TRI-X processing by Peak Imaging

<p>Hello,<br>

I've just pickedup a film camera for the first time in a number of years and have had the first rolls of (fresh) TRI-X processed and scanned to CD by Peak imaging, who are a reputable lab in the UK.<br>

The results I got back showed poor contrast and were a little dissapointing. The processing should be spot on, so am I doing something wrong or are my results pretty much what I should expect from that film? I can always do some post processing on the digital files, but I was expecting something a bit more.<br>

I was using a 2nd hand EOS-1 and my usual lenses, which give excellent results with all my DSLRs</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>No post processing by you, but I'm sure the Fuji SP2000 did some. :) </p>

<p>Looks reasonable, for the lighting conditions.</p>

 

<p>Is this more like what you were expecting?<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6401258945_ec8ae56703_z.jpg" alt="" width="367" height="550" /></p>

<p>Peter, expect a good scan to be a bit flat. Looking at the levels in photoshop of your uncorrected image the blacks start at 30 not 0; the highlights end at 223 not 255. 0 is pure black and 255 is pure white. The usable detail starts at 43 for black and ends at 203 for the highlights. You need to adjust your exposure for the labs processing and your camera's shutter and meter error as none are perfect. You may want to ask the lab to give your films a +10% development increase also. Try a +1/3 stop exposure increase only then evaluate the results. A well exposed and developed negative properly scanned will have usable blacks (not a straight line) starting between 0 and 15 with the highlights ending around 240 to 255.</p>

<p>Peter I got back into film in 2000. I hated what the labs were giving me so I went and started doing my own processing again after a 20 year break and then went and got my own scanner. I had a long learning curve but that is life.</p>

<p> If you are going to use a lab I at least suggest you get some post processing software.</p>

<p>Unless you plan to enlarge and make convention silver halide prints, a negative processing setup for black & white film is surprisingly reasonable and doesn't have to take up much space. Tri-X just <strong>begs</strong> to be processed at home. You will need a film tank and reel, developer, fixer, a thermometer, and either a dark closet or changing bag to load film on reel. The rest of the steps are carried out in room light. Also a countdown timer is convenient for tracking developing, fixing, and washing times. You can probably pick up the reel, tank, timer, and changing bag for cheap on ebay or you may find someone who has abandoned darkroom work that might give you what you need. A used film scanner (or new flatbed w/negative holder) and you're set.</p>

 

<p>Any B&W film is almost dead on to use at home and yes I use a changing bag I live in a 1 bedroom apartment and I do it on a scanner... I have a walk in that could be a wet darkroom and there is even an enlarger in there... I just though use my Epson V700 I got as a referb for so cheap it shames me.... Post processing I use Elements.. Oh I use 5 and I think 10 is out. I have 9 in a box.. never thought I needed more than 3 but got 5 cheap and the same with 9... Please comment back.</p>

<p>The Epson scanners are surprisingly good for the money. I have the V600 and like it. I scan black & white negatives at 2400 dpi and resize from that when I want to post on Photo.net. Here are a couple of examples.</p><div></div>

<p>Another V600 scan, this time from a 4.5 x 6 cm 120 negative.<br>

Both films were processed in Kodak HC110 developer, dilution B.</p><div></div>

<p>I use the V700 with everything from 16mm through 4x5 and Sometimes sell a print or a few printed through Wal-Mart or others from the Digital files.. Never had any complaints as I refuse to except a shitty print.... OK I get complaints... From the teck at the Wal.Mart or Mpix and Snapfish... LOL as I have tortured all of them ... When I see it right then it is time to do it properly and let the customer get the print.. The thing is I can't afford a large art printer to do it myself and making another get it right is what I want.... So I use their dime and They get it right and now keep that in mind.... I do Mostly B&W so that is a Plus for me as I just have to tell them tones.. as for any thing in the 11x14 range well I can do that myself...</p>

<p> The thing is If I can't bitch then I can't get it right...... ")</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your very helpful advice.<br>

I think one error I had fallen into without thinking was to under expose by ~1/3 stop, because that's what I usually do on digital, but of course is not needed on film.<br>

Eventuallly I will do my own processing, but that would also mean getting a new film scanner. The one I have now isn't very good and is on long term loan.<br>

Cheers.<br>

P</p>

<p>I will now then remove the photo......</p>

<p>I think one error I had fallen into without thinking was to under expose by ~1/3 stop, because that's what I usually do on digital, but of course is not needed on film.<br>

Exposing Tri-X at EI 650 to 800 and giving corresponding push processing will give you a fairly contrasty "vintage photojournalistic" look - without the push, as you have realised, the negs will simply be underexposed. For general pictorial work, quite a lot of people rate Tri-X at EI 200 and slightly pull-process (say 1/2 minute less development). As others have said, low contrast can be an advantage in negatives intended only for scanning, as long of course as shadow detail is present.</p>

<p>One thing to remember is that digital is like shooting slides - under exposing is fine and overexposing is tough to fix. Tri-X and C41 films (color neg film) are negative films - not positive - so the opposite is usually true. I usually set my meter at 320 for a 400 speed neg film. But I arrived at that by trying different settings and doing the rest of the process the same each time. David is also right. <br>

You seem to be saying that the scans of your negs are what are low contrast. How do the negs themselves look? That is the determining factor. The scans can be redone, especially if you can talk with the people at the lab and let them know what you want. They aren't mindreaders and likely have the scanner set to auto. </p>

<p>Shooting any film is like shooting slides.. You get lazy if you forget that.. I am guilty many times...</p>

<p>Your lab has given you a perfect scan. Their scan has given you 100% of the data in the neg which is exactly what you want. You have the ability to set the end points of the histogram so that there is no clipping of either end. And you have the ability to put the contrast where ever you want it in the file. This is all post processing. You cannot live without it.<br>

If your lab gave you a scan that looked good with no post processing, it would have the end points of the histogram set automatically and the contrast adjusted for a machine computed normal. In all probability, their adjustments would mean you could never make it look any better than "automatic" because some of the data has been clipped or you can never reverse their contrast adjustments.<br>

You must decide if you want some machines idea of what you final image should look like or if you want to be able to make those decisions yourself. In 11 years of developing film and scanning, I have never made a print that I really liked without post processing.</p>

<p>Sigh...... Perfect is over rated.... When a person expects a scan from the lab they expect that they will never have to do any post processing... And no That is not a perfect scan.... it is too small and it has nothing but the flat line of generic idea of film... And not the film he shot..... That is why I told him to invest at least into post processing software.</p>

<p>@Peter Meade (OP) I think the scan is quite fine. You might need to tweak it in an image editing software to bring out the punch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I think the scan is quite fine."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As do I. It appears to show very good midtone gradation. Only minor tweaks in digital editing, or the equivalent with variable contrast paper and the magenta filter, would be needed to add a little sparkle.</p>

<p>Mike, how are you scanning your B&W negs? Are you scanning in greyscale.....or in color? Are you using Silverfast and their profiles?</p>

<p>I use to get better results developing and wet printing my own stuff at home... I wonder what people think. To me, the pain of ordering for developing, scanning, processing, and then ordering prints, take lots of time (it seems to me <em>even more time!</em>), and results are commonly dissapointing, and for sure, expensive.<br /> When people say they prefer hybrid processing for convenience, speed and results... not for me as an amateur looking for "classic" b&w quality photos. The great digital era is not that great in this area, at least to me... ;P</p>