I would add, that while the quality of the F5 metering system is amazing, it will not correct for incorrect usage. Number 25 on the top strip looks to me like it was metered with a spot meter on the exterior out the doorway or window, whichever it is. This would easily cause this kind of underexposure. I suspect that the camera would not have done that with matrix metering on, but I could certainly be wrong.
Originally Posted by jp498
I also agree that it is probably an issue with scanning primarily and secondarily some exposure issues. I highly doubt that there are major development issues here since it is C41 film.
i well show you another tow photo
both of him from one scan, but different lab and different film
photo #A (kodak film) when iam test my new cam nikon f5
photo #B ( ilford Xp 2 )
Differences are very clear (Please see photo in original size )
Last edited by Man from moon; 02-16-2011 at 05:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Just for a clear contrast in handling tones. Here is what happens when you can develop your own B&W film. Bright sun and deep shadows? No problem.
Kodak TMY2 with PMK developer. Epson scanner, epson & gimp software. All very standard, inexpensive, and common stuff. I am not trying to boast, but most normal labs do a serious injustice to B&W photography with bad scans, bad prints, etc... Anyone who can be 80% right on exposure time and follow basic directions for developing can make nice B&W exposures. I had lots of experience with B&W, but this was one of my first shots using PMK developer, so I was just following instructions like a new student during the critical step of developing.
some labs care and some just run it through ..
it seems that your lab a bit overzealous with the scanning ..
i am sure if you get the bug to
print them, they will be fine,
processing film isn't hard, its putting the
film on the reel that can sometimes be a pain ..
good luc k !
Originally Posted by jawarden
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The image of the palm tree looks fine so it's reasonably safe to exclude problems associated with your camera/lens. That's the good news. I suggest a different lab but with another roll of XP2 Super. This is a chromogenic film, not a traditional B/W film. It requires C41 processing. Perhaps your lab had bad chemistry and/or bad scanning. Stick with it, you'll get there...XP2 is a very nice and very foregiving film.
In post #22 you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a black and white image against color and expect to get an accurate comparison. The blacks are super black and any detail is blocked by the scan and post process manipulation by the scanning tech. Whoever processed these for you gave their idea of what he(or she)wanted it to look. You really must do your own work to see what the negatives will render. XP-2 negatives can be printed on traditional photo paper.
Originally Posted by ralnphot
Iam only compare the results from the same scanner
First one look very good
But the second one
Look from different scanner
Its not the scanning machine that is suspect here. The post scanning alterations made the B&W look terrible. You must learn to do your own work, that way you will have the option of smoother gradation shifts. The best thing you can do is learn to print in a darkroom and process your own film and prints.
Attached is an example of my experience with xp2...
The top photo is my darkroom variation of the image, the bottom was the c41 print from a machine. I did a lot of dodging/burning on this one.
As you can see, my negs were very contrasty, xp2 in general is very contrasty if you are using a lot of flash like me...
but the good news is you can compensate for that if you print it yourself.