• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

First roll processed and low contrast

allohse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 7, 2022
Messages
40
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Format
Multi Format
Hello. It's been some time. Finally processed my first roll of film. As I said on a previous post, I tried pushing one stop, since I was afraid I had underexposed some (it was 250 ISO, so, having decided to push one stop, I shot the rest of the roll as 400). It was a show and I couldn't meter very correctly, so at the time I just tried to make it as bright as I could. I'll attach some of the pictures!

I have only one question though. Is the low contrast (kind of a washed up feel) on some of the pictures an effect of having pushed the film? Or is it maybe just the film I used? What are the other effects? More grain?

Also (like a stupid FOOL) I mistakenly opened the back of the camera with the film still inside and lost half of the roll. Just thought it would be fun to mention.

Anyway, I kinda liked the result. No point in shooting film for it to end up looking just like digital, right? Already shot another roll and I'm sure it will end up way better than this one.

* black and white cinema film, 250 ISO (shot as 400) - Nikon Fe - Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 *
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220724-015724_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 104
  • Screenshot_20220724-015642_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 121
  • Screenshot_20220724-015647_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 109
  • Screenshot_20220724-015654_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 108
  • Screenshot_20220724-015759_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 106
  • Screenshot_20220724-015730_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 103
  • Screenshot_20220724-015737_Gallery.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 106
It's just underexposed. Live and learn.

You can boost contrast in Photoshop of course. It will fix the "washed out feel" but it won't bring the shadows back.

Don't expect images that come directly from the scanner to be the final representation. Some post processing is always needed unless the scanner software does it automatically for you (which is the case with many scanning setups).
 
allohse said:
No point in shooting film for it to end up looking just like digital, right?
Click to expand...

You are conflating two things: underexposed scanned film (which is what you have here) and 'film look'. What you see here has nothing particularly to do with the film look.

Also, I disagree that there is no point in shooting film if your results look "digital" (I assume here by digital you mean a combination of some of the following: low noise/well exposed/good colour rendition/good blacks/full tonal scale).

Many people don't dislike the outcome of digital photography, however they don't like getting there via big, complicated portable computers filled with displays and buttons. Others enjoy the slower process. Others enjoy the manual feel of some classic cameras. Others enjoy the lengthier, more rewarding process. So there's very much a point in shooting film to get clean looking results.

In any case, whether you scan or print, you need to judge the negatives. Aim to get great negatives, then aim to get the results you like downstream.

Can you show the negatives?
 
Last edited:
If you shoot the 250 film at 400 exposure index, you will have to increase the contrast be either using a higher # grade paper or increasing development time.
For example if your posted image was printed on a #2 paper, a #5 paper might look like this:
 
What is wrong with shooting box speed? I have done that for over sixty years, adjusting for filter and or when I used Zone System metering.
 
Sirius Glass said:
What is wrong with shooting box speed? I have done that for over sixty years, adjusting for filter and or when I used Zone System metering.
Click to expand...
Amen. A bunch of people smarter than us did extensive testing and came up with a recommended exposure profile. We don't have to follow their rules and sometimes it can be interesting to do our own thing, but let's not blame the film when it fails.
 
If you need to salvage some of the images, a few simple steps with PhotoShop can help to some degree. I took the liberty to screen shot a portion of one and with about 7-8 minutes got this result below. I recently had the displeasure of having film fogged at an airport scanner not having time for a hand check because they were short staffed but was able to make enough corrections with PhotoShop to make digital prints and some negatives for pt/pd prints. I tested my equipment with rolls from the same batch that I didn't take on the trip and there was no fogging so when traveling these days I suggest get to the airport extra early.



screen shot of your post


a few minutes with PS


 
It is important to concentrate on the light. It is better not to depend on the film/development/scanning/printing to improve one's lighting.

It takes experience to draw out quality images from difficult lighting conditions that you are working with in the examples you showed. The singer is back-lit, for example.

Also, you should learn to meter 'correctly' in these types of difficult lighting situation (you might have benefited from bracketing your exposures). You can get away with a lot more out in the landscape than indoors.
 
Vaughn said:
The singer is back-lit,
Click to expand...

As @Vaughnhas said, backlighting will cause you problems unless you know how to handle it.

Most concert/stage photography, taken from the front of the audience area, is looking up at the stage and this image usually includes some of the stage lighting. Light coming from behind the subject will give the camera a light reading that can cause the subject to appear silhouette.

No amount of film development and compensation will correct this fully. Better to expose correctly (easier said than done). Concert photography is notoriously difficult.

A member @Agulliver has plenty of experience shooting in small jazz clubs, etc, under difficult lighting. I hope he doesn't mind me suggesting you could ask him for some advice.
 
foc said:
No amount of film development and compensation will correct this fully. Better to expose correctly
Click to expand...

Absolutely and, to be fair, the above is true for most photography IMHO.

I loathe the mantra

"shoot at box speed/shoot at half box speed/expose that Foma 400 at 66 ISO"

taken in isolation it means close to nothing. It does more harm than good especially with beginners, who then might end up believing that exposing is just a matter of tweaking the ISO speed, and end up never learning to understand the light in the scene.

A correctly metered scene on a camera set at box speed can result in a better negative than the one obtained by blindly "setting ISO at 1/16th box speed" and then metering like a$$.
 

I agree blindly shooting half the box speed without any idea way is just a bad way to go. The film manufactures have done more research than you or most of the self appointed internet experts. I shoot box speed, if backlit I either meter the subject only with a spot meter or open the lens half or full f/stop. When useful I will meter the darkest shadow detail that I want at box speed and then use the Zone System adjustment. I never adjust the film speed based on what I had for breakfast.
 
When shooting backlit subjects, I turn around and point an incident meter in the subject to camera direction.
Then I adjust according to how much of a silhouette I want.
 
Your film's tungsten speed is 200.

It really looks like you could have had more time in the developer. You didn't mention what the developer was, did you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register