Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,056   Posts: 1,561,457   Online: 1034
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    N Wilts UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    13

    B&W Negatives - Judging Good or Bad?

    Coming back to developing my own b&w film after a gap of over twenty years, I am in a bit of a quandary when it comes to judging whether or not I am getting the development right or not. I am aware there are lots of guides and 'how to's' on the web and yes I do have Ansel Adam's 'The Negative'! If I dare mention the word 'scanning', this is where part of my problem lies I think, in that using VueScan on my Epson Perfection 3200, the results all look very light but the histograms seem OK.

    Therefore I am trying to eliminate the negative as being at fault and if the negs are OK, I can then dig further. At the moment I seem to be going around in circles! In the image below, the left side is HP5+ developed in Ilfosol 3 @ 1+9 for 6mins 30secs. The right side is a neg from 1988, FP4 developed in Unitol. There is a difference in the film-base colour in that the FP4 has a pinkish tinge whereas the HP5 has a more blue/grey tone - presumably a change in base material in the intervening years?

    I would appreciate opinions on the HP5 neg as to whether it looks to be correctly developed - thanks!


  2. #2
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    999
    They look too contrasty, but they also look like they were shot on a very harsh sunny day. That itself will give too much negative contrast, even if you are developing correctly. Reducing the developing time by 25% and giving one stop more exposure (the reduced developing time lowers contrast but also reduces the film's effective speed by a stop) will give negs in those lighting conditions that are easier to scan (and easier to print in the traditional way if you ever go for a darkroom).

    As far as the scans looking too light, keep in mind that films scans usually look too flat and sometimes too light. That's just how scanners work. You have to edit the scans to bring out the normal tonality. Use Photoshop or Elements or whatever you like to work on photos with in the computer. See my tech info webpage for examples of that.
    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

  3. #3
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    That should scan beautifully. Looks perhaps 1/2 stop underexposed compared to the fp4, but still perfectly usable, and maybe that's the look you were going for? you can see the building is denser looking on the fp4 negative. Probably a metering issue because the building looks fine, but the lawn is a little thin, but it's that way on both. I don't there is any problem with developing.

  4. #4
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,306
    The best way to tell about development is to see how it prints (ie how it matches your paper).

    I'd say #10 is underexposed. #20 can be a challenge to print even when processed to a contrast index that matches a paper exactly (depending on how much shadow detail you want in the print).

  5. #5
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,632
    Images
    1
    Impossible to judge from a scan (if I'm forced, I'd say underexposed and overdeveloped). To be sure, you need to print them and tell us what grade it took to get detail in all areas of the print, or if you exclude the sky, how much burning-in did it require. Can you show the scans of the print?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #6
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Concur. There is plenty of information in the shadows but getting it all to look right...

    Get to printin'.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cleveland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    122
    Read 'The Zone VI Workshop' by Fred Picker. A 'proper proof' will help you to easily evaluate negatives.

    Dave

  8. #8
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,075
    Images
    6
    All I know is that a good neg is a joy to print. It's even better if the whole roll is the same. The highlights are rich with detail and the shadows too. I hate blocked up highlights and empty shadows. I know this is a very general question but, does anybody know if the response if BW paper is different than CCD and CMOS sensors of scanners? If so, in what way?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    The image on HP5 was taken in overcast conditions whereas the image on FP4 was taken in bright, directional, sunlight. You can tell by the way there is little contrast difference between the elevations of the church in the image on HP5, whereas, in the image on FP4, there is a clear contrast difference between the two visible elevations of the church tower (the grass in the middle foreground is in deep shade).

    The slight colour variations are insignificant. The HP5 neg looks a little underexposed (that grass in the foreground would be closer to a a mid tone, if the exposure was correct) whereas the FP4 image might prove more difficult to print because of the greater contrast range caused by the lighting conditions. One solution to this might be overexposure/underdevelopment as mentioned above. Another solution might be trying to print it with a diffusion head enlarger, especially if you've tried before with a condensor head.

    The difficulty is learning to spot those differences in contrast in the field and being able to accommodate overexposure/underdevelopment using a 35mm camera, when it's not always possible to separate exposure/development for individual images on a long 35mm film...

    Regards
    Jerry

  10. #10
    AmsterdamMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    79
    Images
    5
    Yes, slight underexposure and minimal irrelevant overdevelopment of HP5+.
    You could change that or just dial in iso 320 or 200 on your camera and forget about it.
    As a surplus you could also underdevelop: pulling ! But rather go back another day.
    To me neither development nor scanning are an issue here.
    Your 1988 photos just are better: lighting etc.
    The situation in 1988 was more preferable, and allthough I am not sure, you might have used a yellow or orange filter in '88 ?
    Last edited by AmsterdamMartin; 02-21-2011 at 11:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.

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