Evaluating homebrewed negs

[alansoon]

I've just started processing my own negs at home. To date, I've got 10 rolls in the bag. No major disasters -- they all seem to scan reasonably well.

But I haven't done any contact sheets, so I can't really tell if my scanner/computer is compensating for accidental mis-exposures or mis-development.

Is there a quick and easy way of evaluating of negs just by looking at them? What should I be looking for in terms of the manufacturer's markings along the edges? Should the words be as black as possible?

 

[titrisol]

there used to be a rule-of-thumb that was taught many years ago.
Put a "normal" negative on top of a newspaper or a book. If you can read the letters thorugh the darkest portion of your negative you are developing correctly.

 

[dkapp]

there used to be a rule-of-thumb that was taught many years ago.
Put a "normal" negative on top of a newspaper or a book. If you can read the letters thorugh the darkest portion of your negative you are developing correctly.

I've never heard of that, but it makes sense. I've been developing my own B&W for a few months now, and I've finally got Plus-X & Tri-X looking the way I want after scan. I'll have to put them on top of a newspaper to see how they stand up

Thanks!
Dave

 

[titrisol]

Well, I learned that in the early 80s when I joined a photoclub and since we didn;t have a densitometer, and most people didn;t have a d-room at home but they could process film at home, the "leader"/instructor of the club came up with this rule of thumb.... seemd to work fine a the time

 

[titrisol]

1. If negatives scan well it is most probably they will be printable. With 35mm the problem is to develop in "average" for the whole roll. So VC papers come to the rescue and adjsuting the contrast in the enlarger a bit can help with that.

2. Don;t even worry about the markers on the side of the film, I've seen so much differences between films, even between batches that those shouldn;t be takes seriously.

3. Beisdes the newspaper trick, a loupe and some eye fatigue will help you "see" how your negs are. If you can see some detail in the lightest areas which is an indicative of correct exposure.

I've just started processing my own negs at home. To date, I've got 10 rolls in the bag. No major disasters -- they all seem to scan reasonably well.

But I haven't done any contact sheets, so I can't really tell if my scanner/computer is compensating for accidental mis-exposures or mis-development.

Is there a quick and easy way of evaluating of negs just by looking at them? What should I be looking for in terms of the manufacturer's markings along the edges? Should the words be as black as possible?

 

[dkapp]

I just gave the newspaper trick a try, and it has some merit to it. I have a lot of negatives laying around so I was able to test a wide variety of exposures.

I had a few frames that I knew I messed up & completely blew out and the text was *very* hard to see. There were others with lots of white, but still detail & I was able to read the print just fine.

This is actually a good test because I feel my scanner tries to overcompensate for the lost details in highlights & shadows and image quality is greatly reduced. I don't have a loupe & light table, so this is a quick, cheap & effective alternative.

 

[aizan]

i print contact sheets only once a month, and negs always fool me into thinking i've exposed them ok. make one contact sheet, find a good neg, scan it, and use that as reference.

 

[eric]

I
Is there a quick and easy way of evaluating of negs just by looking at them? What should I be looking for in terms of the manufacturer's markings along the edges? Should the words be as black as possible?

Take a roll to the pro shop and have it developed "normal". Shoot the film like you normally do. Then compare the 2.