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

Steven Lee said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's my impression too. I'm all in for any amount of editing if it suits your fancy and helps you achieve your desired end goal. I was specifically arguing against the idea that:

chriscrawfordphoto said:

You must aggressively edit them to make them look good.

Click to expand...

I disagree that 'you must', and I disagree that the editing needs to be 'aggressive' for an image to look 'good'. It's entirely a matter of personal choice.

@cannotShootStraight Your results are absolutely fine. But you need to boost your scanning technique. Crop the black borders off. Then open the levels tool and "chop off" the unused portions of the histogram to adjust white & black points. Then drag the gamma slider in the middle to taste, and I'm sure you'll be quite pleased.

Steven Lee said:

Your results are absolutely fine.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure, yet. Maybe so, but it would help to see the negatives photographed on a light table (without inversion, contrast adjustment etc).

albireo said:

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

Click to expand...

I think the word 'aggressive' is in context of how much you have to move the low contrast scanned image that contains all the tones possible to become a 'normal' image. It isn't always just a tweak to the contrast but a major change, but that difference is where you can either choose high contrast or whatever your idea of normal contrast it. If you can't decide for yourself you can always press the 'Auto Contrast' button in Photoshop and that will sort out a ready made preference for you. Either way the principle of producing a very flat scan and then changing it to become a finished photograph in Photoshop or Lightroom is a much sounder idea than trying to produce a fully finished scan in the dumb and unsophisticated scanner software.

albireo said:

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'.

Click to expand...

We are all talking about tools, use them to your liking to get your results. I wasn't trying to state fact but maybe just a different perspective.

250swb said:

Either way the principle of producing a very flat scan and then changing it to become a finished photograph in Photoshop or Lightroom is a much sounder idea than trying to produce a fully finished scan in the dumb and unsophisticated scanner software.

Click to expand...

My point was that, between the

'trying to produce a fully finished scan in the [...] scanner software'

and the

'must aggressively adjust the raw scan to achieve a finished product'

lies an ocean of creative possibilities. Everyone can sit somewhere on this gradient. It's fine to decide to place your 'finished' product somewhere between the two extremes.

cannotShootStraight said:

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.

Click to expand...

PE, a retired Kodak research engineer who provided expertise here for years, strongly advised against using soap as a surfactant on film and to only use products such as PhotoFlo to avoid a long list of potential problems. So some searches on Photrio to see what PE posted on this matter.

What counts here is what advice we give the OP as to what he does to improve initially his negatives, assuming these are the problem or assuming the negatives are OK then how to alter his scans to avoid the low contrast

We appear to have strayed from that objective and frankly if it were me I'd be wondering if I have done the right thing in even asking the question here

For what it is worth it seems as if the altered scan indicates that the negative of the car has detail OK but the best "print" so far still looks about grade 00 and needs a lot of adjustment

pentaxuser

Moderator hat on:
1) I've tweaked the thread title, because the film size (16mm), film type (Double-X movie film) and Developer (Cinestill D96 movie film developer) are relevant to the issue;
2) you need to keep it civil - the OP is asking about a relatively different problem - movie film in a movie film developer, digitized with a camera, rather than scanned in a movie film scanner. He/she is relatively new to Photrio, and doesn't necessarily have knowledge about the contrast or scanning "discussions" here that we are all too familiar with; and
3) we really need to see a digital photo of backlit negatives before we can opine on the negatives themselves.
Moderator hat off.
The problem could be due to issues with initial exposure. The problem could be with development issues. The problem could be due to issues with the light source (e.g. too much flare) or the lens and camera while digitizing . The problem could be due to the approach to post processing the image coming from the digital camera.
To help with any of these, we need to see those backlit negatives.

Cannot Shoot Straight, I would suggest your development is probably reasonably close, but according to the Kodak sheet; which I'm sure you have studied as you've done the fixing and washing to the Kodak sheet times, Kodak gives a processing time of 7'00" at 21ºC, which suggests to me that your processing time may be a little short. Even taking into consideration the slight temperature difference that you have.

I would suggest somewhere around 7'00'' processing time may give you a negative with slightly more detail.

Then there is contrast, or it appears to be lack of contrast. Firstly it appears to be a dull possibly cloudy day, which will usually require a more contrasty negative than what you appear to have.

To obtain more contrast, you generally require more agitation. Motion picture film is usually processed in various machines of different shapes and configurations, but they mostly have one constant, these machines usually supply constant agitation. This constant agitation is usually supplied via pumps pumping the developer solution non-stop, or using compressed nitrogen bursts if the film is being dipped into deep processing tanks. All deep processing tanks using compressed nitrogen that I have worked with, have the nitrogen bursts every 10 seconds. Effectively, constant agitation.

To that end when I process my films by hand I work out an agitation regime that just gives me constant agitation; it works like this. Immediately after pouring in the developer, my Jobo 35mm processing tank is rotated 180º once every 5 seconds for the first 40 seconds, I then tap the tank to remove any air bubbles possibly stuck to the film.

Approximately 20 seconds after the last inversion, developer solution movement in the tank is at a standstill. At 60 seconds I do three inversions in 10 seconds, then place the tank down, 20 seconds later (at 90 seconds) I do another three inversions in 10 seconds, and so on, until the end of development.

The result for me, is that regardless of whether or not I have fully developed the negatives, I will have good contrast, which means I usually can obtain very nice prints or negative scans.

With regard to the wetting agent at the end of the final wash, please don't do this in the Patterson tank, presumably with the film still on the reel. I heartily suggest you obtain any film wetting agent from any supplier. It is inexpensive and will literally last you for decades.

For the wetting agent bath, I fill a 1 litre plastic kitchen cooking jug with 500ml of wetting agent. After the final wash sequence, I take the reel out of the tank, then holding the film above the 500ml of wetting agent, I pull the film reel apart and drop the coiled film directly into the wetting agent. I then hold the jug by the handle and move it in small circles to agitate the film and wetting agent very mildly for approximately 30 seconds. I then reach in and pull the film out by one end, attach hooks and weights then hang it up to dry.

Wetting agent will attach itself to your tank and reels, even with reasonably thorough washing it still sticks. This is problematic as over time when developing film it mixes with the developer and in extreme cases you pour the developer out and notice what looks like soap bubbles. I have actually seen this occur, unfortunately for one fellow photographer with a developing problem.

I hope some of this helps.

16mm Plus-X is also not a current film. Your film may suffer age fog and some loss of speed, both of which would reduce contrast through normal exposure and development.

Ok wow I am not sure about my sanity anymore
I think I rolled up the film the wrong way around all this time.
Please see attached a quick sketch of my Kiev Vega 2 opened up. That's how the film is supposed to sit inside the camera - right?
If so - I indeed messed up the previous times. But I am surprised the images turned out "okay" at all.

I attached the most recent film I developed (with the film being inserted the right way - I hope):
Presoaking (21.5°C)
D96 (20°C, 7min30s)
Stop with Water (21.5°C)
Fixing (20°C, 7min)
Rinsing
Dish Soap (ok it is the last time I use it)
Drying

Then I scanned it with my Digital Camera again (I also attached the original negative image and the converted one using NLP).

I don't like the grain at all. It is too much. Could the grain be reduced with a different developer?
Also the camera seems to have some problems with film forwarding (small area is exposed twice).

Don_ih said:

16mm Plus-X is also not a current film. Your film may suffer age fog and some loss of speed, both of which would reduce contrast through normal exposure and development.

Click to expand...

The film roll of Double-X is new. It is still manufactured by Kodak.

Mick Fagan said:

For the wetting agent bath, I fill a 1 litre plastic kitchen cooking jug with 500ml of wetting agent. After the final wash sequence, I take the reel out of the tank, then holding the film above the 500ml of wetting agent,

Click to expand...

Do you use distilled water or tap water?

I thnk your picture shows the wrong way. The shiny side of film is the plastic backing material. You should present the other side, the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

As for grain, I think you are doomed to getting some grain when you use 16mm film. But there are fine-grain developers. The chart at digitaltruth has entries for your film with lots of developers.

cannotShootStraight said:

I also attached the original negative image

Click to expand...

Thank you, this is most useful indeed. The negative strip you showed exhibits significant overexposure. The development looks OK and is likely sufficient. Due to massive overexposure, much of the image ends up on the shoulder of the film curve, and this compresses contrast as well as emphasize grain. Keep in mind that a 200-speed film with small 16mm frames will be fairly grainy to begin with.

The cause for overexposure may be found in the camera (e.g. slow shutter speeds, aperture doesn't close properly), but I'd eliminate problems with the smartphone light meter first (see my first caution in this thread).

cannotShootStraight said:

That's how the film is supposed to sit inside the camera - right?

Click to expand...

The rough side (emulsion side) goes towards the lens. If it faces away from the lens the way you're loading it, it'll be the wrong way round. Part of the contrast problem may be due to flare and halation due to exposing the film through its base layer.

Dustin McAmera said:

the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

Click to expand...

What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?
I am surprised that it doesn't seem to make a difference except that the image is flipped horizontally (which I now noticed with the latest film).

Dustin McAmera said:

But there are fine-grain developers. The chart at digitaltruth has entries for your film with lots of developers.

Click to expand...

Do you have a recommendation for a fine-grain developer? Maybe suitable for beginners (I don't know what that's supposed to mean).

Dustin McAmera said:

You should present the other side, the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? I've been doing it wrong all my life.

koraks said:

Part of the contrast problem may be due to flare and halation due to exposing the film through its base layer.

Click to expand...

My first post was with the rough side towards the lens, the most recent post with the shiny side.

cannotShootStraight said:

What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?
I am surprised that it doesn't seem to make a difference except that the image is flipped horizontally (which I now noticed with the latest film).

Click to expand...

Usually the shiny side is the back, and the emulsion is the matte, rougher side;

cannotShootStraight said:

Do you have a recommendation for a fine-grain developer? Maybe suitable for beginners (I don't know what that's supposed to mean).

Click to expand...

I can suggest Adox Atomal 49. A little known but very interesting developer.

Since you are in Germany and you want pre-made developers you can probably get
- Adox FX39 or Atomal which are fine grain developers
- Ilford Perceptol, MIcrophen or even Ilfosol (Simplicity) can also give you good results
Ilford Simplicity comes in small pouches which allow you to buy small quantities; but it is a one-shot developer.
- Kodak Xtol

I have no experience with other brands

cannotShootStraight said:

What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?

Click to expand...

Nope.

To illustrate:

Shiny side. This is the backside of the film facing away from the lens.


Emulsion side, which is less shiny/more matte. This is the side that faces towards the lens.

This is Fomapan 100, but it's the same for all film.

cannotShootStraight said:

My first post was with the rough side towards the lens, the most recent post with the shiny side.

Click to expand...

OK. In that case, the lack of contrast is mostly/only due to overexposure.

The Kiev Vega was a copy of the first version of the Minolta 16. The Minolta in question had a rather primitive lens with a fixed focal plane. It was set to have a focus somewhere out to 10 meters. For infinity focus, a special filter (#0) had to be placed.
I don't know how the second version of Vega was implemented, but I'm guessing it's on the same model. Don't expect great optical quality, and combined with the fixed focus and small frame size, achieving good results is a bit difficult.

lamerko said:

Don't expect great optical quality, and combined with the fixed focus and small frame size, achieving good results is a bit difficult.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have a fixed focus lens. This is basically the same camera (as far as I know):

koraks said:

To illustrate:

Click to expand...

Thank you!

I can't resist, and I apologize up front.

Would you like us to change your screen name from "cannotShootStraight" to "ShootFrontToBack"??

Now I'll just go and Report myself.

Anyways, glad we can help.

From what I can see in the negative, they are too dense, likely due to overexposure, although I am not sure how would loading it backwards would affect the density of the final image, I am only familiar with such a thing in colour negative film for redscale.

When you edit the frames, you must adjust a black point and white point to each, otherwise your image will be very flat since the tones are compressed and mushy. Try playing with the levels and the curve of the images and see if you can get a result that matches what you intended. If I had to find a culprit here it would be the Kiev. Especially seeing as it overlaps frames, I wouldnt be surprised if the times are incorrect too.

koraks said:

Emulsion side, which is less shiny/more matte. This is the side that faces towards the lens.

Click to expand...

Wait. But why are the numbers on the film then on the glossy side?

I have taken a series of test shots on my 2nd 16mm camera - the Mamiya 16 automatic.
The film was facing the lens with the rough side. After developing I took a foto of the film on my light table, the rough surface was facing at my digital camera.

As you can see by the numbers - the image is flipped horizontally.
What is wrong here? I don't get it.

You take the image at the rough side, but you scan it through the shiny side to get the correct orientation. The lens projects an image that is flipped horizontally and vertically, which is why you need to view the negative "through the backside upside down" in order to see it the way it actually was. Anyway, you can also scan emulsion side up, but you just have to flip the image to get it correct, thats all.

cannotShootStraight said:

Wait. But why are the numbers on the film then on the glossy side?

Click to expand...

They aren't. They're part of the silver image, which is in the gelatin emulsion on the matte side.
The edge print is intended to read correctly if the image reads correctly as well. So if you have any images with text or numbers in them, the edge print should read in the same direction. If the edge print reads correctly but text in the image itself is mirrored, somethings amiss.