surfnsnow
Member
Hi, I am new to RFF, Rangefinder photography, and film photography. I have a DSLR that I've been using for the past 3 years. I've been itching to try a rangefinder for all of the reasons that you all know so well (plus I have a friend who's into it and I've really enjoyed his images.) I thought I'd give it a go, so I recently sold a bunch of rare jazz records and bought an M6 TTL, 35 Summicron (v. 4) and 50 Summicron (latest version). I have a lot to learn, so here is my first request for help!
Here is an image from my 2nd roll (As you can see, I cropped it). I took this roll at a beach party and they all came out looking a lot like this:
As Shot:
After AutoTone and bumping contrast in Lightroom:
What I'd like to figure out is why does the unaltered shot look so washed out? It seems to me that the Dynamic Range could be a lot better. Is this just a simple matter of over-exposure? If so, I am puzzled.
The film is Arista Premium (i.e. Tri-X) 400. There were no clouds in the sky and I used the sunny 16 rule at 1/500 or 1/250 (not sure which). The film was processed and scanned at a local lab which gets great reviews on Yelp.
I have read on this forum and others that you can be off by a full stop with Tri-X and still get a "usable" negative. I guess this negative is "usable" in the sense that I could manipulate it in Lightroom to get something that looks OK. But what if I wanted to make a traditional print? Would this negative be usable?
Most importantly, what can I do to improve the quality of my exposures? I'd like to learn how to get it right in the camera.
Thanks in advance for any and all feedback.
Cheers,
James
Here is an image from my 2nd roll (As you can see, I cropped it). I took this roll at a beach party and they all came out looking a lot like this:
As Shot:
After AutoTone and bumping contrast in Lightroom:
What I'd like to figure out is why does the unaltered shot look so washed out? It seems to me that the Dynamic Range could be a lot better. Is this just a simple matter of over-exposure? If so, I am puzzled.
The film is Arista Premium (i.e. Tri-X) 400. There were no clouds in the sky and I used the sunny 16 rule at 1/500 or 1/250 (not sure which). The film was processed and scanned at a local lab which gets great reviews on Yelp.
I have read on this forum and others that you can be off by a full stop with Tri-X and still get a "usable" negative. I guess this negative is "usable" in the sense that I could manipulate it in Lightroom to get something that looks OK. But what if I wanted to make a traditional print? Would this negative be usable?
Most importantly, what can I do to improve the quality of my exposures? I'd like to learn how to get it right in the camera.
Thanks in advance for any and all feedback.
Cheers,
James
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
Hi James, glad you're interested in trying rangefinders. My guess would be that the scan was flat, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I scan my own film to be as flat as possible just so I have more room to adjust in Lightroom.
If you have the inclination get a scanner and try doing your own. Otherwise just keep doing what your doing and learn a little more as time goes on.
If you have the inclination get a scanner and try doing your own. Otherwise just keep doing what your doing and learn a little more as time goes on.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Scanned negatives always look flat and washed out, you always have to increase contrast after the scan in Photoshop or whatever editing software you use. Always.
Why is this? Because film scanners are made to capture the very wide density range of color slide films. Negative films, both color and black & white, have a much lower density range on the film even though they can actually record detail in a wider brightness range on the scene! So, since the scanner is made for the wide density range of slide film, negs come out low in contrast. Its ok, it makes scanning high contrast negs easy and you can get great scans from slide film if you shoot it. For normal negs, just edit them to bring the contrast back to normal.
Here's some examples from my Nikon LS-8000ED scanner using Vuescan software:
Right from the scanner
After editing
Why is this? Because film scanners are made to capture the very wide density range of color slide films. Negative films, both color and black & white, have a much lower density range on the film even though they can actually record detail in a wider brightness range on the scene! So, since the scanner is made for the wide density range of slide film, negs come out low in contrast. Its ok, it makes scanning high contrast negs easy and you can get great scans from slide film if you shoot it. For normal negs, just edit them to bring the contrast back to normal.
Here's some examples from my Nikon LS-8000ED scanner using Vuescan software:
Right from the scanner
After editing
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
James,
I too am new to film photography and here are some suggestions:
a. use a yellow filter when the clouds are faint. Try it w/wo filter compensation.
b. Like Chris pointed out, scanners produces flat images which needs to be adjusted. The question is, the photo lab which you processed the images, do they print it normally with photo paper ? If yes, you could ask for a print of your negatives and compare it against the scanned images.
c. Film development adds quite a bit of character to the final image, eg. developer and film type pairing, pulling and pushing, all adds to grain, sharpness, contrasts and shadow details. At some point, you may want to consider experimenting and developing it yourself.
cheers!
raytoei
I too am new to film photography and here are some suggestions:
a. use a yellow filter when the clouds are faint. Try it w/wo filter compensation.
b. Like Chris pointed out, scanners produces flat images which needs to be adjusted. The question is, the photo lab which you processed the images, do they print it normally with photo paper ? If yes, you could ask for a print of your negatives and compare it against the scanned images.
c. Film development adds quite a bit of character to the final image, eg. developer and film type pairing, pulling and pushing, all adds to grain, sharpness, contrasts and shadow details. At some point, you may want to consider experimenting and developing it yourself.
cheers!
raytoei
mfogiel
Veteran
If all you were shooting the last 3 years were JPEGS, then you have to understand, that in B&W there are no JPEGS, everything is a RAW image, and you have to adjust it in PS or Lightroom. If you know how to adjust RAW digital files, then adjusting the scanned negatives is no different. Your picture looks fine to me, although it is high contrast, because you did not play enough with the curves, and also, because the shadows are a bit underexposed. Learn how to expose film , and start developing yourself to complement the exposure decision. Scanning yourself will also be helpful, once you will become more proficient. Finally, if you have bought a camera with an internal meter, why are you not using it?
Damaso
Photojournalist
Scans are indeed often flat, especially when it comes to black and white. Just as in the traditional darkroom your "first" print or in this case scan is just a departure point
alaric
Newbie
The problem you have could be brought about by different things. The washed out appearance could be due to decrease in contrast as a result of lens flare, over exposure, under development, or as others have said, due to scanning.
With regards to your question about printing this negative in the darkroom, given with this low contrast negative, you could still boost the contrast in the darkroom by using special filters.
With regards to your question about printing this negative in the darkroom, given with this low contrast negative, you could still boost the contrast in the darkroom by using special filters.
Ranchu
Veteran
It's the scan, that's good though. Just raise the black point until it looks good.
surfnsnow
Member
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful replies!
Chris, this explanation is very helpful. I didn't know that it's "normal" for negative scans to have a lower dynamic range. Thank you.
Ray, good suggestions. I have been planning on trying both. But I'm also trying to keep it simple and not introduce a lot of variables. My idea is to first learn to get the exposure right, then move on to developing.
mfogiel, I have been shooting RAW and I took a class in Digital Photography where we learned about the differences between RAW and JPG. Now I also understand that scanned B&W JPGs are similar to RAW files in the way that you post process them. Thanks for pointing that out.
Agreed I could have played with it more, I was just doing a quick adjustment to illustrate the question.
As for using the meter, I often do. But I wanted to experiment with the sunny 16 rule that day so I could just focus (or use preset focus) and shoot. Many people say an advantage of RF cameras is that you can easily do such things - I was experimenting with that.
Cheers to all who added to the discussion. I appreciate your responses!
Chris, this explanation is very helpful. I didn't know that it's "normal" for negative scans to have a lower dynamic range. Thank you.
Ray, good suggestions. I have been planning on trying both. But I'm also trying to keep it simple and not introduce a lot of variables. My idea is to first learn to get the exposure right, then move on to developing.
mfogiel, I have been shooting RAW and I took a class in Digital Photography where we learned about the differences between RAW and JPG. Now I also understand that scanned B&W JPGs are similar to RAW files in the way that you post process them. Thanks for pointing that out.
Agreed I could have played with it more, I was just doing a quick adjustment to illustrate the question.
As for using the meter, I often do. But I wanted to experiment with the sunny 16 rule that day so I could just focus (or use preset focus) and shoot. Many people say an advantage of RF cameras is that you can easily do such things - I was experimenting with that.
Cheers to all who added to the discussion. I appreciate your responses!
