Dont know whats wrong with my photos?

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I have been working with film/processing/scanning on a 4490 for a while now and am not too happy with results, and wanted some tips in getting the quality/look that i want.</p>

<p>Here is my a set of pics to look at - http://www.flickr.com/photos/tompatrick/sets/72157626821541031/</p>

<p>Basically, i dont know why i am not getting the tones i want. I have seen photos in similar conditions and of similar scenes with a much better look. I have tried a few different films, and have looked at examples of different b/w films before trying them, and cant seem to get a nice result.</p>

<p>The photos just look too grey and flat. Also very soft. Its not the camera/lens because I have tried a few different. Using a Konica AF now.</p>

<p>I guess the info i want is - how can i achieve a more interesting and tonal look. Where am i going wrong? Film? Developing? Scanning? I do not want to just increase contrast etc through photoshop because that takes away the point of shooting nicer, more expensive films as i could do that with anything.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>PS - Is the graininess on the last picture, of doors, actually grain? Because it is not there unless i sharpen, so presume it is just noise??</p>

<p>First, it's your scanner. (and a little bit of camera shake) A flatbed will not produce satisfactory results with 35mm. Second - If you're not getting the look you want after having tried several different films, change your processing techniques. I won't go into it here because there are plenty of resources out there for film processing, but you can easily change the look of any film by processing. Contrast, acutance, grain, dmin, dmax, etc. </p>

<p>Here's a flickr hive mind search for your current film and developer combination: http://flickrhivemind.net/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=50&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=delta+400+id-11&.submit=Search+Tags</p>

<p>Find something you like and shoot them an email or IM or whatever it is nowadays asking how they developed, scanned, tweaked and so on then hole up in the darkroom and start experimenting.</p>

<p>How to achieve a more interesting look? Try a more interesting time of day and more interesting subjects. Honestly, those shots are pretty boring and you're not taking advantage of the light. Your first photo, for example, titled "Greed". What about that photo says <em>greed</em>? I don't see it - I just see a snapshot of people walking down the street. I won't apologize for being blunt because I have to do the same thing to myself when I critique my own work. That's the only way I can get it through my stubborn skull.</p>

 

<p>Tom: I don;t shoot B/W but I notice that my color scans also are very flat. After playing with levels after the scan (I scan flat), I really have to adjust brightness and contrast to make the photos pop a little. That flatness is also what I see in your shots.</p>

<p>You'll have to check with others as to what would be the best B/W film to use for scanning overall.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not want to just increase contrast etc through photoshop because that takes away the point of shooting nicer, more expensive films as i could do that with anything</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well if thats how you feel then thats grand, but personally Im after a satisfactory final image, so the method is irrelevant to me. When I use film its because i find it fun and I like the idea of non-deletable negatives, among other reasons. So I adjust always adjust the curves in adobe lightroom. I even add a little vignetting sometimes (gasp!). See my recent flickr uploads for what I mean: <br>

If you want to do it without such post processing, then I would suggest changing different films, use different filters (eg. Yellow/Orange/Red/Light blue) and then change development times/developer. Hopefully this way you can "fine tune" your BW photos to your liking. <br>

Oh and my scanner - a lowly epson v300 - scans flat too. I can only assume its to protect the detail from high contrast/saturation, should the user want such detail. </p>

<p>Thanks...</p>

<p>The scanner itself is not the problem, and i have seen results sharp enough for my standards by people with the same model. No offence but i find it ridiculous how people say 'not satisfactory results' for 35mm from a flatbed scanner - satisfactory by whos standards?! An art gallery wanting huge prints? Someone who posts on flickr? Camera shake?! A little patronising perhaps.</p>

<p>I wrote greed because the little girl is holding a balloon and staring at another girl who has 3. But anyway - i did not ask for your opinion on how interesting you think the subject matter is, and find it a bit odd that you would answer my technical questions by calling my photography boring - a little out of place.</p>

<p>Perhaps i have been too vague, and my question has not been properly written or something. I guess i am worried that my pictures contrast and tones are too flat, and wonder if it is the processing or scanning. I know processing can change the look, but have experimented a fair bit with it and am now wondering if it is other factors. I am still getting into the fact that i can not get a scanner to scan how i shot the picture, instead of how the scanner chooses to scan it. Underexposed images come out properly exposed (why bother metering at all when shooting) if i leave the scanner to autoexpose so the only option is to manually change the settings for contrast and brightness. But by doing this im taking away the character of the specific film and the efforts in shooting and developing the pictures to achieve a certain effect!</p>

<p>I think they're under developed but I can not tell without seeing the negatives.<br>

I would start by developing for 10% to 15% longer than you currently are.<br>

The grain in the door is over sharpening.<br>

Turn off all the filters and enhancements in the scanning and do that in post editing.<br>

When you open a B&W photo in image editing software, no matter how flat it looks, the histogram should be close to 0 for the deepest shadows and near 255 for the brightest highlights (photoshop>image>adjustments>levels). </p>

<p>I scan in the highest bit depth RGB at the highest optical limit stated by the manufacture then adjust or reduce in image editing to the file size that I'm comfortable with.</p>

<p>Another approach is to run the film speed test on your setup as outlined in The Negative by Ansel Adams. You set up a 18% gray card in shallow open shade and meter it and only it, for 35mm the gray card should fill the viewfinder without you or the camera causing a shadow or light reflection onto the card. Record the reading and use it as your reference point. Back off 10 to 15 feet and run the exposure test in the attached PDF. Including a white card next to the gray card with the shutter speed and f stop of the exposure helps also. The result is the gray card that is .1 over Film Base + Fog is your EI for that film/camera or shutter/lens/developer combination, change one-retest. The .1 over fb+f is when read with a densitometer, printed at paper black it is just distinguishable from the paper, correctly scanned it should be just delectable without adjustments. Now once you have found your EI then if the white card is dull you increase development by 10% to 15% increments until the white is correct. I have found that accurate shutters will produce within 1/6 stop of one another and different films exposed with them and developed in the same developer using the same techniques will yield very similar results. If you have to increase development by 20% and shoot 1/3 stop slower than box with brand X film in developer Y then film Q exposed by you on your equipment at 1/3 slower than box and developed in developer Y for 20% over printed start time will be very close to correct for you. </p>

It's not ridiculous - I have the 4490 and it sucks for 35mm

<p>Thanks Charles...</p>

<p>I will try increasing developing time by fractions on my next few rolls. The film speed test you mention makes only half sense to me, each time i read it makes a little more but certain things make no sense to me at all. Thanks though, no doubt soon it will all fall into place.</p>

<p>I do not scan with any filters etc on, everything off and just change the histogram to get in all the range. Then i go to camera raw and sharpen a bit. I just want to be able to scan what is on the film, so i can see what my experiments with under/over exposure and metering decisions turned out like. I want to be able to see how my different processing techniques affect the negative. I cant do this from scanning, is there no way to just scan how it is!? I want the difference in contrast or exposure to come from the film/camera/developing NOT digital manipulation or scanning software.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nobody does B&W "pure" in a darkroom. You choose appropriate print contrast, choose exposure, dodge, burn, etc.<br>

You just need to apply some curves, at least on the shots taken on a sunny day. On a grey day, you're going to get grey pictures...<br>

The 4490 should provide fine results for the web or Flickr. Just don't plan on pulling a print any larger than an 8x10 from a scan on it, unless you want an atmospheric fuzz.</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

I have been there too. I would say (looking at the shadow/dark regions) that you are underexposing by 1 stop and making it worse by underdeveloping. Yes, you can do both at once. I know.</p>

<p>John - if i make adjustments to say, delta and then do the same to another 400 film, wont this therefore just make them look the same though? Dont i then lose the benefits of shooting diff films?</p>

<p>Tony - But is it not just that i have not set the scan correctly so it looks dark? Perhaps put the black/white points wrong? I stick them just outside the range to make sure i get all the detail?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The film speed test you mention makes only half sense to me, each time i read it makes a little more but certain things make no sense to me at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The purpose of this test is to determine what exposure is necessary to get just detectable detail in the darkest shadows when you meter a scene, shadows below the toe of the films sensitivity come out blank film base, shift the exposure so the shadows record higher up the sensitivity slope then the highlights go into extreme density and are unprintable.</p>

<p>Lets say you meter the card to be 1/125 @ f8, 4 stops below that is 1/2000 @ f8(EI 400); 1/3 stop less is 1/2000 @ f8 1/3 (1/3 the distance between f8 and f11)(EI 320); 2/3 stop less is 1/2000 @ f8 2/3(EI 250); 1 stop less is 1/4000 @ f8(EI 200); 1/3 stop more is 1/2000 @ f 5.6 2/3(EI 500); 2/3 more is 1/200 @ f5.6 1/3(EI 640); 1 stop more is 1/2000 @ f5.6 or 1/1000 @ f8( EI 800). Any equivalent of the combinations can be used but it is best to adjust aperture or shutter speed only for convince of shooting.</p>

<p>Now you have the exposures on your Delta 400 then you develop it in D76 for published time at 68⁰F at box speed of 400 time. You next examine, read with a densitometer, print at paper black (time/aperture at which the paper will reach its maximum black with a blank piece of developed film, your frame 1-no exposure in the negative carrier) or you scan it with no compensation in the scanner software. The point at which the gray card is just distinguishable from the film base is your EI.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do not scan with any filters etc on, everything off and just change the histogram to get in all the range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I set the bit depth, RGB for all film types, scan resolution, and manual exposure of 0 for blacks and 255 for highlights, adjust the crop line so that it just inside the image area and not including any of the holder frame then scan. I use an older Epson for MF and 4x5 with Epson's software; a Pulstek 7200 for 35mm. Any exposure within 1 stop of perfect will produce a usable image but the closer to perfect the more adjustment room there is to play with.</p>

 

<p>I'm not an expert, but I do scan quite a bit of B&W rollfilm in various widths on an Epson 3200 flatbed. Of course 120 looks nicer than smaller formats, but when I am lucky and get a well-exposed and developed negative, I get good results also with 35mm and even 16mm.</p>

<p>But I do not print the images, I only want images I can share on flickr, facebook, etc. I also don't want to try to make a film image look like a high-res digital image. If I was making my living at it, I would get a professional scanner, or just go completely digital. It is just a hobby.</p>

<p>I turn off all filters or auto-levels, trimming, etc. BTW, what IS "trimming"? I couldn't find a good explanation of that anywhere. I make a levels adjustment at the preview stage, and then again after the scan in Photoshop 7. I never use sharpening or de-speckling.</p>

<p>One thing I have been trying recently is to follow the advice of other photo.net posters who advise giving negatives meant for scanning slightly less development than those meant for conventional darkroom printing, in order to get a more natural tonal range. </p>

<p>One more thing that could make running various exposure and development tests a bit easier-- get a bulk loader and a 100 foot roll of film, and load shorter lengths.</p>

<p>So the purpose is basically to get exposure correct, so get detail where needed. Is it more complicated than that? I do not understand the second paragraph. I understand it but do not understand why there is a list of hypothetical exposures - i dont get the context, sorry!</p>

<p>I presume the next paragraph relates to using the film base as a reference against the frame used as a test, to make the print/scan an accurate representation of what is on the film?</p>

<p>Manual exposure, 0 for blacks etc....... So you set the output to include the full range, i do this. But then above, i adjust the black and white points of input, putting the black just left of the histogram and the white just to the right. This includes the full range, yes? Problem is when i do this for 6 frames at once, and include the detail recorded on the film in highlights (ie clouds/sky) all the detail from a shot taken inside disappears to almost black. Its almost like taking the picture all over again, but it is frustrating because i am sure i got exposure correct, so surely the whole roll should scan at the same settings and have properly exposed (or at least exposed how i intended) pictures??? Am i making sense, because i really need to get to grips with this!</p>

<p>Thanks for the help i am SO grateful, i cannot get into it as much as i want to while i dont understand this aspect because it cripples my motivation thinking that there is a weak link in the process after i shoot the roll.</p>

<p>Hey, I don't think these are all that bad. Don't kick yourself too hard. Sure, a couple have some stability/focus issues, but in general I like the composition and tonality. I think you are definitely on the right track.</p>

<p>I have the 4490 and it works fine for me. I'd suggest adjusting the histogram before the final scan to get the tonal range your want. If you simply scan with the default, you will often be disappointed, especially if you have some contrasty scenes like several of your images.</p>

<p>I'd also think about the film/developer combination you are using. Yes, a couple of your images are flat, but in a few the highlights are starting to blow out. I'd suggest a more compensating developer and then adjust up the contrast if you need to in the final print/scan.<br>

Keep in mind too that there is not much you can do with a gray sky. No matter what you do, it will appear dull but yet dominate the picture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Russ....</p>

<p>Thing is - the detail is all there it just gets lost in the scan. In preview when scanning, i can set the levels to look correct for most exposures, but one (say one totally overexposed by accident) can appear totally block white. If i then adjust levels i can get the overexposed pic to look almost properly exposed. So surely the blown highlights are my fault when scanning? But then people say they are underexposed. They are darker because i turned them down to keep highlight detail. I DONT GET IT</p>

<p>The detail is all there, i am just doing something wrong and i dont know what. Everyone i have asked tells me what they do etc, and mine still look different. Granted some of it is the light i am shooting in etc, but problems like that i totally understand, the problems im having seem to be the scan. </p>

<p>Slight side note but related - if i am altering levels etc when scanning, what is the benefit of shooting one film over another, as most of the aesthetic seems to be the print/scan??</p>

<p>If the neg is properly exposed why is there not just a scan setting that scans the negative as it is!? There are specific settings (shutter speed and aperture) to achieve a set exposure when taking the photo, so surely the scan should be the same for ANY negative, then any underexposed or overexposed would show as such and would be due to improper camera technique or creative choice.</p>

<p>Not familiar with your scanner, but I have a Microtek flatbed, a Polaroid 35mm and a Minolta 35mm. They all allow for adjusting the dynamic range of the scan. If you set up the scan histogram to have white whites and black blacks the scan should perk up. Of course this same result can be achieved in the post processing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So the purpose is basically to get exposure correct, so get detail where needed. Is it more complicated than that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>NO!</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not understand the second paragraph. I understand it but do not understand why there is a list of hypothetical exposures - i don't get the context, sorry!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Examples of the exposure run, nothing more. The EI's are the actual if using ISO 400 film and that corresponding frame is where you achieve .1 over FB+F. Setting your exposure meter to that EI then metering normally will get you a more correct exposure than if you use box speed. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Problem is when i do this for 6 frames at once</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bulk scanning several frames at a time for general evaluation purposes is fine but I doubt you will get the best scan for any given frame unless you scan that frame by itself. Try scanning each frame separately and see if that helps improve the results. Yes it will be more time consuming. In Silverfast on the 7200 I scan in HDR which cuts off any adjustment and sets the scanner to its optical black point and white point limits. The scans look like bland junk until I invert them and adjust the levels in PS CS2 then the images, B&W or Color, snap into good images. </p>

<p>There are several good freeware screen capture/print programs available on line. If you are still confused use one of them and capture the setup box of your scan software and post it in line here. I and or others will offer settings opinions or suggestions.</p>

<p>A few remarks and things you might try</p>

<ol>

<li>Open your digital files in a suitable software. You need a "levels" tool. Make sure there is no empty space at the upper end of the histogram. If not move the pointer for teh white point down to the end of the histogram. Ditto at the lower end, except you may "bite" into the histogram a little. Check the result visually. Save under a separate name. </li>

<li>Ditto, with a "curves" tool. Try apply an "S" shaped curve, i.e. pulling down the 1/4 tones (halfway between black and middle gray) a little, and pushing up a little the 3/4 tones. Don't overdo it; say (starting point) move each vertically 10% of the output space black-white scale. This should give your images a little peps. Experiment variations. </li>

<li>I'm unsure, but I have a feeling that Delta 400 tends to give that murky look. Especially the last two of your pictures; shot on a sunny day, look as if taken under the smog. I admit openly that I don't have scientific evidence for my feeling (neither do all the Pnetters that claim that film "x" with developer "y" is the best combination). </li>

<li>Go back to something well tried and proven. FP4, D76 1+1. Nice tones. </li>

</ol>

<p>@ Charles: your zone system test form is maybe nice for a very careful and experienced photographer, but overwhelming as an introduction to ZS systematics. 1/3 stop increments!<br>

@ Tom: I would advise shoot one roll, duplicating each exposure: box speed, 1/2 box speed. Look at each pair. Can you see a difference? (apart from one being globally denser than the other, which is absorbed in the black/white point adjustments). You will be surprised how small is the difference in overall density between box speed and 1/2 box speed (2x exposure). Look critically at the shadows and highlights. Is there one that you like more? You need a variety of "real-life" subjects. Not two situations are alike.<br>

@ All: I see so often prescriptions on effective speed down to 1/3 stop, and almost never is metering discussed. The method of metering can make a lot more of difference than 1/3 stop. Won't digress more on that topic.</p>

<p>Hi Bernard, thanks for the informative reply.</p>

<p>Ill try something else, but FP4 is too slow for me and the weather i get in Newcastle, England.</p>

<p>Right, so you are basically saying shoot a roll of tests at different speeds, effectively compensating 1/3 stop or full stop over or under to see the results and if i get better than i have previously?</p>

<p>I scanned something this morning of three shots of the same subject (normal, 1 stop over, 1 stop under) and scanned them all at the same time, and got the obvious result. I could of course scan them individually and make them look properly exposed. Is the point you are making that over or under exposing in camera and then scanning to make them appear properly exposed might be better than exposing at box speed?</p>

<p>Good point on the metering, I am very used to spot metering and perhaps this affects my exposures with my new film cameras as Im not used to their metering yet.</p>

<p>Tom - </p>

<p>It seems I've been out of the loop awhile. I'll post some more over lunch regarding scanning and testing film with some screen shots and a sample scan.</p>

<p>RE: my first post - Scanner: I have the 3200 which I realize is not as good as the 4490 but IMO produces poor results with 35mm. Your scans from the 4490 are better, but for anything but smaller prints and web images you would do better taking your film to a lab and getting scans or prints from a Fuji Frontier or similar.<br>

Camera shake - yes, your shot of the guy with bunny ears is soft from camera shake.</p>

<p>Your 'guy with umbrella' and 'pigeon lady' by far have the best range of tones, contrast and sharpness of any of your shots. Whatever you did on those works.</p>

 

<p>Bernard, you do not have to practice the zone system to find your personal EI for the film/camera or shutter/processing you are using. If my instructor had taught this approach I would not have spent several years and lots of film wondering why my shots were so bland with poor tonal range.</p>

<p>Tom, I'm beginning to think where you are setting the white and black point prior to scanning is a big part of the reason the tones in your images appear to be compressed. Start with film exposure testing then scanning technique. There are many variables and adjusting several at once will be confusing and non productive.</p>

<p>hi again.<br>

Yeah, the one with the bunny ears was a quickly taken photo, out of focus and as i was walking. Still i like how it looks, and it is just for humour really because he was a fairly surreal character!</p>

<p>I will take anything i shoot and want better quality into a proper printers, but worry a bit that they will scan them how i want, with all this being talked of about how to capture a scan properly.</p>

<p>I have been thinking about developer, since it has been mentioned...</p>

<p>- I have quite hard water where i live, and although i filter it with a brita filter for some impurities, this might be affecting my negatives a lot? <br>

- Using ID-11 diluted more than 1:1 seems to be an option, although somewhere someone said to only use 1:1 strength. The FDC likens diluting to 1:3 to using a non-solvent developer? I would probably prefer better sharpness and more grain.<br>

- Perhaps i should try rodinal or something similar?<br>

- The FDC also says that since Delta is a tabular film, that a solvent developer is not good for it - another reason to switch developers or dilution?</p>

<p>Another point i wanted to make, to further enquire about one of the things i often mention... lets say i shot a scene in exactly the same way with 3 different 400ASA films, developed them the same and everything. Then if i scanned them and set the levels to create the correct looking exposure - how would they differ after digitally enhancing them to look correct? </p>

<p>Thanks again! </p>

<p>Bernard, please see my earlier post in response to yours, i don't want it to get lost!</p>

<p>Stick with the developer you are currently using and establish your personal Exposure Index.<br>

You may find mixing and diluting the developer with distilled water may help some but the differences will be small.</p>

<p>Exposing at box speed, camera meter recommendation, developing for developer published time for that film is the default settings. Doing what someone else did is assuming that their testing or experimenting with their equipment and procedure will work for you. Using a test procedure will get you to the accurate results quicker than trial and error. Once you have established what works for you with one film and developer combination then when changing one or both it will be apparent as to what modification of default will be correct for you.<br>

Most exposure changes required for optimum image quality is 1/2 stop or less, development time change less than 25% common being 10% to 15% increase over printed starting point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Using ID-11 diluted more than 1:1 seems to be an option, although somewhere someone said to only use 1:1 strength. The FDC likens diluting to 1:3 to using a non-solvent developer? I would probably prefer better sharpness and more grain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Each developer has its minimum required amount to fully develop a quantity of film. This minimum is usually stated as X amount of stock developer per Y surface area of film. A 35mm roll of film is close to and considered to be 80 square inches for convince of calculation. When diluting a developer you need to use the amount of stock for the amount of film you are processing then dilute that down to the ratio you want to use then process in a tank large enough to hold the total volume. Looking at the spec sheet for ID11 it says the maximum amount of film per liter is 10 rolls of 135/36 or 120 (800 square inches) or 100ml per roll of film. To process 2 rolls of film at the same time in ID11 @1:3 you need 200ml developer and 600ml water for a total of 800ml. If you have been using less than 100 ml of developer per roll of film then your film is under developed.</p>