Newbie issues with Illford Delta 100

[wmervine]

<p>Hey guys. I recently shot my first spool of Illford Delta 100. Now after getting the scans back from the lab, I'm trying to figure out why there seems to be such a difference in the dark and light tones. Almost as if they are 2 different exposures. Is it indicative of the film, of a development or scanning issue? Some of the other exposures look right, but most look like this:<br>

As for technical details, I was shooting Apeture priority with a Nikon F/N 80 and either a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D or Tokina 20-35 f/3.5 - 4.5. Lighting conditions were bright sunlight mostly, with the odd bit of cloud.</p><div></div>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Wayne, Highlights look blocked up. Check the negs with a loupe to see if you do in fact have details there that don't show on the scanned version. Could be a scanning issue. With such a brightness difference between subjects and background could also be a metering issue. Come back & let us know how you resolved this. Many here could benefit from your findings. Best, LM.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Almost certainly a scanning issue. If I were printing this shot in the darkroom I would most likely go for the correct exposure time for the background and then burn in the dresses. You do the equivalent in photoshop with masks or even the dodge/burn tool. But on a straight scan from the lab they're not going to do that for you and either the highlights or the shadows will suffer, or they'll set the exposure in the middle like this and both will suffer. Personally, I think it's easier to work with B&W in the darkoom than on the computer. If you're going to get seroius about B&W you should consider doing your own darkroom work. Very few places do B&W well at an affordable price, and it's easy to do yourself.</p>

[robert hall]

<p>If you had the processing done at a lab, it might be that they over developed them.</p>

<p>Shadows don't do much with more development, they get the exposure they get and that's it, but highlights can really go though the roof in density if they are over developed.</p>

<p>It seems most labs over process a bit to make sure they get something on the film. I would completely agree with Craig... Do it yourself. It's cheap, easy, and gives you proper control over your film.</p>

<p>You might also consider, if you are new, to shoot some FP-4 or HP-5 as they are a little more forgiving on exposure and development.</p>

<p>You are off to a great start!</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Which metering mode were you using, matrix, center weighted, spot?<br>

Ask your lab what developer and time they use, it will be printed start times for the film/developer with no more than a 10% deviance either side.</p>

<p>Look at the histogram (photoshop: image-adjustment-levels) of the unedited scan.<br>

1. Does the amplitude of the shadows fall to the base line before the edge of the histogram (0)? Yes=exposure ok; No=over exposed.<br>

2. Does the highlight amplitude fall to the base line before the edge of the histogram (255)?<br>

Yes=development ok if 1 is yes; No=over developed if 1 is yes. If 1 is no 2 will most likely be also.<br>

Does moving the center slider toward the highlight end bring the skin tones and dresses into correct range? If the center slider has to be moved more than the central 2/3 of the histogram range the exposure balance was off in the initial exposure.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>If you want to stay with shooting b+w film and having it scanned, Kodak TCN-400 or Ilford XP2 would work better - it takes a good scanner to work with silver-based b+w film and it sounds as if your lab doesn't have one!</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Definitely check the development. But I'm going to say it's the exposure and contrast. You've got two women in white dresses standing against dark rocks. That's just a tough exposure situation for anything, including a digital camera. Likely the camera's meter saw all those dark rocks and averaged the exposure for them, which burned out the women in their white dresses and pale complexions. In the future, try Spot Metering just the womens' faces. Delta 100 tends to have a lot of contrast anyway. It usually scans great. The C-41 B&W films are OK, but the Kodak can't be printed in a regular darkroom.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>Thx for the feedback guys. As far as I remember I was using matrix metering, so exposure could be slightly out.<br>

However, I had a quick look at the film with the cheapie loupe I have, and I do see more detail in the dresses than the scan shows. Charles the answer to your questions is 1. mostly yes. The histogram is not completely on the base line by 0, but very close to it. 2. nope.<br>

Based on your feedback, it does seem that a smaller part of the problem is over exposure, but the meat of the issue is the scans. I'll have to find a better scanning solution, but off the shelf all that is available locally is the flat bed scanners, although I may be able to get hold of a Polaroid scanner and lab setup. At least the chemicals are readily available locally.<br>

As for the film choice, when I ordered I honestly couldn't figure out the difference between the Delta 100 and FP4, so went with the Delta. Kodak pro films are pretty much a non entity locally, so have to use Illford and Fuji for colour.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Check out <a href="http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html">Pulstek OpticFilm Scanners</a> . <br>

The lab may be over developing by 5% to 10% also.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Most labs tend to overdevelop and stretch out the histogram during scanning for soot blacks and blank highlights. You'll get better results doing your own scans. Even overdeveloped negatives can be scanned better than this.</p>

<p>Delta 100 is a good film, no need to change if you're otherwise satisfied with it.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, if you want b&w but prefer to let the lab handle the processing and scanning, they'll do a better job with scans of C-41 process monochrome films. If you use Ilford XP-2 Super it can easily be used in a conventional b&w darkroom for prints. Kodak's equivalents are trickier for conventional enlargements on b&w papers. And both Kodak and Ilford C-41 monochrome films scan very easily for home scanners.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>Thx Charles. The Plusteks look reasonable and not too pricey, so will have to look at the budget.<br>

The ironic thing is they manage to do reasonable scans of the Velvia 50, so didn't expect this. This was processed at the same time.</p><div></div>