Discouraged

CopperB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is the Jupiter really the problem? I have a couple of Russian 50mm lenses that came with cameras, they are perfectly ok. But I just happen to have a Summicron DR... If you want a great lens at a budget, try a Voigtlander lens.

By all means, do you own developing. This forum will give all the advice you need (it worked for me 😉). If you can find people who can help you locally, that's even better. It's not hard, your first roll will probably surprise you, although you will swear at the dust spots!

For a cheap scanner you might consider the Epson V500. It is not the best for 35mm, but one of the best flatbeds out there. If your budget stretches to a (second hand) Minolta or Nikon, that's even better.
 
patti, i'm going to go against the flow and suggest you start with ilford xp-2 or kodak BW400CN, both C-41 films. since at the moment you are dependent on the lab/shop, they will likely produce better negatives and scans from C-41 than silver film. expose either C-41 suggestion at 250, not box speed. work on your exposure and metering, etc. when you nail the exposure and composition, you'll have good pics (and more fun) because the variances in film processing and scanning by the lab will be minimized.

just a thought based on the principle that, while learning a new type of camera and way of shooting, it's best to minimize other variables.

oh and shots 1,3,4 look like they're presenting considerable contrast challenges. E.g. the rear pews vs the far white wall in the church shot, the upper right window versus the coats in the bar shot. no wonder the lab is having trouble with the development and scanning - those are tough scenes to shoot and dev and scan well.
 
Last edited:
a lot of my ndoor shots end up like the first one, mainly because i dont like to hand hold anything more than 1/15 and a lot of ISO 400 shots in dim places require 1/4 1/8 etc.

But as you now know playing with levels or curves(my preference) will give you a good image in no time

however, when you underexpose, shadowdetails will be lost, which i think works in a lot fo dimly lit shots. The example Swoop posted illustrates the sacrifices one needs to make in PP if one wants to keep shaodw details. Namely, blown highlights, grain and over sharpening
 
patti, one more observation (don't mean to sound overbearing). tri-x or arista premium 400 is a difficult film to expose, develop, and scan well. in other words it's probably not the best choice for a silver film to turn over to a lab in your hybrid (analog to digital) workflow. that's not say it can't be done well. many of the folks here are very successful with it. but their workflow is much more sensitive and technically specialized than what the lab can do for you. i think it's best to simplify, given your immediate dependence on a lab, thus my suggestion to go to one of the C-41 B&W films.
 
Last edited:
I think the pics are fine, though I agree that the first one is not properly exposed. I second (or third) the advice that you consider developing your own negatives as most labs I know often make a mess of my b&w negs. My entire b&w developing kit cost less than $100, and the process is much easier than you might think. Not only that, but the cost per negative of developing your own film is pennies per shot, $5 worth of developer and fixer will get you 360 negatives.

At $44 for scanning 3 rolls of film, it wouldn't take long until you spent enough to buy your own scanner. I get good scans out of my Epson 750M flatbed.

I hate doing PP work, so I try to get my exposures as correct as possible before snapping the shutter. If there is any doubt, I bracket, especially if I'm using one of my old Leicas without a meter. With my OM4 my negatives are usually good as-is.
 
Frontman said:
My entire b&w developing kit cost less than $100,
Click to expand...

Not wanting to be sound pedantic, but you can get buy for much less even (chemicals excluded). I picked up my tanks, reels and such at camera shows, they were practically giving the stuff away. I have seen whole darkrooms being given away on 'Marktplaats', the Dutch version of eBay.

Suffice to say, for $100 you should be ok in all the hardware + chemicals to last you for a year.

As for Tri-X, there is probably no film out there that will take more abuse in development and exposure. But getting great scans out of it... well, that's the difficult part. I really would not recommend XP2 or 400CN (the C41 films). Although they are easy to work with and give great results, you won't learn anything about developing your negs.
 
I would say, that if you like B&W, and you are on a budget, then the first thing to get fixed is the development. If you go with D76 1+1 and Tri-X or Arista Premium 400, you will quickly get great negs, with no dust or scratches for a very small expense. You can use a dark bag and develop in the kitchen in daylight. Then, you will have to get a passable scanner - I would say that a refurbished Epson V700 will be ok to start with, although a dedicated film scanner would be better - look at the classifieds here , as they turn up every now and then. The last piece is going to be post processing, and while this is fairly simple, you do need to go through some learning. MC Tuomney's suggestion about XP2 is good, but it does not save you money.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The first photo is badly underexposed. The other two look o.k. to me. What equipment were you shooting these with?
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think you are missing anything but poor exposure on the bad ones. Maybe keep notes on difficult exposures or bracket those low light or other difficult exposures. You should keep working at it. Your good ones are good.
 
I should have said in my earlier posts that I too think your photos are really nice, even if number 1 isn't too well exposed - this is the kind of result that I get when I under expose low light scenes too.

I prefer using my J-8 for colour and don't really like it much for b&w but that's personal preference and I now have a choice, I used it for b&w for quite a while and many people put them to great use. I get very pleasing results from pushing low light scenes to 1600 and I would recommend that you try it for a roll just to see what you think, it's a very effective contrast boosting exercise even if it does result in more grain.

I’ll agree with and back the self development consensus too - it's quite fun and relaxing (once you get your head around feeding your film on the developing reel) and is inexpensive when you consider the number of rolls you can do with one batch of chemicals, much cheaper than your current method! and you have full control of the outcome. You don't even need a dark room if you scan your own negs like I and a number of other people do!
 
I do it all the time; like Petronius said, it's just like choosing paper grade in the darkroom. In fact, most of the files out of my scanner look grey before adjustment.
CopperB said:
Thanks swoop. At least I know that having to adjust in PP is commonplace and not just my ineptitude.
Click to expand...
 
So by pushing the film to 1600 you mean in camera? So, set the light meter to 1600 and use the associated shutter and aperture settings or do you mean develop it as though it was 1600 film?
 
I think photography, or the learning process, is like learning golf: if you are not prepared to slice some into the woods, you need to sell your equipment.
At least with photography there is Lightroom and PS.
What matters is what goes onto paper after you are satisfied. If you can get close, you can fix it.
If not, get an M6...
 
CopperB said:
So by pushing the film to 1600 you mean in camera? So, set the light meter to 1600 and use the associated shutter and aperture settings or do you mean develop it as though it was 1600 film?
Click to expand...

you shoot as though you have 1600 film in your camera, as you say, using the shutter speeds etc required by that film speed and then develop the film as though it was 1600 iso.

this is an example of the result with Ilford HP5+ which is rated at 400 pushed to 1600:

U24101I1253454908.SEQ.0.jpg


this roll required very light adjustment just to pop the blacks slightly. the images were made in a very dark barn with ambient lighting
 
The best way to think of it is thus:

when you expose the emulsion of a film to the light you make it more difficult to dissolve in the developer. That’s why when you introduce a lens and a scene the reverse of the scene is burned into the film, making the lightest bits the most difficult to dissolve and producing your negative.

The more sensitive the film is to light, the ‘faster’ it is said to be because it can burn an optimum image in a shorter time at any aperture with ‘acceptable’ graininess.

So what you’re doing when you push a film is exposing it for less time but dissolve (develop) it longer resulting in the correct exposure with the side effects of getting a grainier result and sometimes more contrast. It’s the same relationship as film speed and aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom