Fabian
Established
Hello there
I got my first few rolls back from the lab and I am a litttle bit disapointed, to be honest. All the pictures where shot with an Industar-22 and on either Tri-x or Tmax 100. Most pictures have a huge lack of contrast. On the other hand some are allright. So I guess its the labs fault and not the lens.(maybe its mine?).
Anyway I can't get a darkroom because I neither have the room or the time. Plus I've got a one year old daughter all over the place and my wife would freak out if started messing round with all those chemicals.
So the only other idea I have is to get them scanned in the lab (someday buy my own scanner), correct what is necessary in PS and send the files to a printing service.
My question now is: What quality can I expect and do pictures shot with old lenses like the 5cm Elmar handle the digital change well. I hope you understand what I mean. If you compare one negative printed the classical way and the same negative scanned and printed the digital way, what would the differences look like.
Any help or any other idea would be helpful
Thanks
Fabian
I got my first few rolls back from the lab and I am a litttle bit disapointed, to be honest. All the pictures where shot with an Industar-22 and on either Tri-x or Tmax 100. Most pictures have a huge lack of contrast. On the other hand some are allright. So I guess its the labs fault and not the lens.(maybe its mine?).
Anyway I can't get a darkroom because I neither have the room or the time. Plus I've got a one year old daughter all over the place and my wife would freak out if started messing round with all those chemicals.
So the only other idea I have is to get them scanned in the lab (someday buy my own scanner), correct what is necessary in PS and send the files to a printing service.
My question now is: What quality can I expect and do pictures shot with old lenses like the 5cm Elmar handle the digital change well. I hope you understand what I mean. If you compare one negative printed the classical way and the same negative scanned and printed the digital way, what would the differences look like.
Any help or any other idea would be helpful
Thanks
Fabian
Attachments
Last edited:
T_om
Well-known
I would not be too concerned with the contrast levels of these scans. Actually, they are not bad. They are just not finished.
Part of the digital workflow involves controlling things like color, contrast and sharpness at almost every step of the process.
The two shots you posted have a pretty good tonal scale to start working with. Especially considering you do not know if the problem is exposure or developing. Since there is a large variation, my money would be on exposure problems.
Having all this done by a lab is going to cost a bit. Home developing and a descent scanner will remove a lot of variables in this process and give you MUCH more control. You do not need much in the way of chemicals around the house and you do not need a darkroom at all... a changing bag is fine.
Anyway, I would start at the exposure end and start checking things out. Run a shutter test to make sure what you are dialing in is what you are actually getting (I would bet BIG money against finding a high degree of shutter accuracy in an old rangefinder). At least a thorough test will tell you how to compensate for shutter inaccuracies.
Tom
Part of the digital workflow involves controlling things like color, contrast and sharpness at almost every step of the process.
The two shots you posted have a pretty good tonal scale to start working with. Especially considering you do not know if the problem is exposure or developing. Since there is a large variation, my money would be on exposure problems.
Having all this done by a lab is going to cost a bit. Home developing and a descent scanner will remove a lot of variables in this process and give you MUCH more control. You do not need much in the way of chemicals around the house and you do not need a darkroom at all... a changing bag is fine.
Anyway, I would start at the exposure end and start checking things out. Run a shutter test to make sure what you are dialing in is what you are actually getting (I would bet BIG money against finding a high degree of shutter accuracy in an old rangefinder). At least a thorough test will tell you how to compensate for shutter inaccuracies.
Tom
Fabian
Established
The problem is that those two shots where corrected in PS. I had to pull the blackpoint almost two the middle of the histogramm. If the pictures came from the lab like that I would be just happy. But I will keep on trying. First I decided to test different b/w films to see wich ones the lab will handle best. But thanks for your advice. Maybe I try developing at least the film my self and let the prints get done by a lab.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Try again developing at the lab, scanning at the lab (you can ask for hires) and lightrooming at home.
The dev/CD is cheap enough...
The dev/CD is cheap enough...
Ronald M
Veteran
The images appear correctly exposed. Assuming your lens is clear inside, check both ends with a penlight, the film needs longer developing.
Labs sometimes develope to lower contrast because it make easier printing. Sort of a shotgun approach to getting an image on paper.
Labs sometimes develope to lower contrast because it make easier printing. Sort of a shotgun approach to getting an image on paper.