Hello Chris,
Love your images above. Would like to know how you got that nice contrast for these. If you don't mind me asking the film and development used? Any pp in Photoshop perhaps?
Thanks in advance!
Just pre-planning for the next 6 months...
-papa
Papa,
They're scans from the negatives, done with a Nikon LS-8000ED.
ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop (or whatever software you like), that's not optional. I think a lot of people think the scans should be used direct from the scanner and that editing them is somehow cheating....and it shows because a big percent of the film scans I see online are flat and ugly with horrid tonality. The scan just brings the neg into the computer. Just like printing a negative in the darkroom, where you have to select the right paper grade, exposure time, and print developer (and toner if you tone prints), you must do all this to a scan too. That's done in Photoshop. Check the examples below:
The scan, unedited.
Inverted so its not 'negative' anymore. Look how awful it looks! Flat and muddy.
Final image, with contrast adjusted using curves layers. Much better! This film was the now discontinued and much cried over Fuji Neopan 1600, exposed at EI-640 and developed in D-76 1+1
Here's another example
The scan inverted, but with no other editing. As with the house above, this is flat and muddy and this one s also too light.
Contrast adjusted and image darkened in Photoshop using curves layers. This is Tmax 3200 at EI-1600 developed in Tmax Developer.
Neither example above had any dodging and burning, but nearly all images require some to make them perfect. I do that in photoshop too using curves layers after selecting the area to burn or dodge.
Aside from editing scans, I am a perfectionist about exposure and developing. You see guys here on RFF trying to say that being precise in your exposure and other working methods is a waste of time or gets in the way of creativity. Bull****! To me I find sloppy working methods gets in the way of my creativity because it makes it harder for me to get the image I want.
I have on my website a list of my tested developing times and film speeds for a lot of films I have used with different developers. Assuming your light meters are accurate and you're careful in your developing they should give good starting points. Individual results can vary, since no one's agitation method is the same and water quality can vary (I used distilled to mix all chemicals). But they should get you close.
Developing times and other tech stuff