Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,063   Online: 826
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,940
    Images
    148
    They look like cheap lab 35mm prints to me, and that's a bit hit and miss depending on where you use, I've seen & had far worse before I began processing my own.

    Having printed commercially for many years including doing all the B&W work for a large pro lab for a while it would be all to easy to take an easy option and print flatter, makes printing faster and less wastage but degrades the quality. However we always went for quality first and taht does cost a little more.

    You get what you pay for, FP4 has long been one of the best films around so it's not the film at fault.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 05-11-2011 at 04:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    78
    Images
    3
    Based on questions I've asked previously, I always tend to rate my films at less than their box speeds - typically 50% less, so if it's ISO100 I'll rate at EI50, or thereabouts. With this 125 film, I rated it at EI80 to try and ensure I got a denser negative than previously. My SB-800 was set at -1 power using TTL mode (not TTL-BL as I was only interested in the face or main subject) and the flash mode was SLOW+REAR so it just acted as fill in flash.

    Seems to me you rated it at MORE than box speed. If you wanted denser negatives you should have rated it at 64. Also, flash used on camera fills in the shadows and makes for a flatter negative.
    JOHN

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,575
    Images
    59
    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

  4. #14
    JS MD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    53
    seems for me - Lab did mistake
    Neg Dev : over diluted & old & Low temperature / Because film has very low Gamma but no missed details .

  5. #15
    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

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    63
    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.

  7. #17
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,939
    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!

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,301
    Shoot another roll of FP4 at box speed, send it off to Ilford Photo's processing lab and see what comes back.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,542
    It would be great if you had your own darkroom!

    Jeff

  10. #20
    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

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