Fudging the film, development or scanning

[stillshunter]

Relatively new to development and film generally and so would really appreciate your advice.

I'm currently shooting TMY (TMax 400) and love the richness and depth of the midtones. However one thing I noticed is that I rarely get much in the way of black or white - especially in micro-contrast. I realise these terms might be wrong so I hope to better demonstrate with two photos showing the global adjustments I usually defer to in LR3 post scan.

This is the straight scan (Epson V300 using Epson Scan @ 4800dpi with medium unsharp mask)



...and here are my preferred LR adjustments - small boost to the Blacks, Contrast and Clarity with about 20 up on the sharpness and slight S to the curve.



Like I said this is demonstrated with global adjustments for this purpose and if I were working harder I'd do more local tweaks to preserve the highlights.

But I wondered whether there is something more I could be doing during capture or development to better approximate the look (especially on the face) of the PP image straight out of the soup? Otherwise is this simply a property of the emulsion or developer, or a failure in my naive scanning abilities...Or am I simply still stuck in a rarefied digital mindset. 😱

Details:
Shot with M2 & ZM Planar 50/2 loaded with TMax 400
Developed in Xtol 1+1 (fresh) at box speed (9:25min) with agitation every 30 seconds (as I wanted a little more contrast)

Like I said I simply love the TMY midtones, but would like to see a little more on the extremes and micro-contrast. So your advice would be greatly appreciated - as my next step is wet printing and so would like to get the negatives as right as possible.

TIA

 

[mfogiel]

Well, if you like to expand the midtones, you should try to bump up the curve in the middle, not force it to an S shape. As to the whole process, these are the essentials:
1 - exposure and development
You should expose to get as much shadow detail as necessary, and then experiment with the development time and agitation till you see that the highlights are about to get blocked ( not transparent at all), in principle for a tone rich negative, overexpose slightly and underdevelop slightly
2- scanning
At this stage, what you want is to make sure you do not lose any information which is on the negative, so preview the scan with a histogram before actually scanning. If the histogram is overflowing on the right, you are clipping the highlights, if it is all to the left, you are not expanding the tones enough. In case of clipping, scan as positive. I use Vuescan, which is very helpful at this stage.
3- PP
Here, you can have as many strategies as there are photographers, but in general I like to make sure that my midtones are well balanced, that my low and high levels are set as I like ( I often clip at 10 and 245), that the contrast and brightness are well balanced too. I often enhance microcontrast by sharpenng with inverted values ( I think in LR this is called the clarity filter). Then you can apply all the dodging, burning and selective editing you like. All this comes with practice.

 

[Tim Gray]

Keep in mind that film was designed to be printed, so the 'post processing' including printing. While you could adjust the print in the printing stage, even a straight print at grade 2 applies a contrast curve to your negative. Remember, not only did you set the contrast with your printing grades, you also set the overall exposure by adjusting printing times.

What I'm saying is this: It's perfectly fine, and even advantageous to have a flat scan that you then work in PS/LR/whatever. Your original scan looks pretty good to me, especially for a beginner. Adding contrast and setting your black and white points should happen in LR/PS in mind. I think you are on the right track.

I prefer PS because I can very quickly get the basic tonality I want with the curves dialogue, but LR has gotten better with each version with regards to control, so it's perfectly viable for B&W scans.

 

[timor]

To be honest maybe you should switch to TX which as cubical grain film will be much easier to reach this levels of tones you are talking about. Tmax films are known from blocking the high values quite easy and that during exposure stage and the development stage. This behavior is different from TX for which shooting for shadows - developing for highlights is much easier to implement.
In both of your pictures highlights are blocked (unless something wrong with scan) and knowing Tmax even heavy "burning" under enlarger may not increase its details in any significant way.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

I would say that to get your something closer to your edited second image without as much post processing you may want to try tri-x in d76 1:1. It won't be as fine grained, but it will have more contrast.

If you wind up disliking tri-x, continue with your tmax and don't be ashamed about doing some post processing--though I'll agree with some of the comments above in that you might be better served to take a very basic flat scan (with no scanner adjustments) and do all your post processing in Lightroom.

 

[charjohncarter]

Your original scan looks good (not the second blown out one), now you have to learn how to use the healing tool for dust. We all get it but.......................... some don't want to clean up there images.

 

[ChrisN]

Hi Mark

To make good negatives for wet printing you need to understand the principles explained in this article by Barry Thornton. When I started making wet prints I discovered that my exposure and developing, fine for scanning, was totally wrong for wet printing with my particular enlarger. Making proper contact proofs of your negatives (as described in the linked article) will allow you to dial-in the exposure and the development to perfection.

Good luck! Report back!

 

[Keith]

Your original scan looks good (not the second blown out one), now you have to learn how to use the healing tool for dust. We all get it but.......................... some don't want to clean up there images.

I'm with you here ... I prefer the original scan. The second immage has a slight harshness to it to my eye.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm with you here ... I prefer the original scan. The second immage has a slight harshness to it to my eye.

Me too. Your original is fine. If you want more microcontrast in midtones, use lightroom's "Clarity" slider, which increases midtone contrast without much effect on bright whites and dark shadows. Your second one is too contrasty overall and detail is lost in the bright tones.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm a bit of a contrast junkie ... what do you think of this?

 

[stillshunter]

Thank you all. Much food for thought. I've got a few rolls of TX400 in the fridge ready to shoot and I will try this in the coming weeks. I have shot one roll with it but to be fair it was with the Oly XA so I'd be keen to see the difference in the M2 with the ZM glass. Having said that it didn't seem to treat the midtones as creamily (sorry for the technical term) as the TMY. Funny thing is that the more I ponder these images the more I am warming to the original scan. Again, as conceded earlier I have not discounted my prejudice for digital as this is my background and so I am still learning the subtlies of film. But I stand firm that I am only a short way down the road and have much to learn and the next major bend will be learning the art of wet printing. So I am reassured to hear that there is something left in this negative to work with and will certainly come back to it once I have the darkroom up and running to see what I can draw from it....and I will post the scans of the print.

Special mention to Chris. Thanks for the article I will read it a little deeper tonight. If I recall you are not to far from home and so please don't be surprised if a petition for an apprenticeship arrives in your PM box 😉

I cannot quite convey how exciting this new turn in my photography is. Not only to know that I have so much to learn to train my eye for film (esp. silver halide) - especially with learning to really see tones and textures - but the adventure ahead with development and printing. That should see me out to well beyond retirement and the pine box. Sight willing.

Thanks again all. Welcome any more comments and insights.

 

[timor]

Mark, you do have interesting foot note. I wouldn't agree completely with it, but is it the reason for your venture into film ?

 

[stillshunter]

Mark, you do have interesting foot note. I wouldn't agree completely with it, but is it the reason for your venture into film ?

It certainly played it's part in moving me towards film - here's the original blog entry if you're interested. Appreciate your noticing.
Mark

 

[timor]

Well, I think, you will soon discover that shooting film is strongly connected to constant thinking about technology. But this is a good thinking, unifying with the medium, eventually giving intuitive understanding without numbers and diagrams, simply friendship. Until you change the film or chemistry and start from the beginning :=)))

 

[Aristophanes]

Too sharp for me. I like the contrast adjusts.