Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,993   Posts: 1,633,239   Online: 1276
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,508
    Images
    60
    Ted:

    I think the prints look quite good. In particular the first one.

    I'd be interested in seeing an example of what you consider to be a better print.
    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

  2. #12
    JS MD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    52
    seems for me - Lab did mistake
    Neg Dev : over diluted & old & Low temperature / Because film has very low Gamma but no missed details .

  3. #13
    pinhole_dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    In the frozen tundra
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by herb View Post
    I had similar difficulties, gave up on the lab. They can fould up a ball bearing, not to mention scratching film etc.
    That's the whole reason why I went back to b/w and home processing.
    I love the smell of fixer in the morning...It smells like...PHOTOGRAPHY!

    The photo blog has moved...
    I Love Film : by Susan McNutt, the mad photographer

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    68
    To me, the first image looks flat, your lab's printing is too low in mid-tone contrast, but typical of non-custom lab prints.
    Second print looks ok-ish, technically. I'm sure it could benefit from dodging and burning but the negative was perhaps not particularly compelling.
    Third image looks washed out. I suspect you weren't adequately shading the lens, and you might have some haze or something in the lens too, there's a lot of flare mudding the shadows in his face.

    Use a lens-shade and if a lot of light falls on the lens be sure its clean coated glass, soup and print yourself, and shoot more.
    Also, don't use a film because everyone says its good. Use a film because you've shot a few rolls and seen something you like from it. Look for success and then repeat what worked for you.

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
    "Sent the film off to the lab and..." <---------- That's your problem right there.

    You can't count on a lab to 1) develop conventional b&w film correctly or 2) print b&w negs decently. It looks like your negatives may be good--at least they have plenty of shadow detail, so a good printer could probably produce *much* nicer prints.
    What he said!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Shoot another roll of FP4 at box speed, send it off to Ilford Photo's processing lab and see what comes back.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,932
    It would be great if you had your own darkroom!

    Jeff

  8. #18
    Luseboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Marin, California (near San Francisco)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Images
    1
    fp4 is a beautiful film when processed by someone who knows what they are doing. I would, as others have said, rate it at box speed. I'd also ditch the flash and stick with a straight-forward exposure. To me, these in-camera flashes aren't something worth using, particularly for fine art work. Is there a particular reason that you don't process on your own? it's much much cheaper than having a lab do it, and though it is a pain at first, you eventually learn to love it.
    -Austin

  9. #19
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,048
    Here you go. Your pics are fine, just printed too low in contrast.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 61300008.jpg   61300014.jpg   61300015.jpg  
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  10. #20
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,756
    Images
    294
    Looking at the original pictures posted, and comparing them to Chris Crawford's edited versions of those pictures, it's obvious that the lab didn't print the negatives to their full capacity.

    Ian Grant's account of safety versus quality hits the head on the nail.

    What you can do, when it comes to having your lab developing your film, is to interview them. Ask them what chemistry they use, and how long they would normally process the FP4+ film. When you know that, you have at least one constant in your process. Then, exposure is entirely under your control. FP4+ has quite a bit of tolerance for exposure differences, but I would send them a test roll, where you bracket your exposures in normal contrast lighting. This way you can know more what to expect from them after they print all the versions. It's basically the only control you have when you send film to a lab. It will never be perfect until you find someone, usually charging a lot more, that pays attention to every frame they print. The extra money usually goes to cover the cost of all the prints that didn't turn out well.

    Or, like others have suggested, you can do it at home on your own, because that allows you processing control as well.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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