colinh
Well-known
Sorry about the title.
This isn't supposed to be an obvious trick to get people to admire my photos and tell me what a great photographer I am
but a serious technical question.
So, for those of you who have looked at some of my photos (in the gallery)...
I've noticed that other people manage to get much better picture quality than me, and I'd like to improve mine. Some photos are OK quality wise (I like all of them photographically) but many could do with improving, and I don't think it's just a question of excessive cropping.
The whole point of buying Leica/Zeiss is that I'm pretty confident that I don't need to blame the gear.
So, what could it be?
I have camera shake down as a major contender. I try to shoot at at least twice the focal length (shutter speed), but still. In particular in portrait orientation it's wobbling all over the place
I have the soft release, I exhale slowly and shoot then. I try and squeeze of the shot gently - but I think there's always a little wobble just before the shutter actually fires. And my pulse frequency is quite high and wobbles everything too.
Aaargh.
Then I suppose there's darkroom ineptitude as a possible source of error. Although, by now, the negatives usually look ok, contrast wise.
Any ideas?
Any photos on how to hold the camera properly?
colin
This isn't supposed to be an obvious trick to get people to admire my photos and tell me what a great photographer I am
but a serious technical question.So, for those of you who have looked at some of my photos (in the gallery)...
I've noticed that other people manage to get much better picture quality than me, and I'd like to improve mine. Some photos are OK quality wise (I like all of them photographically) but many could do with improving, and I don't think it's just a question of excessive cropping.
The whole point of buying Leica/Zeiss is that I'm pretty confident that I don't need to blame the gear.
So, what could it be?
I have camera shake down as a major contender. I try to shoot at at least twice the focal length (shutter speed), but still. In particular in portrait orientation it's wobbling all over the place
I have the soft release, I exhale slowly and shoot then. I try and squeeze of the shot gently - but I think there's always a little wobble just before the shutter actually fires. And my pulse frequency is quite high and wobbles everything too.
Aaargh.
Then I suppose there's darkroom ineptitude as a possible source of error. Although, by now, the negatives usually look ok, contrast wise.
Any ideas?
Any photos on how to hold the camera properly?
colin
thomasw_
Well-known
hey colin, are you triggering the soft-release with your finger tip or the first knuckle of your index finger?
ChrisN
Striving
How about a controlled test for camera movement? Shoot a couple of frames hand-held, at various speeds, then put the camera on a tripod and repeat the same sequence, using a remote-release if you have one.
Finder
Veteran
Can you say what improvement in quality you are looking for?
As far as your images, if you like the contrast, then that is fine. Personally, I would say you could make some significant improvement there. Having not seen the negs (and just coz you think they "look" good, does not mean they are), I would say for you outdoor work you are giving too little print exposure and compensating with contrast. For the night time work, they are dark and flat. If that is the look you are after, then ignore me.
That is the nice thing about photography, you can always improve.
As far as your images, if you like the contrast, then that is fine. Personally, I would say you could make some significant improvement there. Having not seen the negs (and just coz you think they "look" good, does not mean they are), I would say for you outdoor work you are giving too little print exposure and compensating with contrast. For the night time work, they are dark and flat. If that is the look you are after, then ignore me.
That is the nice thing about photography, you can always improve.
Thardy
Veteran
Some just look out of focus with the main subject blurry and the background sharp.
Shooting wide open with shallow DOF?
Shooting wide open with shallow DOF?
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I just looked at your twelve best and enjoyed every one of them.
I wouldn't try for shutter speed as twice focal length with a rangefinder camera. That 'rule' is much more for SLR's and takes into account the blackout when the photo is made with those cameras. Many rangefinder people use 1/30 or 1/15 with ease.
When I have times of doubting my photography I reread 'Art and Fear' : a book with a lot of good common sense for us photographers, artists, writers and the like.
I wouldn't try for shutter speed as twice focal length with a rangefinder camera. That 'rule' is much more for SLR's and takes into account the blackout when the photo is made with those cameras. Many rangefinder people use 1/30 or 1/15 with ease.
When I have times of doubting my photography I reread 'Art and Fear' : a book with a lot of good common sense for us photographers, artists, writers and the like.
Finder
Veteran
Colin, if you want an assessment of your process, do me a favor. Scan what you think, in terms of quality, is a good negative. But I want you to scan it as a positive/slide. Do not make any exposure or contrast adjustment - turn off the auto features as well. Post the scan here - resolution is not a problem. A small file will be fine.
colinh
Well-known
Finder said:
Well, there are a couple of things.
One is tonal range. Sometimes there's no significant shadow detail AND the highlights seem blown out. (?) Absolutely no "creaminess" visible.
Then there's that "snappiness" people sometimes mention - it's not there. I think camera shake is ruining that.
Quite possibly. I do seem to need to increase contrast (using curves in PS) for a lot of negatives. Usually not an S shape, but just one extra point pulling the curve "up" from the diagonal. I guess that's *decreasing* contrast in the shadows and increasing it in the highlights, and making everything darker overall. Put like that, that doesn't sound too clever...
What do you mean by too little print exposure? These are all scans from the negatives (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, all image enhancement off, autoexposure on, autofocus on). Do you mean the negatives themselves are underexposed, or that the scan is not correct, or were you assuming these were scans from prints?
No, not looking for flat images
So what causes dark and flat?I hope so. But it's one of those things, it seems to get harder to describe the problem and harder to solve it too. Also, you don't know how exactly I follow instructions, and I don't know how exactly I'm supposed to follow them.
Take development time.
Do you start timing when you start pouring the developer in, when you've finished, or what do 5 secs here or there matter?
Or temperature:
If the water for making the solution was 22.0 deg C but the solution then turns out to be 22.4 deg C and even seems to rise to 22.6 after 2 minutes, what development time do you use, that for 22.5 deg C? Anyway, I can't read off the time that accurately (well, the graph isn't that detailed) so perhaps it doesn't matter. Or perhaps I should be using a water bath even for B&W?
Anyway, regarding the soft release - I do use the 1st joint of my index finger. Still, it's not rock steady.
colin
charjohncarter
Veteran
Look at your negatives in what would be shadow areas, if there is detail there then you have it, but you may be loosing it during scans. Scanners are hard on negatives in the shadow areas, especially 35mm. If you don't have shadow detail on your negatives then you will have to down rate your film (be sure you are using a quality film) maybe a stop or 2/3s a stop to start. Reduce you development time 10-15%. Now look at the new negatives.
Contrast: if it needs to be increase a good way is to increase you agitation which is really the same as developing longer, but if you keep the time constant you will more easily see your change in results.
Time and temperature: do it the same EVERY time you develop. Then it doesn't matter how you do it.
Contrast: if it needs to be increase a good way is to increase you agitation which is really the same as developing longer, but if you keep the time constant you will more easily see your change in results.
Time and temperature: do it the same EVERY time you develop. Then it doesn't matter how you do it.
FrankS
Registered User
colinh said:Well, there are a couple of things.
One is tonal range. Sometimes there's no significant shadow detail AND the highlights seem blown out. (?) Absolutely no "creaminess" visible.
Then there's that "snappiness" people sometimes mention - it's not there. I think camera shake is ruining that.
Quite possibly. I do seem to need to increase contrast (using curves in PS) for a lot of negatives. Usually not an S shape, but just one extra point pulling the curve "up" from the diagonal. I guess that's *decreasing* contrast in the shadows and increasing it in the highlights, and making everything darker overall. Put like that, that doesn't sound too clever...
What do you mean by too little print exposure? These are all scans from the negatives (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, all image enhancement off, autoexposure on, autofocus on). Do you mean the negatives themselves are underexposed, or that the scan is not correct, or were you assuming these were scans from prints?
No, not looking for flat images
I hope so. But it's one of those things, it seems to get harder to describe the problem and harder to solve it too. Also, you don't know how exactly I follow instructions, and I don't know how exactly I'm supposed to follow them.
Take development time.
Do you start timing when you start pouring the developer in, when you've finished, or what do 5 secs here or there matter?
Or temperature:
If the water for making the solution was 22.0 deg C but the solution then turns out to be 22.4 deg C and even seems to rise to 22.6 after 2 minutes, what development time do you use, that for 22.5 deg C? Anyway, I can't read off the time that accurately (well, the graph isn't that detailed) so perhaps it doesn't matter. Or perhaps I should be using a water bath even for B&W?
Anyway, regarding the soft release - I do use the 1st joint of my index finger. Still, it's not rock steady.
colin
Colin, I can answer a couple of your (easy) questions.
As to when the development time starts, you can decide for yourself, you just need to be consistent. If you feel the dev. time needs to be increased or decreased based on the analysis of the results you are getting, fine, but begin the timing as you decided you would and increase or decrease from there.
I find that with B+W there is a +/- 1 or 2 degree range that isn't critical, that is I can't see a difference. With colour, it's a different story.
charjohncarter
Veteran
colinh, here is a good paragraph that has helped me a lot. I've read and reread it many, many times. I even have two camera bodies that are exactly the same: one for sunny and contrast situations and one for flat and low contrast situations. I use the same film in both, same lenses. Sometimes I can't decide so I shoot the same scene with both to see which comes out the best.
Credit is given to the author.
Answers
Donald Qualls
, May 12, 2005; 12:50 p.m.
I now use Dilution G for everything, with continuous agitation the first minute, then 5 inversions in 10-15 seconds every third minute thereafter. This gives a relatively long development (I use 22 minutes for TX) to reach normal contrast, but that's what gives the film speed increase, while the combination of dilution and reduced agitation control highlights.
If you have film shot in flat light or with limited brightness range, instead of 3 minute agitation interval, change to 1 minute or even 30 seconds without changing development time, and you'll get plus development. If you have film shot in high contrast night (high noon on the beach, or bright sun on snow at the ski hill), reduce agitation without changing time. Either way, the toe speed of the film doesn't change because the shadows get the same development; you're changing only how often fresh developer is introduced to the denser regions, which in turn controls contrast.
I don't have the equipment to do rigorous testing, so my claims about film speed are based on shadow detail compared to the same film in Dilution H or (especially) Dilution B under similar light and with the same exposure calculation methods. I've done at least N+1 in Dilution G, however; it's just a matter of using a long enough base time and low enough agitation to leave room for expansion. If you're used to derating your film (i.e. shooting TX at EI 200) you'll probably have to change your rating if you use the high dilution, low agitation method for N; most likely you'll have to add 2/3 to 1 stop to the EI (so shoot at EI 320 to 400 to get the same shadow detail you're used to).
Credit is given to the author.
Answers
Donald Qualls
, May 12, 2005; 12:50 p.m.I now use Dilution G for everything, with continuous agitation the first minute, then 5 inversions in 10-15 seconds every third minute thereafter. This gives a relatively long development (I use 22 minutes for TX) to reach normal contrast, but that's what gives the film speed increase, while the combination of dilution and reduced agitation control highlights.
If you have film shot in flat light or with limited brightness range, instead of 3 minute agitation interval, change to 1 minute or even 30 seconds without changing development time, and you'll get plus development. If you have film shot in high contrast night (high noon on the beach, or bright sun on snow at the ski hill), reduce agitation without changing time. Either way, the toe speed of the film doesn't change because the shadows get the same development; you're changing only how often fresh developer is introduced to the denser regions, which in turn controls contrast.
I don't have the equipment to do rigorous testing, so my claims about film speed are based on shadow detail compared to the same film in Dilution H or (especially) Dilution B under similar light and with the same exposure calculation methods. I've done at least N+1 in Dilution G, however; it's just a matter of using a long enough base time and low enough agitation to leave room for expansion. If you're used to derating your film (i.e. shooting TX at EI 200) you'll probably have to change your rating if you use the high dilution, low agitation method for N; most likely you'll have to add 2/3 to 1 stop to the EI (so shoot at EI 320 to 400 to get the same shadow detail you're used to).
markinlondon
Elmar user
FrankS said:
This can't be stressed enough. In any darkroom process consistency is far more important than absolute accuracy. It doesn't matter if your thermometer's three degrees off or your timer is five seconds slow per minute as long as you do everything the same every time.
FrankS
Registered User
Colin, you may the the kind of person (analytical, precise, patient, curious) that may benefit from getting into the zone system, and establishing your own personal film speed to match your meter, camera shutter, and processing regime. It's not too difficult, but it takes a "scientist" personality to go through with it.
http://www.zonesystem.com/chapter5/
http://www.zonesystem.com/chapter5/
charjohncarter
Veteran
colinh, I agree with FrankS, even if you don't use the zone system it is really a great idea to know what is going on with tones. At a minimum, you will understand the 'why' of your mistakes.
colinh
Well-known
FrankS said:
Oh, that sort of person, hey? Actually I am analytical, precise, patient and curious. Unfortunately, I'm so intelligent that things as easy as the zone system quickly bore me, once I've understood them. Even worse, I'm also lazy have an awful memory. colin
Finder
Veteran
Colin, when I mean exposure, that is simply you are making them too bright and then compensating with contrast. Anyway, I can only guess. If you can scan one of your negatives as a positiive, that will give me more information. That is the unfortunate thing about trying to solve this with words, they are simply a fuzzy description of subjective terms.
colinh
Well-known
Finder said:
OK, I'll have a go at this later this evening, when the kiddies have gone to bed.
colin
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I would look at your agitation. Something I've been really tweaking these last 20 rolls to fine tune my results. Over agitation is often a cause of negatives that print without that 'snappiness' you are after, as the highlights tend to block up quickly with over-agitation. My current agitation regime has me agitating gently (metal cans) 30 seconds initially, then 3 inversions every 1/2 minute with only 2 inversions per minute for the last 4 minutes of my 'normal' 11 minute developing time.
I would also second the suggestion that you work through the film speed testing for your particular set-up, it really is only slightly tedious.
I would also second the suggestion that you work through the film speed testing for your particular set-up, it really is only slightly tedious.
FrankS
Registered User
Hey Colin, you mentioned darkroom work, do you do wet printing as well as scanning to share to the web? Are you as unhappy with your wet prints as you are with the web pictures?
If you are happier with your wet prints than the web pics, then the source of the problem is most likely your scanning.
If you are unhappy with both wet prints and web pics, then the source is most likely your exposure/development regime, as the negative is common to both.
If you are unhappy with the wet prints as well, is it just the 35mm RF stuff, 35mm SLR stuff, both, or also the MF and LF? (some great cameras listed in your sig.!)
If you are happier with your wet prints than the web pics, then the source of the problem is most likely your scanning.
If you are unhappy with both wet prints and web pics, then the source is most likely your exposure/development regime, as the negative is common to both.
If you are unhappy with the wet prints as well, is it just the 35mm RF stuff, 35mm SLR stuff, both, or also the MF and LF? (some great cameras listed in your sig.!)
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Good point Frank- Colin I scan only from 810 prints- I find the process much simpler as I am much more capable of getting what I from a negative on paper than from the scanner.