Can't get good B&W development results - 16mm Double-X in CineStill D96

[cannotShootStraight]

I am struggling for a few days now to get the first decent results from my Kiev Vega 2.
I've loaded the camera multiple times with 16mm Kodak Double-X B&W-film.

I use the CineStill D96 powder developer which I set up with 1L of tap water, same with ADOFIX P II, approximately 2 weeks ago.

My process looks like this:
- Filling ~22°C water into my paterson tank and agitate a little bit
- Emptying the tank and filling 300ml of D96 (20°C)
- Develop for 4min with agitations every minute
- Pour the developer back and rinse with 22°C (I couldn't get it closer to 20°C) water multiple times
- Fixing for 11min (20°C, agitations every minute)
- Rinse with up to 30 agitations 4 times
- Put some dish soap into the paterson tank
- Hang to dry

I have attached an image of a piece of film I converted with Negative Lab Pro (no contrast added).
I've been noticing black spotted areas on multiple pictures. At first I thought they might be the result of accidental finger prints while I loaded the film.
But I've become more careful and the spotted areas persisted. Could this be deposits from tap water? The fluid arrangement on the film in particular makes me think of that as the spotted areas flow across multiple images. What's strange is that from a certain image onwards the spotted areas disappear.

I am also kinda disappointed with the contrast. The results are low contrast even though I developed some films at around 6 and up to 8 minutes and the results didn't get much better.
I attached one image without added contrast and then after I added a bunch of contrast, reduced brightness and reduced the shadows.
Is this just the way this film behaves? Am I using the wrong developer? I controlled the exposure using a light meter app on my phone.

 

[koraks]

Any chance of posting a photograph of a strip of these negatives backlit on e.g. a light table? It's difficult to judge what there actually is on the film by a scan.

My first impression is insufficient development. I'd be a bit hesitant myself to trust a light meter app on my phone. It really depends on the phone, the app and how it's used. However, exposure does seem to be in the ballpark, so the light meter wouldn't be my first suspect.

I don't know how well D96 keeps. I imagine it stores very well as long as no oxygen gets to it. How have you stored your developer since you mixed it?

Could this be deposits from tap water?

It doesn't look like typical water/drying marks. How do these spots look like on the actual negatives? Are they on the shiny side or the emulsion side of the film? Are they clearly part of the image (reduced density in those places)?

 

[foc]

Can you post something like this, please?

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Any chance of posting a photograph of a strip of these negatives backlit on e.g. a light table? It's difficult to judge what there actually is on the film by a scan.

Oh my god!
I finally found the reason. These black spotted areas are caused by dirt on my light table.
After I gave it a good wipe the image looks pretty clean (heavily altered contrast).

But anyways - is the low contrast "normal" for Kodak Double-X (or for D96)?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

You have this sheet?

CineStill D96 Dev Chart

D96 is a low-contrast motion picture film developer. Development to a recommended gamma of 0.65 to 0.70 takes 5-8 minutes for most films exposed at their native ISO. Contrast can be controlled by shortening development times, and increasing the development time will result in added contrast...

cinestillfilm.com

This seems to say d96 is a low-contrast developer, and loses contrast as it is more used.

I hate very short developer times. I try to arrange my dilution to give me at least ten minutes, or I worry that I'm not accurate enough.

Why do you pre-wash before the developer?

 

[cannotShootStraight]

This seems to say d96 is a low-contrast developer, and loses contrast as it is more used.

I was aware of that I just didn't know what low contrast actually means I guess

Why do you pre-wash before the developer?

I don't know. I just thought bringing the film to the same temperature as the developer and maybe remove dust particles.

 

[npl]

4 minute developement is probably too short, cinestill recommend 6min 20°c if shot at 200. See https://cinestillfilm.com/pages/cinestill-d96-dev-chart?_pos=3&_sid=1cc53c167&_ss=r

A photo of the negative as illustrated in post #3 will be necessary. Can you post the strip developed for 4min and the ones developed longer ?

 

[koraks]

I finally found the reason. These black spotted areas are caused by dirt on my light table.

I'm glad that was an easy fix!

If you get around to posting a photo like @foc suggests, you may get some more specific hints on the development.

 

[jimjm]

A few things I would add:
- As others mentioned, a photo of the negative itself is the best way for us to help assess any problems
- 4 mins is too short a development time for any developer. Any inaccuracy or error on your part will visibly affect the final result. Increase your dilution to get a longer development time.
- Many folks pre-soak the film, others do not. Reasons to do so are temperature and to soften the emulsion prior to pouring the developer. Do what you prefer, unless the manufacturer states otherwise. I generally pre-soak most films for 1 min.
- Your phone app meter is probably fine. I use a handheld meter or the in-camera meter, if available. You can also learn to shoot using the rule of sunny-16 for daylight situations. This will get you thinking about your exposures and how you should adjust for different situations.
- Don't use dish soap as a wetting agent! (Someone's going to claim it's OK anyway and they've done it for years. Just don't do it.) Plenty of other chemicals and perfumes in these that may harm your film. Just get a regular wetting agent from Kodak or Ilford (and others) and mix it with distilled water as your final rinse of the film. One small bottle will last you for years.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Scans of B&W negs are ALWAYS gray and flat and lifeless. That's good, it means the scan has captured the entire tonal range of the image on the film. You must aggressively edit them to make them look good. An example:

The scan

The edited image.

 

[titrisol]

I am struggling for a few days now to get the first decent results from my Kiev Vega 2.
I've loaded the camera multiple times with 16mm Kodak Double-X B&W-film.

I use the CineStill D96 powder developer which I set up with 1L of tap water, same with ADOFIX P II, approximately 2 weeks ago.

My process looks like this:
- Filling ~22°C water into my paterson tank and agitate a little bit
- Emptying the tank and filling 300ml of D96 (20°C)
- Develop for 4min with agitations every minute
- Pour the developer back and rinse with 22°C (I couldn't get it closer to 20°C) water multiple times
- Fixing for 11min (20°C, agitations every minute)
- Rinse with up to 30 agitations 4 times
- Put some dish soap into the paterson tank
- Hang to dry

I have attached an image of a piece of film I converted with Negative Lab Pro (no contrast added).
I've been noticing black spotted areas on multiple pictures. At first I thought they might be the result of accidental finger prints while I loaded the film.
But I've become more careful and the spotted areas persisted. Could this be deposits from tap water? The fluid arrangement on the film in particular makes me think of that as the spotted areas flow across multiple images. What's strange is that from a certain image onwards the spotted areas disappear.

I am also kinda disappointed with the contrast. The results are low contrast even though I developed some films at around 6 and up to 8 minutes and the results didn't get much better.
I attached one image without added contrast and then after I added a bunch of contrast, reduced brightness and reduced the shadows.
Is this just the way this film behaves? Am I using the wrong developer? I controlled the exposure using a light meter app on my phone.

Your results seem very low contrast, and without seeing the negative cnt say if it is under/over processed or exposed.
- Is your camera tested and adjusted at all speeds?
- 4 min after pre-rinse sounds ahort to me, but you say that 6-8 min changes little? Are the negatives darker?
- How are you digitizing the negatives?

Please dont use soap, try using either a better wetting agent like Adoflo (ADOX) or Ilfotol (Ilford) or 2-3 rinses in distilled water to avoid drying marks.

 

[albireo]

You must aggressively edit them to make them look good.

'Good' is personal. Some people, for example, intensely dislike high contrast black and white images with a lot of clipped highlights baked in.

In general, you should not have to aggressively edit your scans to look good, unless of course you want to. You could move any required edits back to exposure and development decisions and massively simplify your post-development workflow.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Your results seem very low contrast, and without seeing the negative cnt say if it is under/over processed or exposed.

From the image of the car in my first post I would say that this particular image is underexposed because the area around the wheel is just black without any detail.

4 min after pre-rinse sounds ahort to me, but you say that 6-8 min changes little? Are the negatives darker?

I will develop another film at 8min tomorrow. The problem is I never have the exact same images so it is difficult to say what made the negatives darker - exposure or development time?

How are you digitizing the negatives?

I put the negatives on a light table and take a picture with my digital camera from above. Then I invert the negative with Negative Lab Pro in Lightroom.

 

[titrisol]

I don't see a problem with the car picture The tyre has plenty of detail.
Could you show us the image of the negative before inverting?
DSLRS will place the exposure in the center and some level adjustments to show the full tonal scale is needed.
Also, development time should be consistent, stick to a certain time and adjust the ISO of your lightmeter to it.
I dont undertand the adjusting depending on the images you have (unless you are pulling/pushing)

PS I just realized this is 16mm film

 

[koraks]

I don't see a problem with the car picture The tyre has plenty of detail.

I think he means the wheel arch. I wouldn't consider that underexposed; a wheel arch generally holds little detail in a typical scene.

Also, development time should be consistent, stick to a certain time and adjust the ISO of your lightmeter to it.

Not sure if I quite agree with this. I'd recommend setting the meter to the ISO of the film, and adjust development to yield the contrast that's required in the negative. That's the other way around.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

'Good' is personal. I, for example, intensely dislike high contrast black and white images with a lot of clipped highlights baked in.

In general, you should not have to aggressively edit your scans to look good, unless of course you want to. You could move any required edits back to exposure and development decisions and massively simplify your post-development workflow.

You are 100% wrong. Film scanners are NOT, repeat NOT, designed to give you a final image straight from the scanner. Go to a museum, look at actual photographs by well-regarded artists. They look nothing like the flat, gray, lifeless garbage that so many inexperienced photographers think is normal.

 

[albireo]

You are 100% wrong. Film scanners are NOT, repeat NOT, designed to give you a final image straight from the scanner.

I'm afraid that to make me 100% wrong you'd have to repeat that at least 3 times! One more please!

Go to a museum, look at actual photographs by well-regarded artists. They look nothing like the flat, gray, lifeless garbage that so many inexperienced photographers think is normal.

There's nothing 'normal' or abnormal in photography. Enjoy your contrasty scans!

 

[rcphoto]

As previously stated, I would remove the soap from your final wash. Lots of good options that have already been listed that will help prevent water spots and residue stains you are seeing.

I agree that for most scans from film, some level of adjustment is needed. Just as you would make exposure and contrast adjustments when making a traditional enlargement.

A straight scan might be ok for something non-critical such as record keeping or reprinting old family negatives.

 

[albireo]

I agree that for most scans from film, some level of adjustment is needed. Just as you would make exposure and contrast adjustments when making a traditional enlargement.

A straight scan might be ok for something non-critical such as record keeping or reprinting old family negatives.

I think the key concept being discussed is that one must 'aggressively' edit their raw scans.

'Aggressive' adjustment a must? Not at all. Only if it suits your taste. There are ways to extract signal from a scanner via digitisation which will require (based on some people's taste) only minimal levels of adjustments.

Again, a matter of taste. Not up to anyone to define what's 'critical' or 'record keeping' or 'art'.

 

[jimjm]

You are 100% wrong. Film scanners are NOT, repeat NOT, designed to give you a final image straight from the scanner. Go to a museum, look at actual photographs by well-regarded artists. They look nothing like the flat, gray, lifeless garbage that so many inexperienced photographers think is normal.

I'd agree with Chris here. Both my Nikon film scanner and Canon flatbed scanner are set to give low contrast results, initially. I didn't intentionally configure them this way, but it lets me see as much detail as possible before making curves and level adjustments to suit my taste. Just like my first proof prints in the darkroom, I want to see as much detail in the image before deciding on contrast levels and any burning or dodging I want to do.
That being said, I rarely scan film these days and use the flatbed to scan my final B/W darkroom prints. I then adjust the scans to match the physical print as closely as possible.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I think the key concept being discussed is that one should 'aggressively' edit their raw scans.

'Aggressive' adjustment a must? Not at all. Only if it suits your taste. There are ways to extract signal from a scanner via digitisation which will require (based on some people's taste) only minimal levels of adjustments.

Again, a matter of taste. Not up to anyone to define what's 'critical' or 'record keeping' or 'art'.

I have been a fulltime professional artist for 30 years. Go to an art museum with a good photography collection and look at the work on display. Not just contemporary work, but older work, too. Compare the tonality of those photographs to the flat, lifeless, muddy scans that you're defending. The most important part of a photographer's education is looking at the work of those who have done great work.

 

[albireo]

I have been a fulltime professional artist for 30 years. Go to an art museum with a good photography collection and look at the work on display. Not just contemporary work, but older work, too. Compare the tonality of those photographs to the flat, lifeless, muddy scans that you're defending. The most important part of a photographer's education is looking at the work of those who have done great work.

You've had your former comment moderated, yet you persevere with your ad hominems.

You need to understand that having a certain view doesn't make you the bearer of the torch. Other people are entitled to their views, too. I don't like the overly contrasty photography you seem to privilege. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

As for my own experience (not that it should matter in this discussion what our experience has been) I have been lucky to spend my life in different 3 European capitals, I live in one right now, and have seen more fine art prints, and more exhibitions by world class photographers than you have seen in your entire life. I own, and enjoy daily, photography books by many truly incredible artists from all over the world.

What I've drawn from what I see, is that this is a personal journey. Photography is a means of expression, and people use different languages to express themselves.

Flat = 'lifeless' to some, 'just right' to others, 'the only way' to others

Contrasty = 'the only way' to some, 'just right' to others, 'vulgar and puerile' to others.

Just enjoy your photo journey and let others enjoy theirs.

 

[koraks]

People, debating is fine, but preferably keep it close to the questions asked by OP. To discuss the details of scanning approaches, a different place may be more suitable.

In particular, please do not make your arguments personal. Thank you.

 

[Steven Lee]

I think you guys are talking past each other. Applying different contrast curves while scanning is not too different from picking different contrast papers or filters for VC papers. Perhaps you just happen to have different preferences for the final look, and you're butting heads over the choice of words to describe the same thing.

 

[npl]

You're both right and wrong, It's the old problem with the many possibilities of an hybdrid workflow : some softwares will automatically try to gives you a "good" image to start with by setting the black point and color balance without telling you they did it. You then think that what you have is the "raw" scan, which is false, but yes in this situation you don't have to do much.
In others scan/software combos, you start with the flat image and have to do everything yourself.