Help: w/ Tri-x 400, 120

[photoloveart]

Hello. Just got back (still waiting for neg's) from lab my pics. I'm new to film and to tri-x film. I need help in determining (problem on my end or Lab) what corrections on my end I must do for my next attempt in using tri-x. I've attached photo in question.

Mamiya 645 super 80mm 2.8 lens. (I've shot Tmax 400 and portra 400 with it and exposures all good)
Late afternoon shoot.
ISO 400, Ap. 4.0, 1/1000 (Incident metered off face towards camera)

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What's the problem?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I took some liberty and tweaked it some. You definitely had a high contrast situation which can be a challenge for a film and exposure, depending on what you're after of course.

 

[photoloveart]

I took some liberty and tweaked it some. You definitely had a high contrast situation which can be a challenge for a film and exposure, depending on what you're after of course.

View attachment 119112

Lol. I did the same in Lightroom. So in that situation just do post fix ?

So is the photo under or over expose ?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Considering the contrast I think it's exposed alright. If you closed down some in aperture or increase in speed to tame the highlights your shadows might have blocked up more...

 

[markbarendt]

So in that situation just do post fix ?

Well you could use an enlarger and a hard paper grade...

You are not alone. Many, many, many people expect good well adjusted fully burned, dodged, and finished photos to essentially fall out of the camera after the shutter drops for every grab shot they take.

Slides, autofocus, auto-exposure, and automated digital processes have spoiled so many people. It's a travesty I say. Just a travesty...

The reality is that all photos normally require work to display at their best. Near none will be a "hole in one". It's not really a matter of if editing will be needed, just a matter of to what degree or how much someone is willing to say "close enough".

Lest someone say slides are normally done in one, the norm for critical professional slide shooting has been typically to bracket or shoot a spare that can be developed differently. "Perfect in one" is possible but not the norm.

So is the photo under or over expose ?

So, when YOU look at the negative is there detail missing from the shadow areas (texture say in the shirt) that you expect to be able to print?

If you decide that there is missing shadow detail then yes it is under exposed, otherwise it's fine.

 

[photoloveart]

Thx all. The bulb went on.

 

[gone]

Really bad, unflattering, side lighting. There's not much anyone could do w/ that light. That's your biggest asset, and your biggest liability. Good light and spot on exposure are half the battle.

 

[markbarendt]

Really bad, unflattering, side lighting. There's not much anyone could do w/ that light. That's your biggest asset, and your biggest liability. Good light and spot on exposure are half the battle.

The only thing the shot lacks is a bit of TLC.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very few properly exposed photographs look their best from a direct print. Some burning and dodging are needed to bring out the best.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

"A"PUG...

Just sayin'

 

[markbarendt]

"A"PUG...

Just sayin'

Agreed.

My point is two fold.

1. The negative may not be perfect but it appears at least workable.
2. The "proof print" given to the customer got little or no human attention at the lab.

If one uses a lab, one should understand how much attention that lab gives each frame.

 

[MattKing]

My guess is that the OP showed us the scan he/she got electronically from the lab "(still waiting for neg's)".

On the upside, the OP used an incident meter. So the result should be informative about how best to use an incident meter in this challenging lighting setup.

 

[markbarendt]

On the upside, the OP used an incident meter. So the result should be informative about how best to use an incident meter in this challenging lighting setup.

Personally I think I probably would have duplexed since the scene is almost reaching the point of backlit.

 

[Roger Cole]

My guess is that the OP showed us the scan he/she got electronically from the lab "(still waiting for neg's)".

On the upside, the OP used an incident meter. So the result should be informative about how best to use an incident meter in this challenging lighting setup.

This could be it.

Also - people are going to disagree with this but it has been my experience - the newest version of Tri-X, and all the T-Max films, have always appeared slower to me under tungsten light than daylight. I know the published spectral responses don't really indicate that, and it could easily be my meters being sensitive to IR or something, but the net effect is that I have to expose more under tungsten. I can't really tell what kind of light this is, whether that's an indoor or outdoor plant behind the subject, but if it's under artificial light, and the negative is indeed underexposed as it looks, try giving an extra stop (you certainly won't hurt anything that way) under similar light. Alternatively, if outdoor lighting tends to usually look this way, just give an extra stop or maybe 2/3s (you won't notice the change with 1/3) all the time with this film and this meter. There's no need to get into excessive hand wringing about how 400 color films work at 400 and Tri-X doesn't for you. Just shoot at the EI that gives the results you want. Most of us dial in our personal film speed to our personal development, ways of working, and negative preferences and I'd wager that the vast majority of us that shoot black and white at anything other than box speed expose more than box speed would give (that is, use a slower EI than box.) The exception of course is deliberate pushing but that's a different matter.

 

[blockend]

Some will disagree, but B&W scans don't do justice to the potential in a medium format negative. Best to regard them as a work print to experiment on until you make an optical print.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some will disagree, but B&W scans don't do justice to the potential in a medium format negative. Best to regard them as a work print to experiment on until you make an optical print.

On this we agree.

 

[Xmas]

Lots of people like cine noir films eg like Citizen Kane and forget that projection is different from printing and the stills in the theatre showcase may have been 'relit' and burnt and dodged by a real artist.

 

[markbarendt]

Lots of people like cine noir films eg like Citizen Kane and forget that projection is different from printing and the stills in the theatre showcase may have been 'relit' and burnt and dodged by a real artist.

Shooting for projection is definitely different from the way most people shoot stills but the context the photo is shot in is king.

Most stills shooters, it seems to me, tend to avoid artificial lighting.

Studios, movie or portrait, have no such tendency. The reason for this is that studios want/need to "straight print" every frame.

If you have a movie set or portrait studio set well designed, all pre-lit, and ready to go for your shots; there is no need for burn and dodge later in the darkroom, regardless of whether you use reversal or negative materials.

With studio work all the contrast adjustment, placement of subject brightness, blah, blah, blah, is done with the lighting. Just develop the film normally and you are essentially done: transparencies will project well; negatives will print beautifully on a fixed grade paper with a standard print exposure and development regime. No fancy darkroom work.