My first home dev! Delta 400 + HC-110 B. Thanks, and Questions

[james_blachly]

<p>I have just developed my first roll of B&W, and I want first to THANK EVERYONE HERE for all the years of insightful commentary they've posted. I've read more posts than I can count. I've been reading extensively on photo.net (and APUG and flickr) for about two weeks now regarding B&W development. Right now, <strong>I am scanning</strong>, but I would <em>also like to have good negatives for printing LATER</em>.</p>

<p>This weekend, I gathered everything together (donated and borrowed tanks, reels, and chemicals; HC-110 expired in 2008 but unopened. Total outlay: $8 for some Photo Flo from my local shop) and developed a roll of Delta 400 (which I learned only after shooting a half-roll was probably NOT an ideal film to begin with!). I am surprised and pleased at how well everything went. No real complications, and better-than-mediocre results.</p>

<p>I do have a couple of questions regarding exposure and contrast. First, take a look at my results:<br>

<a href="http://blachly.org/james/delta400-1/">http://blachly.org/james/delta400-1/</a><br>

then also see: <a href="http://blachly.org/james/16-as-scanned.jpg">http://blachly.org/james/16-as-scanned.jpg</a></p>

<p>Take special note of the comments under the photos. Some I have presented as-scanned, others I felt looked TERRIBLE without some auto levels applied (for example, the linked jpeg). Overall, I feel that they were all pretty "flat" with poor contrast, but some were passable without any manipulation. I didn't have any blown highlights AND I had good shadow detail in all frames, so that's a plus I guess? However, the overall look of the scans is not very pleasing due to the compressed dynamic range. Not only do they have poor contrast, I feel like they are not bright enough either, although from a technical perspective, I have details in all shadow areas which I intended to. <br>

My questions are, specifically:</p>

<ol>

<li>When we see these great scans that really pop, have most of those people adjusted the levels in digital post-processing?</li>

<li>Because contrast and exposure are freq. altered when making traditional prints, is it "wrong" to pp my scanned negs?</li>

<li>Do EVERYONE's scans look this flat without post-processing (at a minimum, setting white point)?</li>

<li>If not, how does the scanner know how to set the white point? (I set black point by pointing to a clear part of the film)</li>

<li>How much of the low contrast can be attributed to film, developer, development technique, and to scanner?</li>

<li>Are these fair to good results in terms of a negative I'd want to use for printing later?</li>

<li>Finally, would increasing my development time by, say, 20% improve contrast/ tone separation / overall brightness level ?</li>

</ol>

<p>I know that is a lot of questions, but I am working about 80 hours / week right now, and those are really the only questions I have regarding B&W development for which I never found good CONSISTENT answers in my reading.<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

[james_blachly]

<p>In retrospect, this should have probably been posted in the B&W scanning subforum, not the exposure subform.</p>

<p>Moderators?</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>1. Absolutely. Films like Acros or TMX are pretty snappy, but the Delta films, in particular, tend to come out a lot flatter with normal development.<br>

2. No. It is one of the advantages of being able to scan and print digitally.<br>

3. No. It depends on film and developer combinations.<br>

4. You should calibrate your monitor and adjust the brightness and contrast until it is pleasing to <em>you</em> .<br>

5. Mostly film and developer combinations. Your scanning looks fine. Your post processing is the big issue. You have to get negs and scans as close as you can, and go from there.<br>

6. Absolutely. Again, make sure you calibrate your monitor. Buy a device if you can, or borrow one from someone. Often a local pro shop will rent them pretty cheaply.<br>

7. It could, but you always have trade offs. If you adjust exposure and development time, you can do better on the tonal range, but sometimes you lose out in shadow or highlight detail.</p>

<p>I would say you're right where you need to be. Spend more time on PP. Attached is my 5 second take on your second image. It's all personal preference though. Basically, you need to adjust brightness and contrast until you get true white (the glasses) and true black. Portraits can be software anyway.</p>

<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Agree with Michael on every count. Your results are darned near perfect. Don't change your exposures or developing times. We're so accustomed to seeing excessive contrast with featureless shadows and blown highlights that a properly exposed and developed b&w photo may seem "flat,", but it's actually a pleasure to see how it should be done.</p>

<p>For scanning b&w negatives, it's best to avoid overdeveloping. The excessive contrast makes it tougher to scan well and the grain will be more prominent, without any real gain in quality. You can and *should* use digital editing tricks to get the results you like. It's absolutely no different from using contrast filters, dodging/burning and other conventional techniques for manipulating prints in the wet darkroom.</p>

<p>Well done, you're getting better results from Delta 400 than I ever did. I might need to revisit that film some day.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Great job! What are you using to scan with. I know that on the Epson software you must select the area that you want scanned. If you don't, the software's auto contrast controls will pick up on the solid black and white boarders and adjust black and white points according to that. Result is a dark and very flat scan. Crop out those area and you should be about right.</p>

<p>As pointed out, I think your negative are just fine. You may just need to hammer out the scanning and post processing a bit.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Check out this <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/62737-do-my-negatives-have-too-little-contrast.html">thread on APUG</a></p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>And this from <a href="http://theplasticlandscape.com/articles/scanning.htm">Wallace Billingham</a> (AKA eyeofwally on Flickr)</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p> </p>

[james_blachly]

<p>Thanks everyone for their responses and the links as well!</p>

<p>Most of my questions could be boiled down to: "is post processing acceptable, customary, and in fact frequently NEEDED?" It appears that the answer is yes, and I needed affirmation that PP was okay.</p>

<p>My scanning setup is Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED with VueScan ; I set the black point in Vuescan by locking exposure on a transparent piece of the film base. I need to figure out how (if even possible) to set white point in Vuescan (WITHOUT using the auto levels feature). My highlights appear quite black - almost as dark as the leader - on the negative. Now knowing that setting levels is usually necessary, I think I'll have much better scans (after setting levels) straight off the film, which is my goal, but I am certainly not opposed to other post-processing.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone. I will continue to experiment with lighting, exposure, and development time as well, but I am very pleased with Delta 400 in HC-110 overall. Fair to good range of tones represented. The grain is fine and the results are quite sharp. If I have time after work tonight I'll post a 100% crop.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I always adjust levels for each and every scan, then I process in lightroom to acheive results as one would in the darkroom with an enlarger. Contrast control and dodge and burn.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I always adjust levels for each and every scan, then I process in lightroom to acheive results as one would in the darkroom with an enlarger. Contrast control and dodge and burn.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[kari v]

<p>Extremely good first set, gongrats. :)<br /> As you can see from Michael's edit you just need a little post work boost. Somewhat flat scans are what most poeple want, you have way more room for editing and keeping that super contrast "b&w" look at bay.</p>

<p>I suggest you do pretty flat high resolution scans and save them as untouched originals. Revisit them time to time, it'll take a while to get accustomed to film scan editing. Even a little curves adjustment and proper sharpening can make your images shine.</p>

[james_blachly]

<p>Scanned at 4000 DPI on Coolscan 4000 ED. 100% crop.<br>

<img src="http://blachly.org/james/images/09.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <img src="http://blachly.org/james/images/100percent.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I was impressed with resolution, grain and sharpness of this combination. Some midtones have noticeable grain, but , eh, it's a 400 speed film in 35mm.</p>

[kari v]

<p>BabyBjörn, heh, I had one of those too. :)</p>

<p>Yeah, 4000dpi scan at 100% is going to show you "some grain". Try Delta 3200 for a real blizzard. (Prints surprisingly beautifully optically though.)</p>

[kari v]

<p>About darkroom prints. I think you'll find that some negs like enlarger (sometimes scanners just can't figure out grain and tone gradation very well) and some difficult negs (underexposed or annoying high dynamic range distribution) like scanning, especially in the beginning when you don't have extensive dodging and burning figured out. Don't worry, do whatever makes your images look best.</p>