Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,462   Online: 920
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    To me it looks like this was a very sunny scene - there are strong shadows coming from the arms of the students and the birch branches.

    I've taken photos of the students under similar conditions when I lived in Göteborg and got very contrasty negs (but I aimed for high contrast). The whites on the caps, dresses and suits are rather dull.

    Perhaps you could hold the neg sheet up to a window and photograph it so we could see how the negs look.


    [I noticed on the massive dev chart that Foma 100 + R09 for 7.5 minutes has the note "Lower contrast suitable for scanning"]

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    It is really hard to tell anything from a scan. Is there any way you could get some density readings from the negative, or post a well exposed but unadjusted digital shot of the neg on a light box? The exposure should be made so that the light from the light box ends up white.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    Heh, how did you determine that it was taken in Göteborg? (Because it's true). I've attached a photograph of a film strip.

    [I noticed on the massive dev chart that Foma 100 + R09 for 7.5 minutes has the note "Lower contrast suitable for scanning"]
    Interesting. I got my developing time from the store I bought the film in and they didn't mention this.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSC_2715.JPG  

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by anjo View Post
    Heh, how did you determine that it was taken in Göteborg? (Because it's true). I've attached a photograph of a film strip.



    Interesting. I got my developing time from the store I bought the film in and they didn't mention this.
    That was quick!

    Every one of us should get best results by finding out our own settings and methods (such as EI and development times), but none of these things would be so far off from box speed and recommended times that you would get a picture as flat as the one you got. The negs are not nearly as flat as the positive that you first posted (which looked well exposed to me, BTW). I think you just need to tweak your scanning so that the contrast of the negatives is translated more accurately into the contrast of the image file that you get. You want the scan to be a flatter than the neg if there may be some clipping, but not that much.

    The less you have to tweak in printing (Photoshop), the better. Try to make a scan that is as close to the desired final print as possible, without unwanted clipping.

    At any rate, try Hybridphoto.com for the specifics of dealing with the scanner.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 05-31-2009 at 03:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by anjo View Post
    Heh, how did you determine that it was taken in Göteborg? (Because it's true).
    I recognised the Göteborg light! Seriously, I was guessing. You bought the R09 from Fotokompaniet, then? Nice guys in that shop.

    The neg you posted looks fine, If it was mine I don't think I'd expect any issues in the darkroom.

  6. #16
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by anjo View Post
    Thanks for the replies.

    The film is Fomapan 100, developed in Calbe R09 1:40 for 7.5 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius. I agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds, then for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. I use Kodak Max-stop.

    The scanner is an Epson 2480 and I use the included "Epson Scan" software set to "BW Negative".

    I see no fog on the film edges.

    To my untrained eye, the highlights on the negatives look completely black. Before I got the scanner I was actually concerned that I was severely overexposing and overdeveloping, because there appeared to be absolutely no detail in skies etc.

    I can't remember what the light was like in this particular shot, but almost all of the shots I've taken (some of which I know were in bright sunlight) share the same problem.

    I don't think I'm underexposing. I've actually exposed 2/3 - 1 stop more than what the meter suggests.
    The 2480 usually does produce slightly flat scans, it's to keep from clipping. You can usually fix this at scan time using the Epson driver, which is quite good. Don't use the automatic mode, you need to use the professional mode, and set each image individually, set the black and white points using levels from the histogram. You also need to set the focus, which is done by using paper shims under the negative holder, to get the best scan.

    Also you need to make sure you clean EVERYTHING, the negative, the glass and the light panel in the scanner lid.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  7. #17
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,351
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    The reason for the flat scan seems pretty simple to me. The scanner will always automatically snap in the lightest and darkest parts of the image area the is selected. On your scan you did not crop into the image area, leaving quite a bit of room around the actual negative. So as you can see, the brighter areas above and below the negative were thought to be the lightest areas by the scanner, and the blacks to the left and right of the negative were thought to be black by the scanner. By simply cropping into the actual image area before you scan and even tweaking with the histogram, this negative can have perfect contrast.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    The reason for the flat scan seems pretty simple to me. The scanner will always automatically snap in the lightest and darkest parts of the image area the is selected. On your scan you did not crop into the image area, leaving quite a bit of room around the actual negative. So as you can see, the brighter areas above and below the negative were thought to be the lightest areas by the scanner, and the blacks to the left and right of the negative were thought to be black by the scanner. By simply cropping into the actual image area before you scan and even tweaking with the histogram, this negative can have perfect contrast.
    I agree. Looks like a bad scan, not bad film/exposure/developing.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    The reason for the flat scan seems pretty simple to me. The scanner will always automatically snap in the lightest and darkest parts of the image area the is selected. On your scan you did not crop into the image area, leaving quite a bit of room around the actual negative. So as you can see, the brighter areas above and below the negative were thought to be the lightest areas by the scanner, and the blacks to the left and right of the negative were thought to be black by the scanner. By simply cropping into the actual image area before you scan and even tweaking with the histogram, this negative can have perfect contrast.
    Doh! This appears to have been EXACTLY what was wrong. The automatic cropping was set to "small tolerance" (or somesuch) the first time I scanned. This didn't work at all (it gave me half frames), so I changed it to "large tolerance" thinking I'd just crop later.

    Changing it to "medium tolerance" gives (more or less) correct contrast, and even properly cropped images (saving another manual step!). The attached image is straight out of the scanner, and obviously looks a whole lot better than the one in the original post!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails img039.jpg  

  10. #20
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,278
    Images
    67
    I have an Epson 3200 and long ago gave up on the "intelligence" built in to the Epson interface. I always use the professional mode and manual settings, tweaking settings while looking at the histogram, as Wogster recommends.

    DaveT

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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