Processed my first roll of black and white film.

<p>The most difficult part was loading the reel in a changing bag.</p>

 

<p>Nikon n80. Sigma 28mm 1.8 lens. #8 Yellow filter. D-76 Developer.

TF-4 Fixer. 8 minutes at about 65 or 66 degrees. Agitated for 30

seconds by inversion alternating with no agitation. Hung up to dry in

the shower.</p>

 

<p>Not great but nothing was messed up. </p>

 

<p><img src=http://rogouski.net/loose-photos/sign.jpg></p>

 

<p><img src=http://rogouski.net/loose-photos/diner.jpg></p>

 

<p><img src=http://rogouski.net/loose-photos/igor.jpg></p>

Film was Tri-X Pan.

When the sky is very overcast, you need a little extra contrast. Try adding some development time (15% for starters). Looks like you might need a little more exposure (not sure just by looking at scans). Try rating the film at ISO 320.

I don't necessarily remember if it was overcast, to tell you the truth. It could have been though. I don't find that the #8 yellow filter darkens the sky that much.

 

So you're saying I should give it more exposure and more processing time (which would give the shadows detail and give the photo more contrast?

Stanley, while I don't want to misinterpret Mark or to give a crash course in Zone System principles here, keep in mind that exposure and processing are two entirely different factors that only seem related at a certain level.

 

The main element affected by changes in exposure is shadow detail. Generally speaking shadow detail is less subject to development technique. Either it's there or it ain't.

 

So, rerating a film to a slower effective speed gives you a better chance of capturing shadow detail. You don't want to go too far in that direction tho' because overexposure creates problems of its own.

 

(There are other factors influenced by rerating a film but that's better left to another time. Don't try to absorb everything at once, especially from reading an online forum where information tends to be presented in a disorganized manner.)

 

Even if you didn't bother rerating the film, tho', you can still influence the overall contrast through development. For example, this appears to have been photographed under an overcast sky, or at dawn or dusk when the sun is below the horizon. I don't see any distinct shadows that would indicate a directional light from the sun. Under such conditions it might be better to increase development anywhere from 10% to as much as 50% to increase contrast (yes, there are drawbacks to increasing development but, again, let's deal with one factor at a time, in this case the simple issue of contrast).

 

Increased development would have given you snappier negatives and less flat looking photographs. However, this would not have improved the featureless black appearance in the foliage and other dark areas in these photos (which may be due to problems related to scanning or lack of post-scan editing, which I suspect due to the greenish cast in these scans). So Mark's suggestion to increase exposure slightly would improve the chances of capturing detail in those areas, while his suggestion to increase development would result in increased contrast, affecting mainly the midtones and highlights.

 

While there's nothing wrong with a low contrast photo, in this case the effect (as best can be evaluated from these scans) is murky and lifeless. I doubt you saw the scenes this way while taking these photographs. The goal behind customizing your exposure and development techniques is to render a scene as you envisioned it at the moment you took the picture.

Stanley,

 

Do not let others on this post overanalyze your photos. I remember the excitement I felt the first time I saw images appear on the film as I removed it from the tank. It was like magic to me. I did not worry about the highlights or shadows, the contrast, or anything else--I just remember the magic of the images.

 

If the black and white bug hooks you, read as much as you can about the characteristics of all the films and developers available. Pick a film and developer that look like will fit your needs, and practice. Keep detailed notes from exposure to how you agitated your film. Eventually you will come up with a technique that gives you the look you want.

 

Keep shooting, it will come in time.

 

Tim

<p>1.) It was photographed at about 6PM. </p>

 

<p>2.) I used the matrix metering setting on the n80. I didn't spot meter it. So the exposure was averaged. </p>

 

<p>3.) I scanned it with a Minolta DiMage Scan Dual III (on the color setting). I didn't increase the contrast in Photoshop. Scanning it on the color setting might be responsible for the greenish cast (which I don't really pick up on my crappy old Philips 17 inch monitor)?</p>

 

<p>4.) I don't think I really know how to use this yellow #8 filter. Here's an egregrious example of blowing out the sky (and I was using the filter). </p>

 

<p><img src=http://rogouski.net/loose-photos/campus.jpg></p>

Lex. Thanks for your comments. One question. I didn't think the Zone System could be used with a 35mm camera. I thought you had to be able to develope the photos individually and therefore could only use a view camera.

It is not easy to use the Zone system with35mm film as the whole roll is usually processed at one time which does not allow + and - development, along with the necessary change in exposure. That is not to say that the principles are not helpful, regardless of film size.

There are many people who shoot 35 and use the Zone system , bulk loading small rolls so it becomes easier to switch to another roll it the conditions change drastically. Some use more than one camera body.

Understanding the Zone system will be very helpful in the decision making process. remember the system is just a tool, it is not a magic bullet; it was never meant to be used as such.

 

As some one else above mentioned, have fun. Take a lot of pictures and depending on how serious you want to become the more technical aspects will come. It takes awhile to have it all fall into place.

Stanley

 

A lot of good things have been said above, but do you intend to print your negs on phot paper or just scan them and do digital print?

 

If the scond, I would leave yor negas as they are and goto photoshop...

 

Note: Before prosting photos on the NET I do a grayscale conversion - this way they look more B&W.

Tim, "overanalysis" is the nature of the b&w forums. The raison d'être of these forums is to provide solid, useful, factual information, not speculation or to provide a substitute for photo.net's personal folders and gallery space.

 

If we hadn't used Stanley's thread as an opportunity for analysis and to offer him suggestions for improvements and achieving consistent results, some forum members would find it irritating that space was being used to "merely" show off one's first roll of film.

 

My first inclination was to let this thread expire in 30 days. Depending on how it develops I may let it remain in the archives.

 

Stanley, on a less analytical note, welcome to the family! May you enjoy many years perfecting your skills in the craft. Just try not to let the minutiae distract you from taking and making great photographs.

I've noticed that, if you scan your negatives, one's results are much better when you use a specialized Filter (such as those available at SilverOxide.com) or when you adjust the levels versus just Desaturating the image. I find it gives a result much truer to what an actual gelatin silver print might look like.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying I should desaturate black and white film?

The colour cast that we see is because you scanned in colour mode. It interprets the negs as if is a colour neg. I think you must have done something more to your scans because if I do that, I end up with a very brown image (I think, I haven't done that for ages), which I would then convert to greyscale mode. There's pros and cons to converting to greyscale. For me, the small increase in quality one can achieve doing colur scans of B&W ain't worth the time and disk space so I just scan in greyscale. YMMV.

 

I didn't think your scans were that bad (going by other comments) they look like a dull old day.. probably pretty accurate! They don't seem to have any true/good whites, but I see detail in the dark areas (stones, side of the building). Try viewing images in the browesr before posting, your image editor and the browser can display them quite different.

 

And finally, applying some Zone system basics (film speed, working out a suitable development time and metering the scene) can go a long way to consistant roll film negs.

stan,

 

i think what they're trying to say is that those are top-notch results for a first-timer. enviously well-exposed and processed and being such, you are, remarkably, too ready for some tweaking. fact is, most folks take a dozen or more tries at just the mechanics of souping film to get it to where you already are! if you'll run out and find a copy of ansel's negative(a bible to bw photogs), you're liable to pass us all in a matter of months.

 

great job,

 

me

 

p.s. you lack a smidge of detail in the darker areas(evergreens) and if you add a little exposure and pull a little time off yer developing, you'll be spot on(we can't see yer negs, but it's a pretty safe assumption).

Thanks. I would, however, understand if they didn't archive this thread to keep the forum easily searchable. I pretty much used this forum as my basic guidebook. I literally shopped at the B&H Website with "Mike Farnsworth's" and "Jim McKenzie's" posts printed out beside me from an earlier thread. Very valuable as a resource.