Crummy Contrast

[Worker 11811]

I just finished developing a bunch of rolls I shot last week. I messed up and I'm just no happy with the results. I'm looking for a little bit of post mortem.

Here's a link to my MobilMe gallery:
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey
(See also attached files.)

All of these shots, although they are exposed correctly on average, have too much contrast for my taste. Whites look too blown out, the darks are all blocked and there isn't enough range between.

There are two versions of each photo. One is as-scanned. The other is after Photoshopping it. I was able to Photoshop most of them into "acceptable" quality but I'm still not 100% satisfied with them. I shouldn't have to fuss around with them so much just to get usable quality. I should only have to tweak them a little.

Film: T-Max 400 (35mm.)
Shot: -16 or -22 @ 1/250 to 1/1000
Developed: T-Max Developer 1:4 - 7 min @ 68 F.
Scanned on flatbed with VueScan @ mostly default settings except CI set at 0.40

Weather was overcast but bright. All shots taken between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM.

For the fishing shots, the lens was set hyperfocal from 3 ft. to infinity. Aperture was set at -22 and the shutter was put on automatic.
(The temperature was near 0 F. It was too hard to manipulate camera controls with gloves on. Setting the camera on "dummy mode" helped me get the shots without freezing my hands.)

Okay, so I probably should have used 100 speed film instead of 400.
Maybe I'll switch developers to D-76 instead of T-Max. I was going to buy D-76 but I changed my mind at the last second because the guy at the shop suggested it.

My main question is whether a UV/skylight filter or a circular polarizing filter would have improved these shots or, at least, pulled them back from the brink a little bit?

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day worker

what are we looking at? edited neg scans or print scans?
looking at an unedited neg scan may tell more

 

[mrred]

You should be able to correct most of your problems in the scan. Vuescan is quite flexable. You will need to calibrate to your roll. Try the following steps.

1) in "image" menu, select grapph bw (ctl+2). The histogram should appear to the left.
2) make sure "lock image color","lock film base color", and "lock exposure" are *not* selected in the bottom of the input tab, in that order. Vuescan hides options, as they become irrelevant, so you may not see all of them.
3) preview scan
4) select a part of unexposed film in the selection window. Use the space between frames or the tip or tail of your film that has not been exposed (preferred). You may need to go into the crop tab to manually size and place the selection, depending on the scanner. It's important that you only select an unexposed section.
5) select "lock exposure" in the imput tab, preview again
6) select "lock film base color", preview again
7) select "lock image color", preview again

Your preview window should look like crap, as it is now showing a blank part of the film.

8) select the area that contains a real image. Move the sliders in your histogram to match the points in your histogram, r+g+b all having their own points.
9)scan away


This can be done for colour or B+w and will bring out the most details systematically. You can the adjust in PS (or what ever) knowing that the most image info is in the scan.

 

[Worker 11811]

Thanks! I think I got a better scan this time!

(See attached.)

All these shots are T-Max 400. They are developed at home then scanned on my flatbed. They are direct scans. I don't have an enlarger at home... Yet... The first version is as-scanned. The second is after tweaking in Photoshop.

Thanks, mrred, for the advice. I'm going to have to remember that.
I assume it is good to lock in the film base color whenever you begin a series of scans with any new piece of film. Yes?

I was told by somebody else that I should have used a filter on the lens to cut down on glare and UV. Either a skylight or a polarizer. Do you think that would have helped?

I also think it would have been wise to use ISO 100 instead of 400.
I didn't plan on shooting outdoors. This was just the film I had on hand at the time.

These photos are mostly practice for me so that I can get back in the swing of things. Though I don't think of them as "wasted" pictures but I am not really upset if they don't come out perfect.

As Thomas Edison said, "I haven't failed. I have simply succeeded in discovering another way that doesn't work."

Thanks again for your advice!
It helps a lot!

 

[Ray Heath]

G'day Worker,
I think you need to consider several issues and understand some basic film photography techniques before you confuse the issue with digital considerations. By considering how scans look you are adding too many variables.

the negatives
Look at the actual negatives. Do they look high contrast? Is there a range of densities from clear film to dark and it's only just possible to read news print through? Is exposure and development even across the whole image area?

ISO selection
Choice of film speed will not remedy contrast issues if film development is not altered from the norm. Film speed is more about how much light you have to work with. e.g. matching low light with a high ISO number gives you the opportunity to use a faster shutter speed than will be possible with a lower ISO number.

ISO as creative choice
To only consider light levels when choosing ISO negates the creative possibilities that film speed selection can give a thinking photographer: fine versus grainy; rich saturated colour versus muted; pin sharp versus soft and romantic; slow shutter speed when high should be the "norm"; restricted depth of field when large would be expected; etc.

altering contrast
The usual approach to changing the inherent contrast of a film is to shoot in softer light or alter exposure and development. Over-expose and under development reduces contrast and vice versa.

filters
Choice of filters will not help contrast issues in the way you are thinking.

A UV/Skylight will have virtually no effect on modern film. They are designed to reduce UV and hazy light that fogged older types of film. They are good for lens protection given that lens elements are coated with "stuff" that scratches easily.

A polariser will alter contrast in that it will reduce glare and flare and intensify colours. It will actually, in your consideration, increase contrast.
Contrast correction filters such as strong yellow, red and green alter contrast when used with black and white film by creating a visual speration between colours that would normally record as similar shades of grey. Such filters do not actually control overall film contrast, just how different colours are re-produced.

attached image
400 film rated at 200 (i.e. over exposed by 1 stop) development time reduced by 30% to reduce overall film contrast, white board to left of subject to lighten shadows and reduce lighting contrast.

 

[Worker 11811]

Ray,

I think you're right on the mark with your comments.
To be honest, I think shooting digital photos has spoiled my film skills to a certain degree. This whole exercise is for me to get back on the horse, so to speak.

I didn't think using a filter would cure the problem. I was told that by somebody else. I thought it would have a small effect but I didn't think it would be a cure. I see where it would reduce glare, etc. but I didn't think it would do much more than that.

I think the negatives were exposed and developed correctly. I did it all by the book. (T-Max 1:4 - 7 min. @ 20 C.)
They look all right when I lay them on top of a piece of white paper and view them under good light.

I believe one problem was the shooting conditions. Many of those shots, especially the fishermen, were taken outdoors in the winter time, standing on a frozen lake with strong sunlight. It was a bright, glaring scene and I just didn't stop to think how the image would come out on black and white film.

Again, I think I have some "digital spoilage" issues. I'm going to have to re-learn how to see the world in levels of contrast instead of looking at color cues.

Using over/under exposure in combination with development times is right about where I left off in my old photography classes. I have done such things but it was so long ago that I will have to practice at it some more.

I really appreciate your advice! It helps a lot!
I still have some work to do in order to get myself back to where I feel comfortable shooting film again but I feel like I am already making good progress in just this short time.

 

[pellicle]

Worker, as long as you've captured what you need on the neg, then anything wrong with contrast is a lack of "post processing" correctly (either in digital or in printing choices).

Try differing application of curves and use of "local area contrast" enhancement (essentially unsharp mask at w big radius like 60 pixels). I apply this to the scan before using curves much. I feel it replicates what you may otherwise get in contrast buildup created in the printing of negative (recall that light passes through the inks twice, once to reach the white paper, another time to come back.)

I think the negatives were exposed and developed correctly. I did it all by the book. (T-Max 1:4 - 7 min. @ 20 C.)
They look all right when I lay them on top of a piece of white paper and view them under good light.

which is not what I consider a useful way to evaluate negatives.

With respect to your exposure evaluation, I suggest you read this page of mine.

In particular, you need to understand what is being captured on your negative, once upon a time this was called densitometery and you can find it referred to in texts such as "beyond the zone system" ... my article is much simpler.

Essentially you need to know where your film base is:

and where you darkest point is:

remember on a negative black things are equal to base, and something like the sun is essentially the darkest on the negative. Neg has an amazing range. This is C-41 neg...

From there, when you look at the histogram of a scan you can sort out where your exposure was:

use your scanner (the above was done on an Epson 3200 flatbed) in positive mode as negative does many things to your data 'to help you' ... however the machine is a simple robot with simple programming ... I always say, never send a machine to do a humans job ... and evaluating negatives is something which requires both understanding and sensitivity.

I also recommend you do not set your black and white points too agressively, heck, when you know your film, set them according to your base and density levels, as there is often stuff in the subtleties lost.

You'll see more and learn more

 

[pellicle]

attached image
400 film rated at 200 (i.e. over exposed by 1 stop) development time reduced by 30% to reduce overall film contrast, white board to left of subject to lighten shadows and reduce lighting contrast.

and very nice too!

glad to see you back here Ray

 

[Worker 11811]

Pellicle,

Thanks! I'm reading over the pages you link to.
(Sometimes I have to read things two or three times to really get them into my head.)

I tried the localized contrast trick. I got some good results with it. I'll have to tinker with it some more but I like the results so far.

In your other page I understand the basic idea you are talking about. Again, I will reread to get the finer points but the thing that really caught my attention was right up there at the top:

...[T]he correct exposure is what ever captures the range of scene brightness that you are interested in...

That really created a "head-slap moment" for me!

For the last couple of days, I left the camera at home. As I went about my business I made a point to stop and look at things around me. I went back to visit some of the locations where I shot photos and I looked at the scenes again. Some of the locations where I could not revisit, I thought about in my mind's eye. (Such as the ice fishing.)

I am really impressed (and a little disappointed) with the fact that I'm not thinking about the range of brightness or contrast in front of me. Instead, I am thinking about what I WANT it to look like and just hoping it will come out like I see it in my mind.

The last picture I posted of the spotlights came out decent (considering that these are still practice pictures for me) but those ice fishing shots really disappointed me. With the picture of the lighthouse, even though I was able to adjust it to an acceptable state, it was still not satisfying to me, given my range of expectations.

I don't think I have a problem with subject selection, composition, cropping and things like that. At least not for the level I am at. I feel confident in my ability to make a good exposure, develop the film correctly and make a viewable print. I also feel confident with my computer skills. I have never had problems with any of these things in the past.

I went out on the bay where the ice fishermen were and took pictures (with their permission) more like I would shoot a football game instead of looking around me to see the bright sun glaring off the ice and the fact that the fishermen were wearing dark clothing. Maybe I could have changed my exposure or approached the subject from a different angle with respect to the light. (Sort of like you would do if you were shooting on a sunny beach.)

In some of the other shots I took, as I reexamined the scene, I realized that the camera captured, mostly, what was in the scene. I just need to look at the scene a little more critically.

I think I've got overdeveloped expectations and an underdeveloped sense of vision with respect to the contrast/tonal range that I want to capture. So, as your statement points out, I need to decide what range of brightness I am interested in before I go snapping the picture.

Your comments are really appreciated. Sometimes I need a proverbial slap upside the head before things sink into my skull.

 

[pellicle]

Worker

a rule of thumb with negative is to expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. While you are pondering what I wrote, perhaps this page may add a missing segment:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/02/colour-version.html

compare the negative scan and the digital. When I use neg in a bright situation, I often go over what the camera suggests (as you can see in the digital)

In this post I compare a neg with a +2 0 -2EV HDR

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/02/sun-over-shoulder.html

and still the negative holds hilights

PS: I just had a thought ... are you aware of subject failure? This is created when your subject fails to meet the criteria which a meter is designed to cope with. Essentially your meter is expecting that everything is going to average out to a mid tone, that of course may be wrong. I bet you were squinting when you were out on the ice ... would you squint if looking at a grey card?

probably not. This means that your meter will try to make the snow (which is the overwhelming content in the icehole shot) grey ... which is what has happened.

so, dial up the exposure by at least a stop.

If you're using 35mm film, why not just shoot a bracket of say 3 images, starting at what the camera says, and going up to +1 and +2 ... won't cost much. This is why I use the digital to evaluate things. If the digitals shadows look ok then the scene will fit in the range.

 

[Worker 11811]

If I had been thinking I would have done more of those things.

I have never heard the term "subject failure" but I know what you are talking about. It happens, for instance, when you are shooting a subject back lit against a window. Right?

I probably was squinting but I was outdoors all day. It was cloudy but bright. My eyes had probably acclimated to the light but film doesn't acclimate. It was cold so I set the camera to make it easy to shoot with gloves on. In retrospect, I'm not so surprised those shots came out the way they did.

As I mentioned, if I was at the beach I might have shot differently. I would have watched my angles into the sun. I would have added 1 or 2 steps of exposure. I have often bracketed in situations like that. (My camera even has a bracketing dial.) I probably would have used different film, too.

If I thought about it logically, the way a camera sees things, I might have realized that a sunny beach in the summer and a frozen lake in the winter are virtually identical in terms of lighting conditions.

I like your advice. I should have brought my digital camera along. It would make a good preview viewer. It's just ironic to think that, for all these years, digital cameras have spoiled my eye for photos yet, in this case, one would have helped.

Most of those pictures weren't "bad," per se. They were correct, technically speaking. I produced "acceptable" photos. They just weren't what I was hoping for because I didn't take external factors into account.

What you said about taking extra shots reminds me of something my father told me, long ago. He was a very good photographer. He told me not to be stingy with film otherwise you could miss that one-in-a-million shot that might put you on the cover of National Geographic.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

glad I can say anything to help. With respect to cameras, one of the reasons why I love my EOS film camera is that it operates nicely with gloves. The operations are largely done through the pressing of large buttons and moving the command dial:

press 5, wind the command dial one or two clicks, release and start working.

either that or dial it in manaual and leave it there (light seldom changes that fast in snow conditions).

I know that after the more mainstream ordinary folks cameras added dials people thought this model was too ... clunky, but its funny that the 1 series retained this layout (adding only a third button) all the way till now. So I always thought it was funny that people with their Elan's and such were saying how "dated" the 630 was.

I now intuitively dial in 1 or 2 EV as soon as I look at a scene

 

[pellicle]

Hi

It's just ironic to think that, for all these years, digital cameras have spoiled my eye for photos yet, in this case, one would have helped.

that's interesting, as I've found the opposite. I've learned what I like more by having a digital. While I don't always like the images I get, or every aspect it has taught me heaps and helped open my eyes up more to other angles. For instance I like this image:

Its an angle I would not have done with my 35mm or LF camera because (not having a swivel screen) I'd have needed to lay on the ground to take it), but at the same time dislike the total focus of it. So having taken it I've learned and benefitted.

Now if I had been using my 35mm camera with my Tilt lens, I'd have taken something more like this (quick n dirty in photoshop)

take more, learn more

 

[mrred]

Thanks, mrred, for the advice. I'm going to have to remember that.
I assume it is good to lock in the film base color whenever you begin a series of scans with any new piece of film. Yes?

Yes, every roll. What I suggested was not something I had concocted, but something from a work flow suggestion in the vuescan docs. Somewhat hidden in the FAQs. It's a way of systematically calibrating for the maximum dynamic range for your scanning.

 

[pellicle]

Oh, btw Worker ... I was just mulling over my post, and incase you were wondering where those histograms were comming from it was in the preview section of the Epson scan software not the post scan.

Eg

that's important to note, because once its a file then you've lost all the real data about the negative. (unless you totally KNOW you're doing linear scans as positive with absolutely no level adjustment by the software).

As you can see above the range of the blue there is quite resticted, after its in photoshop or as a file you'll have totally no way of knowing what the density values were from the film. The above is c-41 negative, and will essentailly result in those values (0 to 113) being mapped to 0 to 255 in the file. This is part of the reason why you'll want to scan as 16 bit to minimise any posterisation which occurs as a result of there being insufficient values in the 8 bit steps.

 

[Worker 11811]

I say shooting digital has spoiled my eye because I can just "Click!... Click!... Click!" away without looking at the scene and analyzing it before taking the picture. If I get crummy shots I can just delete them. With film, you're stuck with what you get. Sure, you can throw away the negs and re-shoot but that's inefficient, not to mention expensive.

I agree that digital cameras allow us to get shots that we might not get otherwise. I shot the attached picture of the lilies with my digital this past summer. I had to lay down on a wooden bridge over the pond and extend my arm out over the water to get the shot. It came out nice but I probably shot a dozen frames to get that one. A 12:1 shooting ratio for film photography isn't feasible for me.

So, yes. There is a place for digital photography. It does let us shoot pictures we might not have gotten otherwise but convenience and ease of use are not good substitutes for having a good "eye" for photographs.

This is why I say digital photography spoiled me. I have learned to substitute convenience for the work of actually making a good photograph. Using digital without thinking has spoiled my "eye" for photography.
(Or, more accurately, I allowed my eye to be spoiled by digital photography.)

Also, I am trying to use 16-bit mode and/or camera raw mode whenever I can, whether that be digital photos or scanning film or photos. I have a computer and the software to handle 16-bit images. There's no reason not to use it.

mrred;

I recently used that scanner trick to rescue a very old picture I took many years ago which I was unable to print or scan, otherwise. Thanks again for that tip! I was able to turn an unusable photo into something nice. Thanks!

 

[SilverGlow]

I just finished developing a bunch of rolls I shot last week. I messed up and I'm just no happy with the results. I'm looking for a little bit of post mortem.

Here's a link to my MobilMe gallery:
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey
(See also attached files.)

All of these shots, although they are exposed correctly on average, have too much contrast for my taste. Whites look too blown out, the darks are all blocked and there isn't enough range between.

There are two versions of each photo. One is as-scanned. The other is after Photoshopping it. I was able to Photoshop most of them into "acceptable" quality but I'm still not 100% satisfied with them. I shouldn't have to fuss around with them so much just to get usable quality. I should only have to tweak them a little.

Film: T-Max 400 (35mm.)
Shot: ƒ-16 or ƒ-22 @ 1/250 to 1/1000
Developed: T-Max Developer 1:4 - 7 min @ 68 F.
Scanned on flatbed with VueScan @ mostly default settings except CI set at 0.40

Weather was overcast but bright. All shots taken between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM.

For the fishing shots, the lens was set hyperfocal from 3 ft. to infinity. Aperture was set at ƒ-22 and the shutter was put on automatic.
(The temperature was near 0 F. It was too hard to manipulate camera controls with gloves on. Setting the camera on "dummy mode" helped me get the shots without freezing my hands.)

Okay, so I probably should have used 100 speed film instead of 400.
Maybe I'll switch developers to D-76 instead of T-Max. I was going to buy D-76 but I changed my mind at the last second because the guy at the shop suggested it.

My main question is whether a UV/skylight filter or a circular polarizing filter would have improved these shots or, at least, pulled them back from the brink a little bit?

Worker, all the white snow/ice in those composition fooled your meter and cause the exposure to be too quick. I think the problem started at the time the shutter was released and not during development or scanning.

For such shots (overwhelming amount of bright highlights), add exposure compensation to the camera of 1 to 2 stops posative...that would've solved the problem. This would be true when shooting film or digital.

And no, no a polarizer, UV, or sky filter would not have saved you....they only would've dropped the highlights by 2+ stops but the shadows drop too...bad...next time add EC and you're good to go....and because you have humans in the foreground fill flash might paint them in better...

 

[Worker 11811]

Thank you very much for your help!

This is one of those things that I should have known. I appreciate your input on this. It helps to snap my mind back to reality.

I just got mentally lazy. I didn't think before I shot the pictures. When I developed them I disappointed myself. I thought I had, somehow, screwed up the developing. I went back over my data sheets and developing time charts to see where I went wrong. I know I went right by the book. Even though I know that manufacturer's recommendations are just starting points to work from, I was surprised to see that level of contrast in the film.

I asked somebody else about the problem and he said that a polarizer or a UV filter would have helped. I thought it might make a little difference but I still questioned the idea. That's why I asked you guys about it.

The bottom line is that I became lazy. I got used to being able to snap-off a dozen digital shots and delete the crummy ones. The surprise came when I developed the film but I could not delete the crummy exposures.

I guess I need to retrain my eye. Hopefully, this will help me when I shoot film OR digital pictures. Every once in a while, I need to get kicked in the butt like this to make me do things the right way.

Because of this, I went back and shot a whole bunch of photos of an egg on white paper and a whole bunch of photos of an 8-ball on black velvet. Although they are not perfect, I am already starting to develop my "eye" again.

Maybe next time I'll remember to use exposure compensation.

 

[SilverGlow]

The great thing about shooting digital is that one can learn fast about exposure because you get feed back right now. Now if you don't use that feedback, one will not learn or learn slowly. Digital is great for learning. I really fine-tuned and perfected my exposure skills because of digital shooting. Then I took those lessons to film and it has greatly improved my film pictures. Digital and film, it's all good....both great mediums to make art...neither one to replace the other....both just medias to get whatever look you require.

When you line up a shot, ask yourself "how does the camera see this?", and "how will the camera meter and what will it look like?"...and "What element of the composition should I meter on to expose the subject/s in the way I envision?". Too much bright white, add positive EC....too much shadows, add negative EC....too bright a background, then add fill for the human subject/s, or speed up the shutter and use flash....think like a camera, look like a camera, anticipate or envision how a comp will look for a given camera set up. All these skills work for film and digital. Don't look a scene with human eyes....look at it with the eye of a camera...remember the dynamic range of film and especially a sensor is much narrower then our human vision...what may look great to our eyes may look like craap to the camera's...also consider the lens, it's focal length and the perspective of the comp when coming up with composition.