bwcolor
Veteran
BTW.. high contrast and richer blacks are pretty easy. What is a bit more challenging is keeping the subtle tonal range. After all this text on an expensive monitor has deep black and high contrast.
How to get the rich blacks and good contrast
- Thread starter mmartin09
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 44
- Views 6K
V-12
Well-known
Flat and lacking in contrast is exactly what you want from a scan. Just make sure the highlights and shadows aren't clipping and don't worry too much about the rest. Naturally if your film has blown highlights or very thin shadows you can't do much about that except go back to basics and expose and develop differently. Indeed you can process your film precisely to give a low contrast image that is ideal for scanning. But the scan itself should simply contain all the information possible with no real artistic judgement made.
All your contrast adjustments, along with traditional techniques of dodging and burning, should be done in post processing using Photoshop (etc.). It is much more accurate and offers far more choice and control than trying to get Silverfast to do the right thing. Photoshop is the equivalent of the darkroom, the scanner just opens the door.
Mark C
Well-known
I think really rich blacks and good contrast come from learning to see light, and you seem to have a good eye for that. Treating it as an add on often just leads to harsh or unnatural looking images, though obviously some people want that look too. Rich blacks often hold some detail which avoids the sooty look so famous in "soot and chalk" pictures most people get when they first start looking for good blacks and contrast.
Personally, I like your original image much better than a lot of stuff I see. The soft enveloping light is intact and seems very appropriate for the subject. I'm sure some tweaks could improve it, but you can't change it a whole lot without loosing that effect. I think it is nice to see something different than the usual heavily processed stuff that often has no real sense of light.
Personally, I like your original image much better than a lot of stuff I see. The soft enveloping light is intact and seems very appropriate for the subject. I'm sure some tweaks could improve it, but you can't change it a whole lot without loosing that effect. I think it is nice to see something different than the usual heavily processed stuff that often has no real sense of light.
mmartin09
Established
Thanks, Mark. I'm pretty new to this whole home dev thing, and just looking for ways to get better. I agree that the subject matter lends itself to a generally softer, less harsh overall feel and it works. I'm mainly just curious, thats all. In general, the less time I have to spend on processing, the better.
mmartin09
Established
First, I always shoot with a yellow filter. Tri-X can have really wonderful contrast. I find that pushing it to 1600 gives really amazing contrast, but I'm sure at 800 it would be more in the middle and less extreme.
This is Tri-X @ 1600, straight from the scanner [Canoscan 9000]
kelsey by scottkessler, on Flickr
I usually use D-76 but Rodinal also gives great results with Tri-X. HP5 at 400 in D76 probably has the best contrast I know of at box speed. I always fix for a bit longer as well, 7 minutes or so.
This is HP5 in D76, also straight from the scanner.
passionate dog by scottkessler, on Flickr
Finally, I could suggest Fomapan 100 developed @ 100 in Rodinal - easily the deepest blacks and whites I've seen yet. It's just less versatile being a slower film. Again, straight from my scanner.
sarah by scottkessler, on Flickr
Scott, I really like that first image. That's the look I'm kinda hoping to work towards. I'll try some pushing. Maybe 800 to to start with.
mmartin09
Established
By the way, this is a good example of an image I have shot that has the look I'm after. I din't do the dev though, a lab did. I want to figure out how to do this at home with my dev and scan. It's Tri-X with a 1 stop push.
FrankS
Registered User
Martin, you seem to be missing the message. If you are going to be scanning negs for a final output rather than wet printing them in a dark room, you want negs to be rather thin and flat because those qualities allows them to be scanned the best. Then you dial in the contrast and brightness and whatever in post processing.
Even with darkroom wet printing, one usually is best off with a normal neg with normal brightness/contrast values, then pick a paper grade and printing time to move to the desired result.
Even with darkroom wet printing, one usually is best off with a normal neg with normal brightness/contrast values, then pick a paper grade and printing time to move to the desired result.
Mark C
Well-known
Oh well, then you have it made; that will be an easy look to accomplish, which is why you see so much of it. Plenty of good suggestions here to do that.
FrankS's advice on processing is good, plus will allow you the option of rethinking later if your tastes change.
FrankS's advice on processing is good, plus will allow you the option of rethinking later if your tastes change.
znapper
Well-known
Why isn't anyone just saying
"Underexpose and overdevelop"
?
That's what you need to do anyway, underexposure gives you deep/empty blacks, while overdeveloping stretch the highlights up, creating greater contrast in your negative.
It's dependent on film type, developer and developing scheme though, so you need to experiment to find what works best for you.
"Underexpose and overdevelop"
?
That's what you need to do anyway, underexposure gives you deep/empty blacks, while overdeveloping stretch the highlights up, creating greater contrast in your negative.
It's dependent on film type, developer and developing scheme though, so you need to experiment to find what works best for you.
alexandru_voicu
Established
I'm afraid it's the other way around. Overexpose and underdevelop. When a negative is underexposed, if you contact print it for maximum black, you shall notice that the entire frame is too dark. The same goes if you enlarge it. Therefore, you will unknowingly try to correct the "darkness" (lack of brightness) of the shot, thus avoiding true black. On the contrary, if the shot is too "bright" (overexposed), you will be forced to print it "darker" (with deeper blacks).
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I mentioned the 'underexpose and overdevelop' in my earlier post on the previous page, and for higher contrast I'm pretty sure that's correct. Remember that old saying 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'? So if you underexpose, you're burying those shadows. And if you overdevelop, you're pushing those highlights. That's basically what the OP did in that wedding photo depicted above -- pushed Tri-X one stop (underexposed), and then the lab overdeveloped it to get those blown highlights.
If you overexpose and underdevelop, you're revealing more detail in the shadows, and then the underdevelopment keeps those highlights in check -- ergo, a more detailed, full range image (and probably flatter).
If you overexpose and underdevelop, you're revealing more detail in the shadows, and then the underdevelopment keeps those highlights in check -- ergo, a more detailed, full range image (and probably flatter).
znapper
Well-known
Ehm, that's exactly what I said, remember that the OP wants deep blacks and higher contrast than the example photo he posted.
Thus:
If you want black blacks and normal highlights, you underexpose and overdevelop (In effect, push the film).
(this is what the OP wants as far as I can gather)
If you overexpose and underdevelop, you end up with a negative with LESS contrast (effectively pulling the film), thus, you'll have to print it with a higher contrast filter to obtain normal contrast in your print. The contrast filters affect print shadows mostly, so you can control the degree of blackness with those if you have a "flat" negative.
Scanning is a different story, as long as you have all the tones you want, you can just pull the black and white points to where you like and you're done.
Doing a curves adjustment on top of that, will alter mid-tone contrast to whatever you like.
nightfly
Well-known
As most people have said, once you're scanning, you just need to adjust the scan in Photoshop or whatever you are using.
If it's a scan, grab the curves in Photoshop and give them a nice "S" shape and you will get the sort of look you want.
Really Tri-X is a great film and can give you as much contrast as you like. You can get all Ralph Gibson style straight out of the neg by over exposing and developing in Rodinal 1:25 for 11 or 12 minutes rather than the usual 7 or so but using a flatter neg and scanning will give you the ability to control this much better.
35mm Tri-X is very well suited to this. It's when you want more subtle tonal gradations where medium format has some advantages.
This one is 35mm Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 for 7.5 minutes and has a nice deep rich black and charcoal tones that I like:
If it's a scan, grab the curves in Photoshop and give them a nice "S" shape and you will get the sort of look you want.
Really Tri-X is a great film and can give you as much contrast as you like. You can get all Ralph Gibson style straight out of the neg by over exposing and developing in Rodinal 1:25 for 11 or 12 minutes rather than the usual 7 or so but using a flatter neg and scanning will give you the ability to control this much better.
35mm Tri-X is very well suited to this. It's when you want more subtle tonal gradations where medium format has some advantages.
This one is 35mm Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 for 7.5 minutes and has a nice deep rich black and charcoal tones that I like:
mmartin09
Established
As most people have said, once you're scanning, you just need to adjust the scan in Photoshop or whatever you are using.
If it's a scan, grab the curves in Photoshop and give them a nice "S" shape and you will get the sort of look you want.
Really Tri-X is a great film and can give you as much contrast as you like. You can get all Ralph Gibson style straight out of the neg by over exposing and developing in Rodinal 1:25 for 11 or 12 minutes rather than the usual 7 or so but using a flatter neg and scanning will give you the ability to control this much better.
35mm Tri-X is very well suited to this. It's when you want more subtle tonal gradations where medium format has some advantages.
This one is 35mm Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 for 7.5 minutes and has a nice deep rich black and charcoal tones that I like:
Looks great!
mmartin09
Established
So, what happened here? I just got these back from my local lab that did processing only. It's Tri-X at 1600, and he uses TMAX developer. I scanned this straight and made no adjustments other than cleaning up dust. Is it a bit overdeveloped?
x-ray
Veteran
My preference in scanning film is to have a long tonal scale like your image and build contrast in editing. If you start with a contrasty neg with minimal shadow and highlight info it's tough or impossible to reduce contrast if it's too high. You can't add information that's not in the neg. you can however throw away info if you have it.
If you want richer blacks and want to adjust your film/ dev. Increase the ISO in 1/3 increments to 500, 640, 800 etc and increase development by 10%, 20% etc. you'll find the right combination that way. HC110 and Tx are great and will do what you want if you experiment with USO and dev. The higher the iso and development the more contrast and deeper shadows.
If you want richer blacks and want to adjust your film/ dev. Increase the ISO in 1/3 increments to 500, 640, 800 etc and increase development by 10%, 20% etc. you'll find the right combination that way. HC110 and Tx are great and will do what you want if you experiment with USO and dev. The higher the iso and development the more contrast and deeper shadows.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
So, what happened here? I just got these back from my local lab that did processing only. It's Tri-X at 1600, and he uses TMAX developer. I scanned this straight and made no adjustments other than cleaning up dust. Is it a bit overdeveloped?
What many of us have been saying all along -- underexposed and overdeveloped!
No detail in the shadows -- that comes from underexposing (pushing the film 2 stops).
Almost no detail in the highlights -- that comes from overdevelopment (I am assuming that you told the lab that you pushed the film 2 stops, and they adjusted accordingly).
'Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' -- every photographer shooting conventional black and white film should know this basic rule.
V-12
Well-known
Yes, if you haven't made any adjustments to the scanner settings the bleached highlights and solid blacks are under exposure and over development.
You could have got detail in the highlights and the shadows if shot differently, and made your high contrast image in post processing. You may say 'why do that when I can do it without post processing?' but the answer is easy, in years to come you may change your mind about the Ralph Gibson look, you may want a baby picture that isn't dated to 'the Lomo school of 2013', you may want more refinement. So there is no going back if the negative is thin and blocked.
Even Ralph Gibson's high contrast images, made even more aggressively by over exposing and over developing, are finished in 'post processing', high contrast printing in the darkroom to control the balance of blacks and whites. See a reproduction on the web and the shadows often look totally black, but see the print and subtle detail can often be seen, a testament to the fine control he has over the process. Letting the Lab decide the style and quality of your output is one way to do photography, but I'm sure most people here would agree that being in control all the way through the process is a better way.
mmartin09
Established
Yes, I metered at 1600 and told the lab, which adjusted accordingly.
So I would have been better off maybe having them push it 1 stop to save the highlight details and adjusting my exposure for more light in camera to save shadow details?
mmartin09
Established
I agree, the high contrast look isn't for every image and is probably not well suited to a baby picture. I was mainly just curious how to achieve this look. I don't want every image I shoot to be this way, but it is helpful to understand how to achieve this look when I want it.
I also agree that going the Lab route isn't as desirable as being in total control. I've started tinkering with home development and hope to do more and more of it in the future. If only I had a suitable darkroom... converting a bathroom into a temporary darkroom is a lot of work for a roll or two.
Similar threads
