parkview112
Member
I shoot Kodak Tri-X 400 black and white film 35mm and 120mm with a Leica iiif and Rolleiflex Automat respectively. I have the film developed and put on disc by a small local camera shop that has been in business since the 1920's. The first couple rolls I had made into prints until I realized it made more sense just to use the images on the disk to print only what I wanted and otherwise post online.
The negatives of all the rolls I shot seem ok thought perhaps a little too transparent in the light areas. On those rolls I had printed and on the images on the discs the photos are definitely light, almost as if they were under-exposed. When I open them in PhotoShop and do an Auto-Contrast adjustment they snap to life and look very good, though it almost seems like they were over-corrected to compensate for a too light negative. Of course, this is very subjective. There is some detail in the light areas.
I tested my light meter and the cameras work properly so I believe my exposures were correct. My tentative thoughts are that the film may have been under or over developed or that perhaps the developing was correct and the scanning off or maybe a bit of both. I've attached a recent photo as an example. It has been adjust for contrast as described above. I don't have an unadjusted one available at the moment.
Can anyone give any insight by pointing to one problem or the other? I would really appreciate any help.
Thank you.
Rich
The negatives of all the rolls I shot seem ok thought perhaps a little too transparent in the light areas. On those rolls I had printed and on the images on the discs the photos are definitely light, almost as if they were under-exposed. When I open them in PhotoShop and do an Auto-Contrast adjustment they snap to life and look very good, though it almost seems like they were over-corrected to compensate for a too light negative. Of course, this is very subjective. There is some detail in the light areas.
I tested my light meter and the cameras work properly so I believe my exposures were correct. My tentative thoughts are that the film may have been under or over developed or that perhaps the developing was correct and the scanning off or maybe a bit of both. I've attached a recent photo as an example. It has been adjust for contrast as described above. I don't have an unadjusted one available at the moment.
Can anyone give any insight by pointing to one problem or the other? I would really appreciate any help.
Thank you.
Rich
Attachments
divewizard
perspicaz
If you like using them and their process is consistent, shoot an experimental roll varying your exposure both up and down from your nominal and see what you get.
You may need to do a bit of post processing. I almost always adjust the scans I get back from PCV, NCPS, and my local shop. I made a few adjustments to the one you uploaded. See if you like it better.
You may need to do a bit of post processing. I almost always adjust the scans I get back from PCV, NCPS, and my local shop. I made a few adjustments to the one you uploaded. See if you like it better.
Attachments
John Bragg
Well-known
As Divewizard said. Try a roll with everyday shots and bracket. I think you may like Tri-X at ei 200 or 250. That pushes everything further up the curve and will give more exposure to the shadow areas which tends to work well with Tri-X as long as it isn't overdeveloped. Try it once. You may like it.
parkview112
Member
Thank you both for the good suggestions. I was also going to try using a different shop but this one is extremely convenient and the next option much less so. I may do that anyway however.
Divewizard, I like what you did with the photo and is more of what I would have expected on the skin tone but I'm somewhat ok with the other way too. I wish I had the original scan to post now but I'll do that once I'm home so you can see how they come to me and compare directly with the PhotoShopped version. My concern is not so much having to tweak it in general but that if either the developing of the negative was off or the scan or both, that compensating may bring out what I like in the dark areas but be too much in relation to the light areas.
What are your opinions regarding the photo as I posted it? Does it look ok as is or does it exhibit those things about which I'm concerned or any other problems?
Since you both suggested bracketing do you think the root of the issue is with the exposure itself or that I should choose a modified exposure to overcome the way the shop I use happens to be developing and scanning the film?
Thank you very much, this is a big help.
Rich
Divewizard, I like what you did with the photo and is more of what I would have expected on the skin tone but I'm somewhat ok with the other way too. I wish I had the original scan to post now but I'll do that once I'm home so you can see how they come to me and compare directly with the PhotoShopped version. My concern is not so much having to tweak it in general but that if either the developing of the negative was off or the scan or both, that compensating may bring out what I like in the dark areas but be too much in relation to the light areas.
What are your opinions regarding the photo as I posted it? Does it look ok as is or does it exhibit those things about which I'm concerned or any other problems?
Since you both suggested bracketing do you think the root of the issue is with the exposure itself or that I should choose a modified exposure to overcome the way the shop I use happens to be developing and scanning the film?
Thank you very much, this is a big help.
Rich
parkview112
Member
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update
Here are the original scan received on the disk from the camera shop (first photo) and the same photo after using the Auto Contrast only in Photoshop. The photo was taken using the reading from a tested Weston meter. I'd be interested in responses to the following:
Is the first photo ok as it is?
Is the second photo a correct improvement?
Based on my previous posts, if there does seem to be a problem is it more likely a developing or scanning problem at the camera shop or a basic exposure problem?
I'll be making additional tests but some direction here would be very helpful.
Thank you in advance.
Rich
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update
Here are the original scan received on the disk from the camera shop (first photo) and the same photo after using the Auto Contrast only in Photoshop. The photo was taken using the reading from a tested Weston meter. I'd be interested in responses to the following:
Is the first photo ok as it is?
Is the second photo a correct improvement?
Based on my previous posts, if there does seem to be a problem is it more likely a developing or scanning problem at the camera shop or a basic exposure problem?
I'll be making additional tests but some direction here would be very helpful.
Thank you in advance.
Rich
Attachments
sailor
Well-known
I use Ilford UK to develop and scan my B&W film and I generally find the scans don't look too different from your scan (lacking contrast). I do find however that they can take quite a bit of fiddling about with to get the look I like. What you have done by a simple contrast adjustment has made quite a difference and I don't see a lot wrong with it.
sailor
Well-known
I've just remembered Chris Crawford has a useful article on his website about how to get the best out of B&W scans.
Landshark
Well-known
I'd suggest basic exposure problem.
Have you ever done a film speed test to determine your EI?
Have you ever done a film speed test to determine your EI?
AlexisNeel
http://alexisneel.com/
The issue with the first photo is mostly due to agitation during their development and possibly under development as well. Development time controls density while agitation controls contrast. Since you are only doing digital printing, do what everyone else does in digital...fix it in PhotoShop.
If you were ever going to print these the real way, then you'd have to have them do something in their processing, starting with increasing agitation and adding a bit to the dev. time.
Alexis
alexisneel.com
parkview112
Member
Alexis,
Thank you very much for your insight. I'm going to have my next roll developed at a different shop to see if there is any difference. While it may happen that any prints I ever make will be from the corrected file instead of directly from the negative, I'd prefer to have the original negative correct and leave all options open. Depending on what result I get from the other shop I may go back to the first one and ask if they can alter their processing according to your suggestion.
Thank you all very much and if anyone else has further comments, I would appreciate them as well.
Rich
Thank you very much for your insight. I'm going to have my next roll developed at a different shop to see if there is any difference. While it may happen that any prints I ever make will be from the corrected file instead of directly from the negative, I'd prefer to have the original negative correct and leave all options open. Depending on what result I get from the other shop I may go back to the first one and ask if they can alter their processing according to your suggestion.
Thank you all very much and if anyone else has further comments, I would appreciate them as well.
Rich
AlexisNeel
http://alexisneel.com/
glad to help. I would also suggest that you ask them to use normal dilution of dev, rather than diluted. For example, "straight" D-76 rather than 1:1, which some people and labs use. You could check with both, especially the 2nd lab, prior to them dev. your film and ask what they use and their time and methods (agitation specifically...is it once a minutes or every 30 seconds? And for how long?) and post here prior and I can check if what they are doing is.
Best of luck
Best of luck
parkview112
Member
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update 2
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update 2
Several developments have taken place.
1. It turns out the camera shop I'm using is the only one reasonably convenient so I went there are discussed the problem I'm having. I do have confidence in them because they've been a family owned and run business since 1926. Here's what I leaned:
They do not develop in a tank but by dipping, something I've never heard of, so there is no agitation.
They showed me some contact sheets (innocuous landscapes) from another customer developed the same as mine had been and they were just right. They're going to increase the development time to see what happens with a roll I dropped off but I was back to thinking the problem may be exposure.
2. One of the things I had done first was check my Weston Ranger 9 meter against the in-camera meter of my Nikon 8008s (gasp!) and the readings had matched. After leaving the camera shop yesterday and thinking more about what the problem could be, it suddenly occurred to me that when I had made the meter check with the Nikon I did not have film in the camera and I had not checked the ASA setting. Duh!!!
So last night I checked the film speed setting in the Nikon and discovered that is was actually set for 200. I set the Nikon to 400 and did another comparison with my Weston meter set at 400 and guess what? It was off by a stop. I changed the ASA setting on the Weston to 200 leaving the Nikon on 400, metered numerous different scenes, and they matched exactly each time.
A possible reason for this could be the battery converters that are used in the Weston. The original type batteries are difficult or impossible to find so small cup-type adapters are available from several suppliers to allow standard watch-type batteries to be used, they alter the voltage. What I also know but didn't connect to this problem is that even though the adapters provide correct voltage, they actually register slightly less on the needle (one stop as a matter of fact!) when doing the battery test.
So I'm going to shoot a roll with readings from the Weston meter set at 200. John Bragg suggested this in a previous post above. I'll then have the camera shop develop them as they normally do and see what happens.
I want to thank Alexis again, I'm still looking at the development end closely and your comments were extremely helpful, especially in my discussion with the camera store. I'd like to thank everyone else as well.
I will post results here which I hope to have back Tuesday or Wednesday with the "pushed" roll and also on the one I'll be shooting this weekend.
Thanks again.
Rich
Problem With Commercial Film Processing - Update 2
Several developments have taken place.
1. It turns out the camera shop I'm using is the only one reasonably convenient so I went there are discussed the problem I'm having. I do have confidence in them because they've been a family owned and run business since 1926. Here's what I leaned:
They do not develop in a tank but by dipping, something I've never heard of, so there is no agitation.
They showed me some contact sheets (innocuous landscapes) from another customer developed the same as mine had been and they were just right. They're going to increase the development time to see what happens with a roll I dropped off but I was back to thinking the problem may be exposure.
2. One of the things I had done first was check my Weston Ranger 9 meter against the in-camera meter of my Nikon 8008s (gasp!) and the readings had matched. After leaving the camera shop yesterday and thinking more about what the problem could be, it suddenly occurred to me that when I had made the meter check with the Nikon I did not have film in the camera and I had not checked the ASA setting. Duh!!!
So last night I checked the film speed setting in the Nikon and discovered that is was actually set for 200. I set the Nikon to 400 and did another comparison with my Weston meter set at 400 and guess what? It was off by a stop. I changed the ASA setting on the Weston to 200 leaving the Nikon on 400, metered numerous different scenes, and they matched exactly each time.
A possible reason for this could be the battery converters that are used in the Weston. The original type batteries are difficult or impossible to find so small cup-type adapters are available from several suppliers to allow standard watch-type batteries to be used, they alter the voltage. What I also know but didn't connect to this problem is that even though the adapters provide correct voltage, they actually register slightly less on the needle (one stop as a matter of fact!) when doing the battery test.
So I'm going to shoot a roll with readings from the Weston meter set at 200. John Bragg suggested this in a previous post above. I'll then have the camera shop develop them as they normally do and see what happens.
I want to thank Alexis again, I'm still looking at the development end closely and your comments were extremely helpful, especially in my discussion with the camera store. I'd like to thank everyone else as well.
I will post results here which I hope to have back Tuesday or Wednesday with the "pushed" roll and also on the one I'll be shooting this weekend.
Thanks again.
Rich
Vics
Veteran
Two suggestions: 1. Get a good, modern meter (I like the Sekonic L308s) and 2. Learn to develop your own film.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alexis,
Not really. Agitation controls only microcontrast (= edge sharpness): less agitation = more microcontrast, until the agitation is so slight that you get bromide streamers, blotches and the like. Overall contrast (shadows/mid-tones/highlights) in a given developer at a given concentration and given temperature is affected by both time and agitation, though far more by the former.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
"Dip and dunk" uses a line of open tanks (dev-(stop)-fix) with the film on reels in baskets or kangers, and there is agitation either as the basket is moved up and down, or in commercial tanks usually by nitrogen burst.
Developer is usually 'seasoned' (repeatedly replenished) which reduces both effective film speed and contrast unless the film is developed for longer. Ask the shop what film and speed they recommend.
Cheers,
R.
farlymac
PF McFarland
At least your's is a simple fix, Rich. Here are some of the high quality returns I've been getting from the lab lately. (These are unretouched scans as I received them)
0006_6A000054190006 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Purple splotch in the center of about half the roll.
0025_24A000054730025 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Not a scratch, as you can see the “lazer beam” go behind the trees on the right.
0001_0A000054740001 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Rainbow man.
0004_###000000040004 by br1078phot, on Flickr
The tech told me he “darkened the scans a little bit”. Would have liked to have seen what a lot of darkening would have done.
PF
0006_6A000054190006 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Purple splotch in the center of about half the roll.
0025_24A000054730025 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Not a scratch, as you can see the “lazer beam” go behind the trees on the right.
0001_0A000054740001 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Rainbow man.
0004_###000000040004 by br1078phot, on Flickr
The tech told me he “darkened the scans a little bit”. Would have liked to have seen what a lot of darkening would have done.
PF
AlexisNeel
http://alexisneel.com/
parkview112:
"They do not develop in a tank but by dipping, something I've never heard of, so there is no agitation."
That development method is dip and dung and and agitation is done by raising and lowering the basket holding the reels or uses nitrogen to produce agitation (release of the gas through a special fixture at the bottom of the tank causes the nitrogen to be released, causing bubbles. They use nitrogen as it does not oxidize the dev. and also it minimizes the possibility of air bubbles sticking to the film, causing further dev. issues. If they use the burst method, they either have their duration mis-calibrated or are not doing it often enough. If manually lifting the basket, they again are not doing it enough. If they are not agitating at all, or what is called stand dev., they have their times off. Of course all this is moot if your exposure is off.
And if your meter was that off, that could be your issue as well, rather than the dev. I had assumed that you exposed properly.
Roger Hicks:
"Dear Alexis,
Not really. Agitation controls only microcontrast (= edge sharpness): less agitation = more microcontrast, until the agitation is so slight that you get bromide streamers, blotches and the like. Overall contrast (shadows/mid-tones/highlights) in a given developer at a given concentration and given temperature is affected by both time and agitation, though far more by the former.
Cheers,
R."
Actually you are incorrect there...well partially. Micro-contrast is primarily controlled by the lens and some by dev. choice and development/agitation, though increased dev time actually hurts the micro-contrast due to swelling, and maybe what you are thinking of is internal contrast, which is the further separation of the "zones" or minute differences in contrast by development. Density for the most part is done by time in the dev. and is easy to see...put a roll, or print for that matter, in the dev and don't touch it. pull out at a certain time, then do the same doubling the time and then look at the results. There is more density to the one left in the dev. longer. Repeat but this time keep the dev time the same and do minimal agitation on the first, then double that on the 2nd and you will see an increased contrast (and some increase in density) on the 2nd, but the primary difference is in contrast.
I based this on my studies while receiving a degree from Brooks Institute of Photography, 33 years as a professional B&W Fine art printer, (developing over 125,000 rolls of film and tens of thousands of sheets of film and who knows how many prints), and 44 years in the photography field.
Alexis
alexisneel.com
"They do not develop in a tank but by dipping, something I've never heard of, so there is no agitation."
That development method is dip and dung and and agitation is done by raising and lowering the basket holding the reels or uses nitrogen to produce agitation (release of the gas through a special fixture at the bottom of the tank causes the nitrogen to be released, causing bubbles. They use nitrogen as it does not oxidize the dev. and also it minimizes the possibility of air bubbles sticking to the film, causing further dev. issues. If they use the burst method, they either have their duration mis-calibrated or are not doing it often enough. If manually lifting the basket, they again are not doing it enough. If they are not agitating at all, or what is called stand dev., they have their times off. Of course all this is moot if your exposure is off.
And if your meter was that off, that could be your issue as well, rather than the dev. I had assumed that you exposed properly.
Roger Hicks:
"Dear Alexis,
Not really. Agitation controls only microcontrast (= edge sharpness): less agitation = more microcontrast, until the agitation is so slight that you get bromide streamers, blotches and the like. Overall contrast (shadows/mid-tones/highlights) in a given developer at a given concentration and given temperature is affected by both time and agitation, though far more by the former.
Cheers,
R."
Actually you are incorrect there...well partially. Micro-contrast is primarily controlled by the lens and some by dev. choice and development/agitation, though increased dev time actually hurts the micro-contrast due to swelling, and maybe what you are thinking of is internal contrast, which is the further separation of the "zones" or minute differences in contrast by development. Density for the most part is done by time in the dev. and is easy to see...put a roll, or print for that matter, in the dev and don't touch it. pull out at a certain time, then do the same doubling the time and then look at the results. There is more density to the one left in the dev. longer. Repeat but this time keep the dev time the same and do minimal agitation on the first, then double that on the 2nd and you will see an increased contrast (and some increase in density) on the 2nd, but the primary difference is in contrast.
I based this on my studies while receiving a degree from Brooks Institute of Photography, 33 years as a professional B&W Fine art printer, (developing over 125,000 rolls of film and tens of thousands of sheets of film and who knows how many prints), and 44 years in the photography field.
Alexis
alexisneel.com
parkview112
Member
Alexis,
Thank you again for the further explanation. I shot a roll of film this weekend using the adjusted ASA setting on my meter. It was outside and the readings happened to accord with the Sunny f16 rule for the prevailing light which also seemed a good indication.
Once I get last week's film back that is being left in the developer longer it may be easier to tell but it will be interesting to see what this weekend's roll looks like.
This has been a good learning experience and I'm very grateful to all of you. None of your comments and suggestions have for for naught whatever it turns out the actual problem is.
I will keep you posted.
Rich
Thank you again for the further explanation. I shot a roll of film this weekend using the adjusted ASA setting on my meter. It was outside and the readings happened to accord with the Sunny f16 rule for the prevailing light which also seemed a good indication.
Once I get last week's film back that is being left in the developer longer it may be easier to tell but it will be interesting to see what this weekend's roll looks like.
This has been a good learning experience and I'm very grateful to all of you. None of your comments and suggestions have for for naught whatever it turns out the actual problem is.
I will keep you posted.
Rich
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alexis,
Well, we'll have to disagree about who is incorrect. I'd just urge anyone who wants to choose between my version and yours to read any of the standard works on the subject. Or, indeed, to plot their own d/log e curves.
You and I have been taking pictures and developing and printing them for about the same length of time (actually, about 37 years in my case), and if we're trying to show our credentials, I've written quite a few books on the subject. Not that credentials are necessarily important: it won't take long for the OP to see what gives him the results he likes.
Cheers,
R.
AlexisNeel
http://alexisneel.com/
Books are one thing, hundreds of thousands of processed images and prints are another.
I believe my client list will speak for itself, and to pervert a Popeye saying "I knows what I knows".
I believe my client list will speak for itself, and to pervert a Popeye saying "I knows what I knows".