Help me diagnose my photos?

[dcy]

I just got around to developing a roll of Kentmere 100 that I had sitting in my fridge. I shot it with an ancient Olympus PEN EE, shortly prior to me upgrading to a Pentax 17. I'm pretty sure the exposure was set to EI 100. I developed it in D76 1+1 for 11 min.

The Good: This is the best roll of B&W that I've ever developed. My recent efforts to run tests with developers seems to have paid off. I'm starting to get a few shots that, in many ways, I'm actually quite happy with. That's a first for me.

I'm going to print some of these next time I setup my darkroom.


The Bad: Even for my favorite shots, I think the photos look... uhmm... soft and muddy... I can't put my finger on it. I have examples below. I'm trying to decide if this is all in my head, or if there's a lens or focus problem (hopefully fixed by switching to my new Pentax 17), or a film problem, or the half-frame format. Two things:

1) I feel the blacks aren't very black, and whites aren't very white. But if I increase contrast more I lose shadow/highlight detail... Perhaps the problem is with my computer screen and they'll look better when printed.

2) Parts of the photos look blurry and lack detail. The sky and the buildings in the first shot are particularly bad. Maybe they're out of focus. The Olympus Pen EE has zero ability to control depth of field.

My question:

Do these shots look alright to you? If they look muddy or soft, do you have thoughts on what might be the cause and how to fix it?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, you can't expect a whole lot from 1/2 frame, anyway - in terms of big enlargements. But the focus does appear off. The camera may have been taken apart and not completely reassembled properly. Your new Pentax will give better results, assuming you adjust focus properly.

 

[Paul Howell]

Your shadows look fine, I would Increase developer time by 10% to expand the highlights,when printing with enlarger print at 1/2 to full grade higher, you can also increase print time in the developer or change to Clayton or ILford ultra cold developer. Once you master 1/2 frame your skill with 35mm and larger will outstanding.

 

[MattKing]

With respect to distant sky and buildings, don't forget that there is a fair amount of atmosphere between you and them, and factors like atmospheric haze can be important.
Plus you might have been shooting at a relatively large aperture, leading to details that are outside the depth of field - even with half frame.

 

[koraks]

1) I feel the blacks aren't very black, and whites aren't very white. But if I increase contrast more I lose shadow/highlight detail... Perhaps the problem is with my computer screen and they'll look better when printed.

Scanning and digital post processing actually require some skill to get it right. Even if you have a good negative, it's easy enough to end up with drab images.

2) Parts of the photos look blurry and lack detail. The sky and the buildings in the first shot are particularly bad. Maybe they're out of focus. The Olympus Pen EE has zero ability to control depth of field.

Check with a powerful (!!) loupe or microscope whether the negatives are sharp. If no, then work on the capture side. If so, then it's a digital/scanning issue and you can focus (hah) on that end. Of course, as others also indicate, the starting point is not necessarily ideal given a very small negative etc.

I'd say that a good part of the 'drabness' of the examples you've shown is down to scanning & post processing and much better (punchier, crisper) results are obtainable from these negatives. Whether they'll turn out tack sharp in the end is impossible to tell at this point.

 

[boring old man]

Sharpness isn't that bad, I can read the writing on the signs. Newer lenses are sharper, that's one of the biggest driving forces in design.

The first scene is low contrast. Sky looks overcast, you should expect a gray flat look. This is where dodge and burn, and zone system come in.

Second is high contrast, bright lights, deep shelves, and I see detail in the lights, so the shadows might be underexposed. You could have exposed more, then burned in the lights to get detail, if detail is desired. I have a picture in a park, the bridge in the distance, in bright sun just prints blank, no change in grade will bring out detail; I have to block the foreground and print the bridge longer, then it shows up nice. Burn in the bridge.

Third and fourth look pretty good, Focus could be slightly off, or you could be using a very small aperture and getting diffusion.

Half frame only has so much resolution

Camera meter could be out of adjustment, shutter speeds could be off, lens could be dirty inside, that will certainly soften an image.

 

[MattKing]

say that a good part of the 'drabness' of the examples you've shown is down to scanning & post processing and much better (punchier, crisper) results are obtainable from these negatives. Whether they'll turn out tack sharp in the end is impossible to tell at this point.

Yep.
Just a quick random choice of image.
1) initial scan from a 35mm negative - no additional post-processing except for re-sizing for Photrio:

2) exactly the same scan, after some appropriate post-processing, including re-sizing for web display:

 

[dcy]

Well, you can't expect a whole lot from 1/2 frame, anyway - in terms of big enlargements.

Can you quantify "big enlargements"? Right now my baseline is 5x7 but I do want to start making 8x10 prints. I've seen online photos of 8x10 prints made with half-frame that I thought looked pretty good. But then again, maybe if I had the print in my hands I'd see all sorts of flaws.

But the focus does appear off. The camera may have been taken apart and not completely reassembled properly. Your new Pentax will give better results, assuming you adjust focus properly.

Thanks!

 

[dcy]

Your shadows look fine, I would Increase developer time by 10% to expand the highlights,when printing with enlarger print at 1/2 to full grade higher, you can also increase print time in the developer or change to Clayton or ILford ultra cold developer. Once you master 1/2 frame your skill with 35mm and larger will outstanding.

Thanks for the help!

I have a follow-up question: I thought increasing development time would normally *crush* the highlights, not expand them. What am I missing? --- I developed this film for 5% less than the time recommended by Harman because I was worried about crushing the highlights. Harman's recommendation is 11:30 and I did 11:00.

 

[Don_ih]

Can you quantify "big enlargements"?

You should be able to make an 8x10 from a half-frame negative, if the shot is in focus and the camera was held steady and you don't mind whatever impact the grain has. You might be more pleased with a 5x7.

Normal prints from 110, 40 years ago, were 3.5 x 5. (110 is close to half frame size.)

 

[dcy]

With respect to distant sky and buildings, don't forget that there is a fair amount of atmosphere between you and them, and factors like atmospheric haze can be important.
Plus you might have been shooting at a relatively large aperture, leading to details that are outside the depth of field - even with half frame.

That all makes sense. That day was overcast and miserable (typical of that part of the US). I could easily imagine haze, and with the poor lighting and the Olympus Pen EE's limited shutter speeds, I can easily imagine it might have chose a wide aperture.

 

[dcy]

Yep.
Just a quick random choice of image.
1) initial scan from a 35mm negative - no additional post-processing except for re-sizing for Photrio:
...

2) exactly the same scan, after some appropriate post-processing, including re-sizing for web display:
...

Holy crap! Night and day difference. Thanks for sharing those. Gives me some perspective. My own editing is a little bit more than just resizing --- I try to adjust the contrast curve so "black" starts close to the darkest part of the image and "white" is close to the highlights. Every time I try to tweak the contrast curve beyond that I end up making it worse.

I'm sure I'll get better, but digital editing is my least favorite part of the process so my progress might be slow.

 

[cliveh]

As you have not yet set up your darkroom, I take it these are scans made from the negatives. When you print these images in the darkroom you can improve them considerably with correct exposure and contrast. In the meantime, if you have a basic photoshop programme, go to levels and alter the mid-tones and highlights.

 

[dcy]

Sharpness isn't that bad, I can read the writing on the signs. Newer lenses are sharper, that's one of the biggest driving forces in design.

The first scene is low contrast. Sky looks overcast, you should expect a gray flat look. This is where dodge and burn, and zone system come in.

Second is high contrast, bright lights, deep shelves, and I see detail in the lights, so the shadows might be underexposed. You could have exposed more, then burned in the lights to get detail, if detail is desired. I have a picture in a park, the bridge in the distance, in bright sun just prints blank, no change in grade will bring out detail; I have to block the foreground and print the bridge longer, then it shows up nice. Burn in the bridge.

Third and fourth look pretty good, Focus could be slightly off, or you could be using a very small aperture and getting diffusion.

Half frame only has so much resolution

Camera meter could be out of adjustment, shutter speeds could be off, lens could be dirty inside, that will certainly soften an image.

Thanks!

It looks like more than half of the items you listed be improved by the camera upgrade --- old lens, could be dirty, who knows how well a 65-year-old light meter or shutter still function.

I have never tried to dodge and burn. Thanks for the tip!

 

[MattKing]

Holy crap! Night and day difference. Thanks for sharing those. Gives me some perspective. My own editing is a little bit more than just resizing --- I try to adjust the contrast curve so "black" starts close to the darkest part of the image and "white" is close to the highlights. Every time I try to tweak the contrast curve beyond that I end up making it worse.

I'm sure I'll get better, but digital editing is my least favorite part of the process so my progress might be slow.

Also, every film scan/digitization ever needs to have some sharpening applied - the process of digitization inherently reduces acutance, so you need to add some back in.
Different methods of digitization, and different types of digitization equipment/optics/lighting/light control will have differing amounts of affects on the acutance.
FWIW, scanning/digitization is one of the most potentially frustrating parts of the things I do around photography.
Particularly the associated need for digital spotting thereafter!

 

[boring old man]

Batteries are different now, If it was designed for mercury batteries, your voltages will be off.

The grease from the lens can migrate onto the elements, that could cut sharpness easily.

You'd be suprized how much "editing" was done at the enlarger.

Still, old cameras are nice, I find a pleasant softness to old lenses, not mush, but maybe not "tack" sharp.

I personally like manual cameras, I find having to think, teaches me to think.

Try moving the camera a little while composing, and check the meter; you can find when something like a bright light is throwing the reading off.

And yes a 65 year old lens will not be as sharp as a 10 year old one.

Where is this anyway? Just curious.

 

[dcy]

Particularly the associated need for digital spotting thereafter!

Dumb question: What's digital spotting? ... What's spotting?

 

[dcy]

Where is this anyway? Just curious.

The first photograph is downtown Des Moines, Iowa, USA. The next two shots were at a railroad near there. I can't remember where the last photo was taken, but it was definitely a park in central Iowa.

 

[dcy]

I personally like manual cameras, I find having to think, teaches me to think.

Not me. I think enough in my day job (astronomer) and I use photography to relax, go outside, and do something with my hands.

 

[GregY]

dcy, Until you print them you really can't tell how much work it will be to make really good prints from the negatives.
As you can see....tweaking the scans can make an incredible difference.....same in the darkroom

 

[MattKing]

Dumb question: What's digital spotting? ... What's spotting?

After digital spotting and post processing - an excerpt from one 35mm negative scan.

Before digital spotting or any post processing of the same scan - almost the same excerpt.

Every digitization process I've encountered tends to accentuate the appearance of dust and anything else on the surface of the negative. Most of the signs of dust you see in the second example are virtually invisible if one looks at the negative with a magnifier.
I use "Clone and Heal" tools in the image processing software programs on my computer. AFAIK, most programs like Photoshop and its competitors offer the same functionality.
Using those tools involves a slow and meticulous working over a highly magnified image of the scan file, and manually removing or blending in the marks.
Every automatic or semi-automatic tool designed to minimize the need for spotting also tends to blur detail.
The name "spotting" comes from the time honoured analogous process one does with darkroom prints, employing a fine paint brush or spotting pen and spotting dyes, in order to hide such defects.
In my case, my workflow with negatives that I intend to digitize is to first do the spotting on the TIFF file that comes from the scan. Only after the debris is dealt with, do I go on to cropping and post processing.
For each fully digitized roll, I have at least three folders:
a) un-spotted and un-processed original TIFFS;
b) spotted but otherwise un-processed TIFFS;
c) spotted and cropped and processed TIFFS.
In most cases, I'll also have a folder of images that are re-sized for web sharing jpegs as well.

 

[Craig]

Dumb question: What's digital spotting? ... What's spotting?

A long time ago, when sheet film was the most common format used, it was very common to have dust on the film while loading the film holders. When the film was exposed, the dust prevents light from reaching the film, so on a print it shows as a dark spot.

"Spotting" is retouching the negative with a very fine paintbrush using special spotting dyes/paints to fill in that spot to the same density, so it doesn't show in a finished print.

Kind of a lost art to do it this way anymore.

 

[dcy]

In my case, my workflow with negatives that I intend to digitize is to first do the spotting on the TIFF file that comes from the scan. Only after the debris is dealt with, do I go on to cropping and post processing.
For each fully digitized roll, I have at least three folders:
a) un-spotted and un-processed original TIFFS;
b) spotted but otherwise un-processed TIFFS;
c) spotted and cropped and processed TIFFS.
In most cases, I'll also have a folder of images that are re-sized for web sharing jpegs as well.

That... sounds like a lot of effort... I mean, you can't argue with the results. I am actually slightly shocked that it's even possible to sharpen an image like that. It feels grabbing information that was never recorded and somehow extracting it out of thin air.

I don't think I have the mental capacity to this kind of slow meticulous work. My brain would explode. I sure hope the experience in the darkroom isn't like this.

 

[GregY]

dcy...... people who print in darkrooms still spot with a fine 5.0 brush & spot tone (or similar inks)....Especially on bigger size enlargements any flaws in a negative are magnified.
(since we are in the analog subforum)

 

[F4U]

Now that this site has included digital, how do I tell if this thread is in the digital, film, or hybrid categories? I certainly don't wish to waste the readers' time interjecting my pearls of wisdom in a mixed forum. I perceive the OP's wish to come up to speed with enthusiasm. My recommendation would be to use the 35mm full frame camera, and forget adding the computer into the process. Too much too fast only results in fast burn-out, and an abandon of the craft entirely. Being out in the field with a decent film camera and a good processing technique can be one of the best mind-clearing activities of all. For every 500 wasted shots, a gem of great joy crops up. In a few short years, the print collection can be quite impressive.