film shooters, need your feedback

[Margu]

this image is shot with Trix pulled two stops, rodinal normal processing and scanned with a friend's Hasselblad Flextight X1.

the camera used Nikon F100 & nikor 50mm 1.4 AF-D mounted on a tripod.

i'd like some feedback on this image bascially about its look.

 

[Vics]

Why did you pull the film? It looks like a low-contrast situation, so...?

 

[Margu]

to minimize the grain because i wanted to preserve the low contrast feel of the scene... maybe i should have developed normal time +1?

 

[ottluuk]

I thought overexposure would actually increase grain in the highlights (unless you underdevelop). This is not so with chromogenic films like XP-2 - you can overexpose XP2 a lot and you still get very smooth highlights. See here for a dicussion: TOP: How To Shoot Ilford XP2 Super.

As to the look of your presented image, I'd prefer to see somewhat deeper blacks, especially in the lower left-hand corner. I'd leave the medium and light greys alone but would manipulate the dark end of the curve. The foggy mood suggests wet bark/twigs/soil...

 

[jbrubaker]

It looks to me like you need to adjust levels to get a true black, and a bit more contrast. I know you want to preserve the "look", but it does seem too flat. regards ---john.

 

[Margu]

I added some contrast to the shadows:

 

[kshapero]

Even better. Liked the first one, love the second one.

 

[Margu]

^thanks, i'm glad i asked for feedback. here is another shot from the same day. this one is shot at ISO 320 (trix) handheld.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I like the first one especially with a little more contrast. I echo the 'why pull' sentiments though, and I'm not sure you pulled in the correct sense of the word if you just overexposed and normal develop pulling would be 20% less time.

Given a flat scene I'd be more likely to expose and process for more contrast.

 

[gb hill]

Isn't Tri-x actually rated at ISO 320? I've seen many photographers rate their film at lower ISO's & get very good results. Almost all films need a bit of digital burning & dodging. Just like a digital RAW file needs adjusting. Don't worry about adjusting a photo that looks flat. What you want is a negative that scans well.

 

[mfogiel]

As said above, pulling 2 stops sounds a bit much - you tend to do it in saharian light conditions - when the contrast between the highlights and shadows is over 8 stops or so. Another unwanted consequence of excessive overexposure is the loss of sharpness, due to light scatter in the emulsion.
I normally rate Tri X EI 250, and develop perhaps 10-20% shorter than normal in most developers. Try the Charjohncarter's recipe in HC110+Rodinal for great tonality and good acutance, if you want to be fancy, otherwise go with D76 1+1.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100306

 

[Ansel]

I dont understand what you mean by pulled, if you developed normally that isn't pulling.... if you man you exposed at EI 50, rather than 400 then just say rated at EI 50.

Here in the south of Spain I will sometimes pull a film (literally pull it from the developer earlier than normal) and rate it at a lower ISO in order to get a flatter neg that is easier to print (you rate it at a lower ISO to boost the shadow information to compensate for the reduced dev. time, exposure controls shadows, development controls highlights).

Looking at your image though I imagine it would look fine with a higher contrast paper.

 

[Photo_Smith]

^thanks, i'm glad i asked for feedback. here is another shot from the same day. this one is shot at ISO 320 (trix) handheld.

This one looks flat and has too much noise, looks like you metered for the higher value, impossible to say if it is underdeveloped or underexposed.

I'd say a little more development might have picked up this image. Rating film lower than box is for very bright scenes (like Marek stated)

I often wonder though when people say 'rate for 320' they are practicing good exposure, Tri-x is a 400 ISO film and If I stand next to someone rating at 200 I may be giving the same exposure or even more through different metering technique.

I normally advise people to place the meter on emerging detail then stop down two stops to ensure emerging detail is recorded at Fb+ fog 0.1 density. Metering for the shadow and not stopping down can expose the shadow where the mid tones should be giving larger grain and poor tone.

 

[Margu]

thanks for the feedback. next time when shooting i'll make sure to carry my film 101 book and follow it exactly.

 

[Margu]

after sometime and some learning:

 

[Colin Corneau]

I think they look fine. Many photographers pull their film or expose at a lower ISO, to preserve shadow details, mainly.

Not many shadows to be had in that scene, but it's a high-key scene that is served well by the approach, IMHO.

Any improvement can be had by a slight tweaking in levels (digitally) or with modest burning (wet printing).

 

[wblynch]

I actually like the first one and the last edition. I like the photo to represent the scene. If the scene was washed out, the photo should be too.

 

[Chris101]

Sometimes you want low contrast - the haze and fog is accentuated this way. Putting in more contrast because photographic rules say so, reduces the visual effect of the fog. If you want to selectively make parts of the scene more contrasty, then that can be done during printing (or post processing in a hybrid workflow.). Both picture are very pleasing compositions.

 

[noisycheese]

I actually like the first one and the last edition. I like the photo to represent the scene. If the scene was washed out, the photo should be too.

+1.

There's nothing wrong with a low contrast, foggy landscape shot - the atmospheric quality of the fog is likely one of the main things that attracted you to this scene to begin with. I have always wanted to make the print match the subject as it appeared before my lens rather than to create a "new and improved" version of the scene.

When I used to shoot E6 and have inkjet prints made, my printer would ask, "What do you want me to do with the print (in terms of photoshop)?"
My answer was always "Just make the print look like the slide."

As for others, YMMV.

 

[Ronald M]

The "look" is great , however 2 stop pull should be for scenes with more contrast. A lot depends on the scanner and its dynamic range. I use as a reference a negative that will print a full tone subject on #2 paper using a condenser enlarger with no burn and dodge. If you have no darkroom, then a full toned subject that scans with no clipping has the correct development.

I have advocated pulling film for decades and few seem to consider it worthwhile. I did convince my son after 3 rolls with Diafine that pull was a better process if you do not need the film speed. A neg with full tones in shadow to highlights is what you need.