I just finished developing a bunch of rolls I shot last week. I messed up and I'm just no happy with the results. I'm looking for a little bit of post mortem.
All of these shots, although they are exposed correctly on average, have too much contrast for my taste. Whites look too blown out, the darks are all blocked and there isn't enough range between.
There are two versions of each photo. One is as-scanned. The other is after Photoshopping it. I was able to Photoshop most of them into "acceptable" quality but I'm still not 100% satisfied with them. I shouldn't have to fuss around with them so much just to get usable quality. I should only have to tweak them a little.
Film: T-Max 400 (35mm.)
Shot: ƒ-16 or ƒ-22 @ 1/250 to 1/1000
Developed: T-Max Developer 1:4 - 7 min @ 68º F.
Scanned on flatbed with VueScan @ mostly default settings except CI set at 0.40
Weather was overcast but bright. All shots taken between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM.
For the fishing shots, the lens was set hyperfocal from 3 ft. to infinity. Aperture was set at ƒ-22 and the shutter was put on automatic.
(The temperature was near 0º F. It was too hard to manipulate camera controls with gloves on. Setting the camera on "dummy mode" helped me get the shots without freezing my hands.)
Okay, so I probably should have used 100 speed film instead of 400.
Maybe I'll switch developers to D-76 instead of T-Max. I was going to buy D-76 but I changed my mind at the last second because the guy at the shop suggested it.
My main question is whether a UV/skylight filter or a circular polarizing filter would have improved these shots or, at least, pulled them back from the brink a little bit?
Last edited by Worker 11811; 02-06-2010 at 12:17 AM.
You should be able to correct most of your problems in the scan. Vuescan is quite flexable. You will need to calibrate to your roll. Try the following steps.
1) in "image" menu, select grapph bw (ctl+2). The histogram should appear to the left.
2) make sure "lock image color","lock film base color", and "lock exposure" are *not* selected in the bottom of the input tab, in that order. Vuescan hides options, as they become irrelevant, so you may not see all of them.
3) preview scan
4) select a part of unexposed film in the selection window. Use the space between frames or the tip or tail of your film that has not been exposed (preferred). You may need to go into the crop tab to manually size and place the selection, depending on the scanner. It's important that you only select an unexposed section.
5) select "lock exposure" in the imput tab, preview again
6) select "lock film base color", preview again
7) select "lock image color", preview again
Your preview window should look like crap, as it is now showing a blank part of the film.
8) select the area that contains a real image. Move the sliders in your histogram to match the points in your histogram, r+g+b all having their own points.
9)scan away
This can be done for colour or B+w and will bring out the most details systematically. You can the adjust in PS (or what ever) knowing that the most image info is in the scan.
All these shots are T-Max 400. They are developed at home then scanned on my flatbed. They are direct scans. I don't have an enlarger at home... Yet... The first version is as-scanned. The second is after tweaking in Photoshop.
Thanks, mrred, for the advice. I'm going to have to remember that.
I assume it is good to lock in the film base color whenever you begin a series of scans with any new piece of film. Yes?
I was told by somebody else that I should have used a filter on the lens to cut down on glare and UV. Either a skylight or a polarizer. Do you think that would have helped?
I also think it would have been wise to use ISO 100 instead of 400.
I didn't plan on shooting outdoors. This was just the film I had on hand at the time.
These photos are mostly practice for me so that I can get back in the swing of things. Though I don't think of them as "wasted" pictures but I am not really upset if they don't come out perfect.
As Thomas Edison said, "I haven't failed. I have simply succeeded in discovering another way that doesn't work."
G'day Worker,
I think you need to consider several issues and understand some basic film photography techniques before you confuse the issue with digital considerations. By considering how scans look you are adding too many variables.
the negatives
Look at the actual negatives. Do they look high contrast? Is there a range of densities from clear film to dark and it's only just possible to read news print through? Is exposure and development even across the whole image area?
ISO selection
Choice of film speed will not remedy contrast issues if film development is not altered from the norm. Film speed is more about how much light you have to work with. e.g. matching low light with a high ISO number gives you the opportunity to use a faster shutter speed than will be possible with a lower ISO number.
ISO as creative choice
To only consider light levels when choosing ISO negates the creative possibilities that film speed selection can give a thinking photographer: fine versus grainy; rich saturated colour versus muted; pin sharp versus soft and romantic; slow shutter speed when high should be the "norm"; restricted depth of field when large would be expected; etc.
altering contrast
The usual approach to changing the inherent contrast of a film is to shoot in softer light or alter exposure and development. Over-expose and under development reduces contrast and vice versa.
filters
Choice of filters will not help contrast issues in the way you are thinking.
A UV/Skylight will have virtually no effect on modern film. They are designed to reduce UV and hazy light that fogged older types of film. They are good for lens protection given that lens elements are coated with "stuff" that scratches easily.
A polariser will alter contrast in that it will reduce glare and flare and intensify colours. It will actually, in your consideration, increase contrast.
Contrast correction filters such as strong yellow, red and green alter contrast when used with black and white film by creating a visual speration between colours that would normally record as similar shades of grey. Such filters do not actually control overall film contrast, just how different colours are re-produced.
attached image
400 film rated at 200 (i.e. over exposed by 1 stop) development time reduced by 30% to reduce overall film contrast, white board to left of subject to lighten shadows and reduce lighting contrast.
I think you're right on the mark with your comments.
To be honest, I think shooting digital photos has spoiled my film skills to a certain degree. This whole exercise is for me to get back on the horse, so to speak.
I didn't think using a filter would cure the problem. I was told that by somebody else. I thought it would have a small effect but I didn't think it would be a cure. I see where it would reduce glare, etc. but I didn't think it would do much more than that.
I think the negatives were exposed and developed correctly. I did it all by the book. (T-Max 1:4 - 7 min. @ 20º C.)
They look all right when I lay them on top of a piece of white paper and view them under good light.
I believe one problem was the shooting conditions. Many of those shots, especially the fishermen, were taken outdoors in the winter time, standing on a frozen lake with strong sunlight. It was a bright, glaring scene and I just didn't stop to think how the image would come out on black and white film.
Again, I think I have some "digital spoilage" issues. I'm going to have to re-learn how to see the world in levels of contrast instead of looking at color cues.
Using over/under exposure in combination with development times is right about where I left off in my old photography classes. I have done such things but it was so long ago that I will have to practice at it some more.
I really appreciate your advice! It helps a lot!
I still have some work to do in order to get myself back to where I feel comfortable shooting film again but I feel like I am already making good progress in just this short time.
Worker, as long as you've captured what you need on the neg, then anything wrong with contrast is a lack of "post processing" correctly (either in digital or in printing choices).
Try differing application of curves and use of "local area contrast" enhancement (essentially unsharp mask at w big radius like 60 pixels). I apply this to the scan before using curves much. I feel it replicates what you may otherwise get in contrast buildup created in the printing of negative (recall that light passes through the inks twice, once to reach the white paper, another time to come back.)
Originally Posted by Worker 11811
I think the negatives were exposed and developed correctly. I did it all by the book. (T-Max 1:4 - 7 min. @ 20º C.)
They look all right when I lay them on top of a piece of white paper and view them under good light.
which is not what I consider a useful way to evaluate negatives.
With respect to your exposure evaluation, I suggest you read this page of mine.
In particular, you need to understand what is being captured on your negative, once upon a time this was called densitometery and you can find it referred to in texts such as "beyond the zone system" ... my article is much simpler.
Essentially you need to know where your film base is:
and where you darkest point is:
remember on a negative black things are equal to base, and something like the sun is essentially the darkest on the negative. Neg has an amazing range. This is C-41 neg...
From there, when you look at the histogram of a scan you can sort out where your exposure was:
use your scanner (the above was done on an Epson 3200 flatbed) in positive mode as negative does many things to your data 'to help you' ... however the machine is a simple robot with simple programming ... I always say, never send a machine to do a humans job ... and evaluating negatives is something which requires both understanding and sensitivity.
I also recommend you do not set your black and white points too agressively, heck, when you know your film, set them according to your base and density levels, as there is often stuff in the subtleties lost.
attached image
400 film rated at 200 (i.e. over exposed by 1 stop) development time reduced by 30% to reduce overall film contrast, white board to left of subject to lighten shadows and reduce lighting contrast.
Thanks! I'm reading over the pages you link to.
(Sometimes I have to read things two or three times to really get them into my head.)
I tried the localized contrast trick. I got some good results with it. I'll have to tinker with it some more but I like the results so far.
In your other page I understand the basic idea you are talking about. Again, I will reread to get the finer points but the thing that really caught my attention was right up there at the top:
...[T]he correct exposure is what ever captures the range of scene brightness that you are interested in...
That really created a "head-slap moment" for me!
For the last couple of days, I left the camera at home. As I went about my business I made a point to stop and look at things around me. I went back to visit some of the locations where I shot photos and I looked at the scenes again. Some of the locations where I could not revisit, I thought about in my mind's eye. (Such as the ice fishing.)
I am really impressed (and a little disappointed) with the fact that I'm not thinking about the range of brightness or contrast in front of me. Instead, I am thinking about what I WANT it to look like and just hoping it will come out like I see it in my mind.
The last picture I posted of the spotlights came out decent (considering that these are still practice pictures for me) but those ice fishing shots really disappointed me. With the picture of the lighthouse, even though I was able to adjust it to an acceptable state, it was still not satisfying to me, given my range of expectations.
I don't think I have a problem with subject selection, composition, cropping and things like that. At least not for the level I am at. I feel confident in my ability to make a good exposure, develop the film correctly and make a viewable print. I also feel confident with my computer skills. I have never had problems with any of these things in the past.
I went out on the bay where the ice fishermen were and took pictures (with their permission) more like I would shoot a football game instead of looking around me to see the bright sun glaring off the ice and the fact that the fishermen were wearing dark clothing. Maybe I could have changed my exposure or approached the subject from a different angle with respect to the light. (Sort of like you would do if you were shooting on a sunny beach.)
In some of the other shots I took, as I reexamined the scene, I realized that the camera captured, mostly, what was in the scene. I just need to look at the scene a little more critically.
I think I've got overdeveloped expectations and an underdeveloped sense of vision with respect to the contrast/tonal range that I want to capture. So, as your statement points out, I need to decide what range of brightness I am interested in before I go snapping the picture.
Your comments are really appreciated. Sometimes I need a proverbial slap upside the head before things sink into my skull.
a rule of thumb with negative is to expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. While you are pondering what I wrote, perhaps this page may add a missing segment:
compare the negative scan and the digital. When I use neg in a bright situation, I often go over what the camera suggests (as you can see in the digital)
PS: I just had a thought ... are you aware of subject failure? This is created when your subject fails to meet the criteria which a meter is designed to cope with. Essentially your meter is expecting that everything is going to average out to a mid tone, that of course may be wrong. I bet you were squinting when you were out on the ice ... would you squint if looking at a grey card?
probably not. This means that your meter will try to make the snow (which is the overwhelming content in the icehole shot) grey ... which is what has happened.
so, dial up the exposure by at least a stop.
If you're using 35mm film, why not just shoot a bracket of say 3 images, starting at what the camera says, and going up to +1 and +2 ... won't cost much. This is why I use the digital to evaluate things. If the digitals shadows look ok then the scene will fit in the range.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Adv Reply
The first version is as-scanned. The second is after tweaking in Photoshop.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811 
