post processing. i wouldn't feel discouraged - you're not going to produce master photography straight away - that's the beauty of this kind of photography. What you need to do now is use your experience as a starting point for experimentation. Choose a bunch of different films and find one that really pleases you and then experiment with pushing it.
film is quite unforgiving and you really need to LEARN this art and you'll only do that with trial and error.
what you have here is a great starting point. don't be discouraged! persevere!!
the reason i ask is that all these things can affect the contrast in an image. in fact scanning negatives on to the computer is a fiddley business and they very often come out requiring post processing. i wouldn't feel discouraged - you're not going to produce master photography straight away - that's the beauty of this kind of photography. What you need to do now is use your experience as a starting point for experimentation. Choose a bunch of different films and find one that really pleases you and then experiment with pushing it.
film is quite unforgiving and you really need to LEARN this art and you'll only do that with trial and error.
what you have here is a great starting point. don't be discouraged! persevere!!
chikne
Well-known
Phantomas
Well-known
^^ Smooth. 
:bang:
:bang:
Mablo
Well-known
I think your photos are really good.
agricola
Well-known
Patti - the first and second don't look like underexposure. There is some 'fogging'. They are very good shots. You should not despair at your hit rate. Even one cracker per roll is better than none. I second the suggestion that you take the plunge and develop and scan yourself. A local camera club can give a lot of support.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The first photo is badly underexposed. The other two look o.k. to me. What equipment were you shooting these with?
user237428934
User deletion pending
I had a discussion with someone who does his processing and scanning. He said he scans with "0" settings to get most detail out of the negative but the result is rather flat, like your first photo. Then he has to adjust the levels in photoshop. So this seems to be a rather normal process. Took me a minute to adjust your first photo in a way that I liked blacks and whites.
petronius
Veteran
If you make wet prints you have to choose the paper gradation that makes your vision visible. After scanning you do this in PS, why bother? Its a normal process: develop-scan-adjust-remove dust; your photos are not this bad and as Tom.w.bn said, it took just a minute to get rich blacks in the first picture.
CopperB
M3 Noob
I had my J8 50 2.0 lens on my M3. I used my Elmarit 90 2.8 for some of the outdoor shots (can't remember which of course) with a med. yellow filter. I wish I'd taken notes but I was rushed during the trip (non photographers with me - you know how it is).
I've been using the Arista 400 because it was recommended a lot here on the site. I've been shooting it at 200 on the suggestion of a local photographer friend. I've got some TriX my daughter gave me in my stocking. I've tried a couple of Ilford films and wasn't that thrilled with the outcome.
I've been using the Arista 400 because it was recommended a lot here on the site. I've been shooting it at 200 on the suggestion of a local photographer friend. I've got some TriX my daughter gave me in my stocking. I've tried a couple of Ilford films and wasn't that thrilled with the outcome.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Your first image is underexposed. The deepest blacks are rendered as grey, presumably in the scanning process. That's easily fixed in post processing, but will make your picture look very underexposed. You can fix that too, but the contrast will be unacceptably harsh. If you have 16bit files to work with you have a little more room, but this is about as good as you will get of a scan from this neg.
That having said, it is the best of the bunch!
If you develop and scan your first b/w negs you have a learning curve on the analogue side and on the digital side. I still struggle with Tri-X myself although I think I've got HP5+ nailed.
To me, scans of 35mm b/w always look slightly disappointing and I tweak them endlessly. I have made some great shots, but inevitably I will have to do wet printing one day. Seems like a good new years resolution to me.
Anyway, just persevere and don't be afraid to make mistakes. It will be very rewarding to use old equipment and shoot b/w. I would never describe the pictures you posted as bad, they are actually rather good.
That having said, it is the best of the bunch!
If you develop and scan your first b/w negs you have a learning curve on the analogue side and on the digital side. I still struggle with Tri-X myself
although I think I've got HP5+ nailed.To me, scans of 35mm b/w always look slightly disappointing and I tweak them endlessly. I have made some great shots, but inevitably I will have to do wet printing one day. Seems like a good new years resolution to me.
Anyway, just persevere and don't be afraid to make mistakes. It will be very rewarding to use old equipment and shoot b/w. I would never describe the pictures you posted as bad, they are actually rather good.
CopperB
M3 Noob
CopperB
M3 Noob
I've got to learn to do this myself. 3 rolls developed and hi res scan cost $44!!! Ouch! That's an expensive learning curve. I can't keep that up. The house is falling down around me as it is. :bang:
So, I guess I'm going to have to save my pennies for a better 50mm lens. What can you expect from a J8 that cost me $35. Perhaps I should shoot exclusively with my Elmarit 90 2.8 and see the difference.
dfoo
Well-known
Forget evaluation from scans, that is very difficult. What do the negatives look like? Are they very thin (under exposed)?
dfoo
Well-known
$44?? Daylight robbery!! Do it yourself... its very simple to develop, and get an enlarger
swoop
Well-known
My take on it. I'd say 90% of photos require some work after the shutter click. It just has to be done. Nothing is ever perfect. Even after I've worked on an image and think I'm done I'll tweak a thing or two a month later.
CopperB
M3 Noob
I'll take a good look at them when I get home from work. As I recall, for the most part they were fairly thick, at least the outdoor ones were.
CopperB
M3 Noob
My take on it. I'd say 90% of photos require some work after the shutter click. It just has to be done. Nothing is ever perfect. Even after I've worked on an image and think I'm done I'll tweak a thing or two a month later.
Thanks swoop. At least I know that having to adjust in PP is commonplace and not just my ineptitude.
oftheherd
Veteran
Just remember that PP is its own area to learn. You have to work at that also. Don't be discouraged. Just keep plugging away. I don't know anybody who was born with a camera or scanner in their hands.