Are these under developed and why

[MattKing]

The lighting in the 3rd example is significantly more contrasty than in the 1st example.

 

[markbarendt]

... All with no adjustment at all. ...

Finished negatives always require some adjustment to become nice positives. This includes setting print exposure and contrast adjustments. It is actually very rare to have a perfect positive pop automatically. That is true of both digital and analog methods.

To judge film and adjust development one must be using an objective print/output standard. In the zone system, for example, that's typically grade 2 paper.

You are using a scanner and that scanner uses a certain set of defaults, that's ok, but not necessarily as fixed as grade 2 paper.

Choosing default settings on your scanner (choosing no adjustment on your part) is simply relying on choices somebody else made. (Truly raw linear unadjusted scans are always ugly.)
You can test differing development regimes against your scanner and see what works best for you, just like others might test theirs against grade 2 paper. You do need to understand though that your best development may be considerably different than the people here that are using enlargers and it may be a bit of a moving target.

You should also, IMO, do simple things like adjust print exposure (analog or digital) first before judging film development. Most of my "contrast problems" have been "fixed" by print exposure changes alone.

 

[Rupie]

There is too much difference between the two, at the same default settings to just be a difference in lighting and exposure.

 

[markbarendt]

There is too much difference between the two, at the same default settings to just be a difference in lighting and exposure.

If a negative from a studio set doesn't print easily when matched with your normal printing method, analog or digital: it's a lighting and exposure problem.

In a studio setting, the lighting is King, Queen, parliament, bureaucracy, and Bobby.

A properly designed studio set will provide nice contrast, place each subject at the right exposure level on the film, work at exactly the camera setting you chose to design the set for, and will fit that exposure onto "normally developed" film curve that will print very nicely.

In essence almost all the required printing adjustments are done with the lighting.

Learning to set up a studio well is a significant task, it is normal to struggle with it. Surely minor printing adjustments are still often required, but they should be really small tweaks.

 

[Athiril]

Which R09 is this? Dilution? Agitation method and frequency? Temperature? It looks like a processing problem, in no way or shape does this look like an exposure or lighting problem.

You cannot fix that image on page one of that girl no matter what you do. I had a similar result like this once stand developing Fuji Acros in HC-110.

 

[markbarendt]

Which R09 is this? Dilution? Agitation method and frequency? Temperature? It looks like a processing problem, in no way or shape does this look like an exposure or lighting problem.

You cannot fix that image on page one of that girl no matter what you do. I had a similar result like this once stand developing Fuji Acros in HC-110.

Really?



There may well be processing issues going on too but IMO there is a high probability of exposure vs scanner settings too.

 

[markbarendt]

So Rupie,

How are you measuring exposure and how is your camera set up for these shots?

 

[Athiril]

Really?

View attachment 122582

There may well be processing issues going on too but IMO there is a high probability of exposure vs scanner settings too.

That looks terrible.

 

[markbarendt]

That looks terrible.

Yeah kinda like portra pushed to 6400.

Sure, there is absolutely something wrong with the shot, what that is isn't clear because we don't have all the info.