Fuji chromogenic and Leica M7

[HarryBaker]

I've been trying Fuji 400 chromogenic film in my M7. The film is

processed by my university photography department and scanned to CD to

give 2000 x 3000 pixels. I'm a little depressed that the tonal range

isn't very good. What do you think? Whenever I see Trevor Hare's

beautiful B and W pictures I get depressed!<div></div>

[HarryBaker]

One other, comments welcome<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

Looks OK to me, but a computer screen isn't a real print. Have you tried "wet" printing directly from the negatives? How does that look?

[kirk_teetzel]

I think it looks nice, but then again I'm a sucker for contrast.

[andrewlamb]

Harry

 

What are you rating your film at? I find that b/w chromogenic films benefit by

being given a very generous exposure. For instance, I habitually rate my XP2

at 200/250 asa.

[frederick_muller]

Nice compositions. But definitely on the "hard" side. The lens you are using may have something to do with the contrastiness as well. I'm finding Superia 400, desaturated, has an awesome tonal range. Give it a try.

[terry_rory]

A lot of people get depressed when they see my pics :-) But not for the reason you imply.

 

Personally I can see nothing wrong at all with what you are presenting here. The cafe shot is very nice.

 

But if you want to play with contrast...

 

Try altering contrast in photoshop the USM way. Take your full size 2000 x 3000 image and go to filter/sharpen/unsharp mask then apply....

 

Amount = (somewhere between 10 to 25. Experiment)

 

Radius = 55 pixels

 

Threshold = 0

 

This is NOT for sharpening. These values will up the contrast without destroying shadow detail. (Not much anyhow.)

 

Experiment with the amount using the preview box (tick and untick to see before and after whilst adjusting)

 

Failing that, send me one of the files by e-mail and I will have a go. I will send result back by email to you rather than post here. Just say how big you want the final web image to be. I like to play.

 

Once again those shots are atmospheric and nice the way they are. (I tend towards oversharpening a wee bit. Its all personal taste really.)

[terry_rory]

I have a table in a pub...<div></div>

[simon_dai]

That's a great shot, Trevor ... how did you convert it into B/W?

[scott squire nonfiction]

Trevor,

Please stop pulling our legs. Everyone here knows it is simply not possible to produce

beautiful pictures like this using a plastic consumer SLR with a non-premium zoom lens. Are

you certain this image isn't from an MP with a 35mm Summilux ASPH LHSA Black Paint?

 

Harry, I suspect the University lab is processing a bit too hot or long for your requirements. It

looks like when I have my Kodak 400CN push processed by a stop.

[terry_rory]

This one is quite an old shot that I re-did on PS7 using ConvertToBW Pro 3.0

[terry_rory]

Scott. Yeah sorry 'bout that.

[andrew_lee2]

Harry, FWIW I think the tonal range looks fine (especially in the first photo).. but Scott may be onto something. With an even more careful combination of exposure, development, and possibly scanning, I think you may be able to squeeze out a slightly longer tonal range, but what you have here is nothing to get depressed about. Your camera, lens, film- I don't think any of these are the limiting factor.

[johns1]

Harry,

 

Obtain your own film scanner. Unless your use a pro lab who cares about the quality of the scans, I doubt you'll get very good quality from any "volume" lab. With you own film scanner, you'll have more control.

[tom5]

I've had great results and some not-so-great results with different labs. I used to take

Kodak T400CN to a drugstore. The folks there were very careful and their processing and

scans gave a fantastic tonal range. The drugstore changed hands and they began ruining

negatives so I switched to a pro photo store. Now, I don't find the same tonal range but

T400CN has been replaced by BW400CN so I think there is some combination of two

effects now.

 

I recently tried TMax100 developed into a B+W transparency by dr5 in Colorado. The

slides are just a little flat and they have more grain than chromogenic films, but I see a

tremendous tonal range and slides that result scan better on my Minola 5400 than

ANY positive or negative film I've ever used .. pop the slide in the scanner and almost

every scan is usable with little or no manipulation.

[jtdnyc]

Harry, how are you metering? In both shots, there is brighter-than-average subject matter in the center of the frame, and in both cases the exposure seems to have been determined by those areas.

 

That could be a problem, because in the first shot, you might have wanted to split the difference between exposing for indoors and outdoors; and in the second shot, you might have wanted to give increased exposure to compensate for the (apparently) white marble.

 

The solution could be as simple as metering a darker portion of the scene and recomposing.

 

You might also want to rate the film lower than its DX speed of 400. I've never used the Fuji chromogenic film, but with both Ilford and Kodak, the 400 rating is optimistic.

 

Additionally, you might want to keep in mind that chromogenic films often don't render tones exactly as conventional films do. My experience has been that their particular curve shapes allow them to achieve great tonal range at the expense of tonal accuracy.

 

All that being said, I happen to like both of the pictures you posted as they are, and I wouldn't consider the slight deficiency in tonal range to be anything that a one-half or a full stop of additional exposure couldn't cure.

[graham_line]

When running XP2 Super (ei250) and Fuji 400NCN (ei400) through the same processes, I get noticeably stronger contrast from the Fuji. It would help you to put the negs on a light table and examine them, instead of adding the confusion of someone's scanning process. It looks like the tonal range of the Fuji is being compressed from what I get, so it's possible the photo dept's process is a little overactive.

[HarryBaker]

Thanks for all your helpful discussions. I now have a Minolta Elite 5400 scanner so I'll have a go at scanning them myself.

 

Thanks, Trevor for the tip on slightly increasing contrast be using USM. I've already tried a couple and can see nice effects.

 

I've just taken delivery of some rolls of XP2 super, following lots of discussion on this forum, so I'll try some of that.

 

I should say that I've come back to film after using a DSLR for the past couple of years. I'm not in a position to develop/print myself, something I did all the time when I lived in the US in the 60s, so I have to use commercial developers (either that well known high street chain, J, or my university people). Now I've just retired, perhaps I'll get Tri-X into my camera, fish out my tank and scan the negs.

[steve george]

For my 2p worth - I've found XP2 can be developed adequately by any lab, but I equally find it can be tonally lacking.

 

The Fuji Neopan 400CN is by far my favourite chromagenic tonally speaking, but I've found that Snappy Snaps is the only place that can process or print them in anyway satisfyingly. (Shame about the silly name!)

[andrewlamb]

Another vote for Snappy Snaps. I think they're terrific. The guys I deal with, in

sunny Kentish Town, rate XP2 as the best chromogenic b/w. The branch in

Camden prefers T-Max CN. Hmmm...

[terry_rory]

Jessops in Portsmouth do great prints from C41 B&W but gritty, oversharpened scans that are almost un-rescuable. (I only use them when I have to)

 

Boots in Portsmouth do nice prints and scans that look a bit veiled at first sight but scrub up beautiful with minimal PS actions. Just a little histogram trimming on levels that only takes seconds. Their scan histograms seem to be 'bunched up' in the middle of the scale with 'flatlining' at either end.

 

Both use the same Fuji Frontier systems and both use experienced well trained staff.

 

There is a more specialist lab I use sometimes that do traditional B&W and colour C41 and Neg in 35mm and 120. They use Frontier and Noritsu and do quite good scans also. They do a lot of local wedding photographer's processing & printing and also 'walk in from the street' work. Unlike Boots and Jessops they will use settings you specify and push/pull dev on the B&W stuff. Costs a few quid more. but they are good and they are fast.

[nasmformyzombie]

Trevor's "prints" on the Leica forum look suspiciously digital in origin to me. Very sharp (sometimes too sharp), but somewhat lacking in a certain dimensional quality that I notice in many digital prints.

[stephen_jones4]

Trevor -

Useful PS USM technique tip. Appreciated - cheers.

[nrb]

XRG200 c41b Agfa color film grayscaled in PS...<div></div>

[HarryBaker]

OK, so I've scanned a couple of Fuji 400 chromogenic negs using my newly acquired Elite 5400. I think the tonal range is quite good. I scanned at max resolution but of course had to downsize for posting. What is the best way to downsize? Is there an optimal sequence?<div></div>