Problem with exposure/contrast (BW film)...

[todd_b1]

<p>I'm having a real problem with the exposure and contrast of my photographs, they are all highlights and shadows, every now and then one will appear more "normal". I use a light meter app in my iPhone to judge exposure. But wouldn't it be overall too light or dark if over/underexposure was the issue? Compare the top two images to the bottom image.<br>

<br /> Many many thanks for your help!<br>

<br /> Some contrasty examples:<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5321/7066411847_f397b0f868.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5316/6920341834_0d5849a80c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here is a less contrasty one</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7241/7006727685_cef2f658e9.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[leighb]

<p>We need a lot more information, like...<br>

What film?<br>

What developer, time, temperature, and technique?<br>

Are these scans of negatives or prints?<br>

How are you printing the negatives... what paper, enlarger, developer?</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[James G. Dainis]

Note: this thread has been moved from the Beginner's forum to here where there are many more people well versed in the nuances of black and white film. Please remember that this is a beginner's question.

[todd_b1]

Leigh many thanks!

 

This is Arista 400 Premium (same as Tri-X?) that I send out to be processed and scanned, so I am not controlling the developer (would

love to get to that point!). I checked and interestingly these are two different labs.

 

Todd

[mjferron]

<p>Make sure this is a film contrast problem as compared to a scanning contrast problem. Sure the lab could do this to another wise forgiving film but scanning techniques could give this same look.</p>

<p>What are you scanning with and are you trying various scans with different levels adjustments?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>PS the second shot has a pushed look to it. High contrast and exaggerated grain.</p>

[james_smith55]

<p>Who knows. So many variables. So little information. 400 ISO film in my experience is NOT contrasty. If you tried two different labs and still got similar results then maybe we can eliminate the developing... maybe. It would be a whole lot better if you were developing yourself.</p>

<p>Scanning. Don't know what to say about that. Tons of things to tweak. Have you tried to get prints? Maybe take some negatives that you don't mind getting a little scratched up to Sam's Club and see if they can make a couple of prints. They won't be the greatest but you will be able to tell whether the contrast issue is a negative thing or a scanner thing.</p>

<p>I just don't see how you get contrast like that out of 400 ISO negatives.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I'd say you probably won't get better results without doing the job yourself. You can always switch to a C41 process film, and potentially get better results.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I suspect some of the contrast is due to the scanner being set to "autolevel", and some of it is due to the lighting and the fact you have high contrast subjects. But let's look at each frame.</p>

<p>In the top frame you have people dressed in dark clothing. Depending upon how you were metering, this can cause a slight over exposure. You also have a high contrast image. The man's high forehead is slightly blown as it faces the light; a little buri9ng would correct that. The little girl's face, although shaded by her hair, has good detail as does the face of the woman at frame right. The face of the woman frame left is partially over exposed on the side facing the light source. Her eyes are deep set, giving more contrast. This is where fill flash would help. The sky is, of course, over exposed, but that is only to be expected. The over exposed sky in the upper left corner of the frame exagerates the over all contrast of the image.</p>

<p>I like the second image. The white blob (a hat?) just below the woman's face fools the eye into thinking the contrast is higher than it really is. Try cropping it out and take another look. She is facing the light which causes her nose to be slightly over exposed. A little "burning" during printing would fix that. But you have good detail on the cheek, ear, and hair. A little cropping and burning and you will have a very good print.</p>

<p>The final frame is taken under a very even light. It, too, is a high contrast image - black print on white paper and specular highlights on the plastic wrap on the food. The high contrast will also give some metering problems; meters think everything is neutral grey - and if it is not, the meter will try to make it grey. <grin></p>

<p>All in all, none of these are bad. All would be easy to print with only a little burning, and depending upon how much contrast was added by the scan, perhaps printing on 1 1/2 or 2 grade paper.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with making corrections in the darkroom - either the traditional darkroom or the digital darkroom. As Ansel Adams observed when comparing photography to music - "The negative is the score; the print is the performance." You have a good "score" in these negatives. With very little work, they should produce an excellent "performance".</p>

<p> </p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p>There are two major components to control with B&W. The first is exposure. The exposure sets how much shadow detail you capture. Not enough exposure leads to "empty shadows" which are black and textureless. Too much exposure leads to an overall increase in density and thus graininess.</p>

<p>The second is development time. More development time increases highlight density, and by extension contrast index. Less development time decreases highlight density and lowers contrast.</p>

<p>Thus the old saying: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Play with these and see what happens.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Are you able to tell the difference in an underexposed negative - and one that has been under developed?<br>

You are showing prints, not negatives.<br>

How is the shadow detail in the negatives? OK - or not really anything there?<br>

Hard to tell the problem without seeing the negatives - but, looking at the higher contrast images - and only doing B&W printing and no scanning, print with a softer filter. I'll leave it to others to chime in on scanning and whatnot as I don't do that at all.</p>

<p>The second higher contrast print seems to have adequate shadow detail and blown highlights - is the negative like that? Again - no scanner experience.</p>

<p>The third is simple. Print a bit more time with a higher contrast paper and you would be fine. Scanning info - once again - same old'same old.</p>

<p> </p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Overdevelopment is typical of commercial (as opposed to real professional) BW developement. Their dev time is unique, and tuned to whichever film needs the most. At least there is something on the film and the customer will not complain.<br>

+1 on the advice of James and Michael: either develop at home (real easy, just need to be methodical, good temp control, and practice spiral loading in daylight before the real thing) or use C41 BW film.<br>

One possibility to consider is scanner parameters: at which % of the histogram does it chop off whites and blacks. But your third pic, from a low-contrast scene, looks about OK in that respect: good gradation in highlights and shadows, even a little on the soft side. Which appears to confirm that it is a development problem.<br>

Don't give up, real BW is rewarding. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I would look into the question of the two different labs first. If you scanned the same way for the bottom and other images, and if your exposure meter ap or method of reading (distance from subject, measurement of overall tones and luminance) was consistent, then the first cause would seem to be the case. I don't trust a lot of non-pro labs that can treat all films the same way or simply not monitor their chemical use or the specific development time required for your type of film (Arista may not figure among the common films and development times of the lab that processed your first two images, which may have been over developed).</p>

<p>I agree with the advice to do your own developing - it is simple once (easily) mastrered and makes a world of difference.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>Many many thanks all for such great information. I now understand the question I was trying to ask: is the contrasty and grainy look being caused by something I am doing with exposure. And from the above I think the answer is no, this is not about my exposure. The scans are indicative (for this purpose) of the difference in the negatives, so it's not the scan. Here are two more examples from different rolls:</p>

<p>"contrasty"<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/7007329499_b544bb06b4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>"not contrasty" (yes, this is a manhole cover)<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7188/7006726979_3545604d78.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>This is the same film, different labs. Contrast, grain -- these are not things I can control with exposure, it is something else (that is what I am taking away).<br>

Advice about doing my own developing taken. I will 100% know who to blame! Will need to investigate how. More importantly it sounds like it will give me the control to produce a grainy, contrasty image if that is what I am going for. Right now I do my best to judge exposure and that is that.<br>

Thanks!</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>1. TriX has always been considered a "grainy" film. There are a few techniques that can hide the grain appearance if you do your own processing.<br>

2. Invest in a good handheld light meter and leave the iphone for talking and texting.<br>

3. a 1/3 stop difference in exposure can be seen in the final print.<br>

4. Set the iphone app/light meter to 320 which is 1/3 stop more than 400 exposure then bracket each scene 1/2 stop either side of metered setting ( 1/2 stop under meter reading, meter reading, 1/2 stop over meter reading). Many lens have half stop clicks and if yours does not then just set the aperture scale half way between two marked stops. Have the film processed and scanned normally then evaluate the results.<br>

5. A unedited scan histogram that has the deepest shadow detail close to 0 and the highlight detail close to 255 is a good exposure. A flat line is no detail.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Looks like scans set to autoexposure or autolevels as Brooks suggested. That would account for the variations between photos on the same roll. The machine is going too far in trying to set black and white points.</p>

<p>Try scanning the negatives yourself. If that's not feasible and home processing isn't practical, you might consider switching to a C-41 process monochrome film like Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak T400whatever. Both scan very well, even with barely competent minilab scans. Plenty of room to tweak them to the desired contrast.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>thank you thank you<br>

(sorry if i wasn't clear, images are from same type of film but processed at different labs).<br>

once i use up my BW film i'll switch to C41 BW to take the processing variable out of the question. i would process at home but i don't have the fundamentals (exposure etc) down enough that processing is an issue. that's the plan! (and hopefully find a decent light meter, i'll search the site for suggestions).<br>

Great information Charles. Do you mind if I follow-up with you to make sure I'm interpreting the histogram correctly?<br>

Thanks again to all.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you mind if I follow-up with you to make sure I'm interpreting the histogram correctly?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>once i use up my BW film i'll switch to C41 BW to take the processing variable out of the question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never liked the results I got with C41 B&W film but you might. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>hopefully find a decent light meter, i'll search the site for suggestions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm out of date on current meters but Gossen and Sekonic are good brands. I use a Gossen Ultra Spot.</p>

<p>Film box speed is determined in a lab with tight tolerances an quality controls. Light meters, shutters, and lens apertures have production variances and the tolerances are not as tight as the test lab. Add up all the production variances and the use and age variances on the equipment and the most common variance is 1/3 stop under exposure. Some equipment may be closer to 1/6 stop, while others may be more. Setting your meter to EI 320 is a rule of thumb compensation for equipment error. Bracketing in 1/2 stop increments should get you closer to the correct exposure for the processing you are using. As long as you use the same lab and they process consistently you can adjust your exposure to their processing.<br>

Processing at home only requires a little equipment, the ability to keep the temperature within 1°F for color/C41BW or 2°F for B&W, and you being consistent without distraction.</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>The attached is 4 levels histograms from some freshly processed Delta 100. Two are from a freshly serviced Graphex shutter and the other two are from the freshly serviced focal plane shutter on the same camera. All 4 shadow detail start at 10 to 12 and the highlights end at 230- to 235. A 5% increase in development time would have put the highlight end close to 240 -245. The film was exposed at box speed and processed at printed start times for the developer.</p>

<p>If your shadow detail starts higher up the scale increase exposure, if highlight detail ends too soon increase development. If either end of the histogram has not returned close to the base line at either end then it is being clipped. Most custom labs will cut development or increase it by 10% without extra charge. </p><div></div>

[todd_b1]

<p>Many thanks Charles (and all)! I think I actually understand the various factors at play now. And have a good idea what to look for. I looked at a lot of images today and I am consistent -- I consistently overexpose. I am going to do some experimentation (which will probably lead to more questions). I like the idea of processing the film myself, but then I need a way to scan. Another thing to buy!</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>"I looked at a lot of images today and I am consistent -- I consistently overexpose."<br>

You have enough experience and knowledge to tell overexposure from overdevelopment?<br>

I am NOT the person to look at for the digital part of this with scanning and histograms. I do have experience in the darkroom from shooting, teaching and running a custom printing lab over the years.<br>

In my experience, learning to tell under and overexposure from under and over development helps a lot in working with negatives. It is surprising how many photographers can't do it.</p>

[todd_b1]

Paulie,

 

Nope! As a matter of fact I have no idea how to tell overexposure from overdevelopment. :(.

 

Charles,

 

My shadow details are starting higher up the scale and my highlight detail is ending too soon. :(. But you've told me how I

can deal with this, perfect. And which reverses what I had just posted, that I consistently overexpose. Sorry if this is

ridiculously basic, this thread has been super helpful.

 

The first images I posted that started my question were the reverse, clipped shadow and clipped highlights and very little

detail in between. I haven't changed the way I meter and all film from another lab has been OK, so I feel on fairly good

ground that my original issue was with development. But a question. How would I expose/develop to get results like that?

High contrast with clipped highlight and shadow details?

 

Todd

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>A good image is a balance between exposure and development.<br>

If all that has changed is the developing then the first lab is over developing, possibly by 20%.<br>

Normal exposure-increased development= good shadow detail, blown out highlights.<br>

Normal exposure-decreased development= good shadows, gray highlights.<br>

Under exposure-normal development= low shadow detail, light gray highlights.<br>

Under exposure-over development= some loss of shadow detail compared to normal, increased overall contrast, normal highlights.<br>

Over exposure-normal development= no total blacks (blacks look dark gray), highlights print/scan without detail, midtones compressed.<br>

Over exposed- over developed= Weak shadow detail, upper mid grays near white.<br>

Over exposed-under developed= low overall contrast.</p>

<p>Knowing which is which is determined in part by keeping notes and evaluating the results.</p>

<p>A unedited scan where the amplitude of the shadows rises from the base line close to the edge of the scale (0) and the amplitude of the highlights drops to the base line by the edge of the scale (255) in the histogram of the scan is correct exposure/development.<br>

If the shadows begin at 50 or higher the scene either has no shadows or the image was under exposed.<br>

If the shadow amplitude is above the base line at the edge of the scale then the image is over exposed.<br>

If the amplitude of the highlights are above the base line at the scale edge and the shadows are good then it is over development.<br>

If the amplitude of the highlights and shadows are above the base line at the edges of the scale it is over exposure and possibly over development.<br>

Exposure changes of 1/2 stop or less are normal adjustment for the equipment in use. Development times within 20% of published start times are normal adjustment for exposure, more is pushing or pulling.<br>

When testing to find the best development time adjust in 5% increments.</p>

<p>Knowing whether you have over exposed or over developed depends on where you are from box speed and published start times for development.</p>

<p>A negative that wet prints well at paper black also scans well at default manual scan software settings.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Do you understand how to work with paper grades or multi-contrast paper to control the normal vagaries of exposure and development?<br>

If you consistently over expose negatives, rate the film a bit higher ISO and this will cut it for you. I shoot a lot of 5x7 & 8x10 and many looking at my negatives would say they are overexposed. I print Pt/Pd and they work fine for the intended use. With silver paper Amidol and a water bath control the contrast just fine.<br>

Check out the books mentioned and learn the basics. With a commercial lab doing your processing you will always be at their mercy. Most of all, remember that this stuff is not pinpoint accurate much of the time with camera shutters, lens variations, film emulsion batches, chemistry variations, even water quality and temperature variations. Adams called his method "The Zone System", not "The Pinpoint System".<br>

Control what you can - such as finessing your ISO settings(like learning when the fuel guage of a new to you vehicle is really empty and just reads empty) and learning to do your own darkroom work. If you are working digitally then monitor calibration and the rest is important.<br>

In the end, how do the fine prints look? Not the work prints along the way, the final print you will show. Great images have come from negatives many would have thrown away through the years. Obsess over teh final print and only change things when you are not getting what you want in the final prints.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>Thanks all for your replies. I developed my first roll of film today. It was ridiculously easy, results really great. HUGE savings compared to what I have been paying for development. I scanned the negatives using an inexpensive scanner from Staples (office store), the results are much better than the professional scans. It's really amazing. This has been very liberating and will change my whole approach, this is much more accessible now without the extra expense and time. Many thanks.<br>

-- Todd</p>