Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,404   Online: 1000
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: First timer

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14

    First timer

    Hi there,

    This is my first post here and my first time developing my own b/w film. In this case one roll of Tmax 400 and one roll of Ilford Delta 3200. I followed the instructions on Ilford's site and am using Ilford developer (Ilfasol 3), Ilford stop bath and Ilford fixing agent. I was careful to mix my solutions properly and follow the developing instructions closely. Dust hasn't proven to be a problem and my negatives are pretty straight after hanging to dry, very little curling at all. However, both rolls of film don't look right when I scan them. The negatives look normal to my eyes but when I scan I get mush, kind of like the watercolour paint effect from Photoshop. Even the grain looks very mushy. The first photo is the Ilford, the second is the Tmax.

    Has anyone encountered this before? Am I doing something wrong or is this a scanning issue? I don't think it's a scanning issue because I scan my store developed negatives all the time and they almost always look very good. I've tried different scanner settings to no avail. I think I'm screwing up something in the developing phase. Any ideas for me?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image222.jpg   image226.jpg  

  2. #2
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,951
    Welcome to APUG!

    I think that since the negatives look good to the eye, this is a scanning issue. I cannot help you with this because I only do optical printing. Someone else will have to help you.

    In the second photograph I see ghosting and other scanning artifacts in the fencing. I would bet that those are not seen on the negative.

    Steve
    Last edited by Sirius Glass; 07-21-2012 at 07:46 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #3
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,953
    Images
    60
    Are your store developed negatives colour or black and white?

    I ask because I see a bunch of scanning artifacts when I magnify your images.

    Scanning black and white requires different settings and/or techniques compared with colour.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    If you've scanned b/w before then my initial reaction that it was a scanning issue is probably not the case. As the other folks said if you hadn't it still may be the settings. I doubt though it is the scanning issue I originally had which was a scanner that wasn't up to snuff for more than archival/social media type purposes (I've since replaced it with a scanner that is up to the task.)

    I had issues with overly short fixing time and this doesn't look like that problem either. Are you sure the iso setting on your camera was correct for that film (just a thought...it's so easy to forget to change it when you load a new roll w/ a different ISO?) I'm curious too what your problem may have been. I agree with the suggestion of printing them analog (or are you able to do so?) If they print the same way that would rule out the scanner. Also have you looked at the negatives with a loupe or similar magnifying tool to see if they look grainy real close up??

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14
    I've scanned both b/w and colour negs in the past without this issue. One picture from the Tmax roll turned out good. I've included it here. It's not the greatest image but it does show a proper or acceptable result, so I don't think it's a scanning issue...is it possible that I did not agitate correctly? Perhaps I created too many air bubbles? I made sure to tap the tank after every cycle but maybe I was too vigorous during agitation? How would 1 photo out of 24 be ok and the rest the same?

    My ISO was set to 400 for the Tmax, I'm positive of that. I'll need to examine the negatives more carefully. I don't own a loupe buy I imagine a magnifying glass would do? I'll try making some prints to see what I get.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image230.jpg  

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    Yes, I think a magnifying glass would work fine....you just want to have a very close look at the negatives. My tanks have a thermometer that you twist to agitate. I think I do 30 seconds initially and then 5 seconds every minute (someone else might have some better procedure.) With other tanks they agitate by turning over and back. (there are videos on you tube.) I hope an experienced person can answer you last question...doesn't make sense that 23 no good and 1 good.

  7. #7
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,586
    Images
    46
    There isn't a processing defect I am aware of that can cause the artifacts in your first two thumbnails.

    They appear to have been introduced electronically. I used to see something like this when I scanned Kodachrome... Does your scanner have Digital ICE?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14
    Yes I use Digital Ice and it is very effective. I've never seen this from any of my previous scans so I assumed it was something I did when developing my film. I suppose I can't rule out a scanning issue just yet.

  9. #9
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,951
    Quote Originally Posted by crsantin View Post
    I don't own a loupe buy I imagine a magnifying glass would do? I'll try making some prints to see what I get.
    Take the normal lens off your camera. Set the focus to infinity and open the aperture to the largest opening [smallest s/stop]. Look through the front of the lens and aim the rear [lens mount side] at the negative. Now you have a magnifying lens to use as a loupe.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #10
    Terry Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Images
    18
    Digital ICE causes these artifacts. ICE is good when scanning color film, but for B&W it is best to leave it off and use noise reduction only if you must.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin