Are these pics under/over/poorly exposed?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Guest, May 18, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I'm afraid I don't have the best eye for these sorts of things and I
    need advice.

    I shot Tri-X 400 spd 400TX kodak, with a "Quantaray" R2 coloured
    Filter.

    I used (old, from a tin can, but still clear and clean when cut open)
    d-76 developer and kodak fixer. Development time was per specs, (which
    was I beleive 6 mins 15 secs at 70 degrees)

    I then scanned the negatives with a nikon Coolpix negative scanner and
    for the most part converted them to jpgs.

    I'm not really too familiar with this film tho and what it should look
    like (I suppose it should look 'good' tho right!), or the whole process
    either. These are from the second roll of film I've developed, the
    first I loaded horribly and almost none of the pics were any good.

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/Image1.jpg

    Is it just that there is far too much sky in this one? I should've
    increased my apeture f-stop? Is it possible to tell the diff between
    poor expose and incorrect development times??

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/Image5.jpg

    There seems to be a distortion around the tree to the left, not the big
    one upfront, but the smaller one behind it, with the shrub growing next
    to it. The distortion seems to be at the height of the shrub. What is
    it?

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/IMG001.jpg

    Boring? Sure, however it seems to have come out alright. Perhaps then
    the issue isn't one with development, but initial exposure.

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/IMG002.jpg

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/IMG003.jpg
    I don't understand why these two look yellow, and the sky in the second
    one hurts to look at!

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/Image4.jpg
    Considering how bright the sky looks in this one, I am surprised that
    there is any detail in the dark rocks, or texture in the granite
    barrier.

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental BnW/Image2.jpg
    Similar, what can I do about that sky? Is it the filter that is causing
    a problem? I suppose I can use a circular polarizer eh? Any
    contrastiness I am hopping to get from the filter I can acheive by
    developing for, what, 30 seconds longer or so??
     
    Guest, May 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Mr. Mark Guest

    If you are asking if they were over exposed during shutter time - I couldn't
    tell without seeing the film. It could be that the exposure was correct,
    the development was off. I've had mixed results with scanning my B&W film.
    I've found that it takes a few passes at diffent scanner settings then
    combined as layers in PS to get the best results. Mostly I get results like
    you see here, but when I use the negs to make prints with photographic paper
    I don't have any trouble at all.

    It's difficult to tell, but it looks like there's plenty of detail in the
    highlights in the last 2 images, so probably a little burning at print time
    will make them work out.

    If you haven't already, you might want to check out Ansel Adams' "The
    Negative". There are interesting techniques on over/under exposing and
    adjusting negative density at development time to compress and expand the
    tonal range.
    Scanner settings? Didn't scan on grayscale?

    BTW, it seems really odd that your skies are so bright when using a red
    filter. Was it sunset or sunrise time?

    Here's a link to the film you used.
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/triX.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.23.16&lc=en

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/dgcr4

    and reading this couldn't hurt..

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...f4017/f4017.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.23.16.14&lc=en

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/cyw4n

    I'm not an expert by any means, but maybe this gives you some ideas to
    follow up. Hope it was helpful. Cheers! :)
     
    Mr. Mark, May 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Mr. Mark Guest

    <snip>

    BTW, with a little levels work in PS and some gamma correction...

    http://marklauter.com/albums/hawes/img.jpg

    It's pretty contrasty. Either the development or scan is my guess.
     
    Mr. Mark, May 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    Peter Irwin Guest

    You don't seem to have any featureless dark areas, so your
    film exposures are probably ok. You do seem to have a problem
    with your highlights, which with darkroom printing would
    mean that your printing exposure was too short.

    I don't know much about scanning film, but I have heard that
    some people find that scanning B&W negatives as transparencies
    and doing the inversion and contrast corrections manually
    afterwards works better than the default negative scan settings.

    As a general rule with negative film, actual overexposure requires
    really overdoing it. If you were to take a series of exposures
    one stop apart starting from seriously underexposed then you
    would generally find that the first few exposures are low in
    contrast and lack detail in the dark parts of the picture,
    these are followed by several exposures which give almost
    identical prints, and these are followed by a series of
    increasingly dark negatives which will also print if you
    have patience, but may show a bit of a reduction in contrast,
    and increase in graininess and a decrease in sharpness.
    The first of the exposures which give nearly identical prints
    is the "correct" exposure. Doing a series like this could be
    a useful experiment for you.
    A red filter will darken blue sky quite a bit, but will have
    little effect on skies which are not blue. It will reduce the
    effect of the kind of haze you get on a clear day where distant
    parts of the scene are bluish. This "haze" shows up more in
    B&W film with no filter than your would expect when looking
    at the scene. It has no effect on white mist or fog.
    This looks like the kind of mark you get when you get a kink
    in the negative when loading it on to the reel. It will look
    like a dark crescent shaped mark on the negative. Most beginners
    have this sort of trouble when loading film on a developing reel.
    With more practice these marks will become rarer.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, May 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Mike King Guest

    As far as color casts...convert your scans to grayscale and they'll be
    "pure" black to white.

    The distortion looks like it could be a mark on the negative, are you using
    plastic or stainless steel processing equipment? The mark is sometimes
    called a half-moon or thumbnail.

    Try scanning as a transparency, then inverting tones and adjusting levels in
    Photoshop. Older scanner? Try Ed Hamrick's scanner software: Vuescan. Ed
    supports a lot of scanners that the maker's have abandoned, like my LS-10
    Nikon. He has scan software for Linux, too. Not a recommendation but he
    seems to know his stuff. Your mileage may vary, yada yada.
     
    Mike King, May 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    UC Guest

    UC, May 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    Mr. Mark Guest

    Try scanning as a transparency, then inverting tones and adjusting levels
    in
    Wow! I was about to sell my slide scanner on ebay cause it was so crumby,
    but I just got the best scan ever from it! I'm really impressed. I'll toy
    around with it some more, but I'm pretty pleased.
     
    Mr. Mark, May 19, 2005
    #7
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    hmm, not much sense in me processing film in a dark room then. This is
    asort of 'inherited' darkroom, all the tubs and equipement are there,
    along with a large stock of developer. I only had to purchase some
    fixer, stopbath, and wash aid. Even the film scanner and slide scanner
    didn't have to be purchased. Not planning on making prints on paper,
    paper seems ludicrously expensive.
     
    Guest, May 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I pay $30 Canadian for a pack of 100 sheets of 8x10 inch RC paper.
    A pack of paper lasts for around 10 evenings in the darkroom.
    For me this is a modest price for a recreational activity I enjoy.

    If I'm going to be printing a lot from a single film, I will
    usually cut down the paper to a smaller size. An 8x10 yields
    2 5x7s or 3 4x6s plus some test pieces.

    If you already have an enlarger, you should really give it a try.
    I find it a lot of fun.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, May 19, 2005
    #9

  10. I know a professional photographer who get superb images from scanned
    B&W conventional films. But, he goes to a provider with a very
    expensive scanner and gets large digital files that represent fine scans
    of the negative. This is not the equipment that the average person will
    have at home.


    Francis A. Miniter
     
    Francis A. Miniter, May 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    Mr. Mark Guest

    I know a professional photographer who get superb images from scanned
    No, drum scanners aren't cheap. :)
     
    Mr. Mark, May 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Guest

    UC Guest

    Correct. The scanners that are availabe in the retail market for under
    $1000 won't cut it...
     
    UC, May 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Paper is ridiculously cheap compared to the price of a scanner and printer that
    can give you output comparable to chemical processes. Don't forget that even
    with a computer printer you need really good paper to get really good results.
    So you will always have the paper cost.

    Work the chemical side for a while. You may just change your mind.


    Francis A. Miniter
     
    Francis A. Miniter, May 20, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    Jan T Guest

    OT, I know, but how did you digitalize those images if you don't like
    scanning from film?
    Do you scan the darkroom made RC/FB print?

    Jan

    "UC" <> schreef in bericht
    |
    | It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W
    | conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use film,
    | you must make prints yourself in a darkroom with an enlarger. To show
    | you what a good print looks like, see:
    |
    | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539
    |
    | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540
    |
     
    Jan T, May 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    UC Guest

    These were scanned prints.

    I thought that was obvious...
     
    UC, May 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    Mr. Mark Guest

    Paper is ridiculously cheap compared to the price of a scanner and printer
    that
    And the printer paper I use is more expensive than the fiber based B&W
    Ilford paper I buy.
     
    Mr. Mark, May 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Guest

    UC Guest

    "To show you what a good print looks like, see: "

    Yes, from prints!
     
    UC, May 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Guest

    Jan T Guest

    OK, that's claer by now.
    Looks like I'm the guy that needs triple confirmation befor I believe
    something.
    But it's great to observe that others adhere to the methods I use myself...
    Purely by lack of good filmscanner and photoshop knowledge, I stuck to this
    method but found out it's still the most usefull: I adjust my images in the
    darkrooom printing phase and only carry out very simple overall contrast
    adjustments on the PC after the scan.

    "UC" <> schreef in bericht
    | "To show you what a good print looks like, see: "
    |
    | Yes, from prints!
    |
    | Jan T wrote:
    | > OT, I know, but how did you digitalize those images if you don't like
    | > scanning from film?
    | > Do you scan the darkroom made RC/FB print?
    | >
    | > Jan
    | >
    | > "UC" <> schreef in bericht
    | > | > |
    | > | It is practically impossible to get good images from scanned B&W
    | > | conventional film, for a variety of reasons. If you want to use
    | film,
    | > | you must make prints yourself in a darkroom with an enlarger. To
    | show
    | > | you what a good print looks like, see:
    | > |
    | > |
    | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1539
    | > |
    | > |
    | http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1540
    | > |
    |
     
    Jan T, May 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Sort of feel I have to comment on scanning B&W negatives. I am far from an
    expert and have successfully scanned many varied B&W negs. It bothers me
    when I see it repeatedly said they can't be scanned and thus discourageing
    new people from trying it. I have used a nikon LS 2000 and 4000 ED and an
    Epson 3200 for medium format and all work fine. With certain automatic
    features like Ice you get quite a few dramatic faileurs. So generally I
    don't use Ice. I find a small amount of unsharp mask is fine though.

    I use both RGB scans and Greyscale scans, scanning as negatives which gives
    you a positive image. RGB might be a bit better but usually greyscale is
    lots of info. I don't see where scanning as a positive would make any
    difference on the film scanners but see where it might make a difference on
    the 3200. I haven't tried it yet but plan to sometime.

    I find processing your own B&W film and then scanning to be a very useful
    workflow althought trying to keep making SG prints too. On a little Epson
    printer with Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper I get quite nice prints 8x10
    that might be thought real prints.

    Just want people not to give up on scanning Tri-X without trying it.
     
    Morley Roberts, May 29, 2005
    #19
  20. Guest

    Travis Porco Guest

    Agreed. I've done little else to be honest with my Tri-X negatives. I do not
    think getting a good scan is any harder than printing.
     
    Travis Porco, May 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.