I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please

[Dwayne Martin]

Can you post a picture of the negative on a light table? Or a scan of the negative which includes the film edges and or numbers.

Not sure how to do that. I suppose I could lay the negative directly on the scanner glass so the carrier doesn't cut the edges off.

Thanks

 

[Dwayne Martin]

You managed to make a print with some tone variation, so the negative can't be all that bad. What sort of print were you hoping to achieve?

Really I could be very happy with this negative but the series is important to me because, the subject is a good friends wife. She really wasn't comfortable being photographed so I thought a little advice would be a good idea before I developed the rest.
Thanks

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Not a Zonie so to me your neg looks underexposed.

And I cringed at that part "The D-76 was mixed just before I used it ". I'd suggest you mix it the day before you use it.

I was afraid that was a mistake.........I guess I couldn't wait.

Thanks

 

[David Allen]

The image is from a scan,
Typically when I use my pentax spot I scan around a little to find an average.
Regrettably I have not tested my equipment yet, but I have had predictable results so far.
Thanks,
David
The camera is a speed graphic with aero ektar on it. One issue is very few shutter speeds to chose from.

Well this got me thinking that there a three possibilities:

• Making several shadow readings could include too many areas that are above Zone III
• As it is a scan from a negative then your scanning preset might not be correct
• After scanning you moved the shadow and highlights points in to the immediate left and right of the histogram (or similarly used the 'Auto' feature).

So I pulled a copy of your image into Preview and set it to produce a tonally flat file. Doing this shows that you have enough shadow detail so it is your scanning/post production that is at fault. Here for the others is a file that demonstrates what is on the negative:



Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Well this got me thinking that there a three possibilities:

• Making several shadow readings could include too many areas that are above Zone III
• As it is a scan from a negative then your scanning preset might not be correct
• After scanning you moved the shadow and highlights points in to the immediate left and right of the histogram (or similarly used the 'Auto' feature).

So I pulled a copy of your image into Preview and set it to produce a tonally flat file. Doing this shows that you have enough shadow detail so it is your scanning/post production that is at fault. Here for the others is a file that demonstrates what is on the negative:

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thanks David, I really appreciate that. I have a epson v700 scanner and when I scan I disable all scanner functions so I hopefully get something unaltered. Then I make my own adjustments in CS5. I will say when I have a great negative I have to do very little in photoshop with the exception of the ever present dust particles.
I'm going to develop a few more negatives from the series with a little less development time this morning and see what I come up with. By the way the image I posted is a straight scan with no adjustments.

Thanks Again.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

David, that still looks one half stop underexposed for "my" preference. This doesn't mean the image "is" underexposed. It depends on SE's preference regarding which shadow tones to place where. IMO, and only MO, some important shadow detail is a tiny bit too far into the toe. Heck, I'd have given it a full stop or more exposure and underdeveloped quite a bit so I could selenium tone the neg without creating too much contrast.

The problem with having less density in the print shadows is limited Dmax... but I know you already know this and it wasn't the point of your example. But the above example does, IMO, demonstrate what happens when important shadow detail is forced too far into the toe. AND... it's precisely why I like to overexpose, underdevelop and selenium tone B&W film.

Either way, it's a nice image.

 

[MartinP]

May I suggest that a question about a negative and metering, without seeing either the negative or a statement of what precisely was metered, is somewhat vague !

To start with, try metering off a grey-card (or the palm of your hand plus 1 1/2 stops) at the face of the subject and using the development recommended by the manufacturers of the film ie. ignore all the Zone stuff. That will give you some sort of standard-negative, which may or may not give the results you want, and from which you can decide on more/less exposure and/or more/less development that you may adjust intuitively or Zone-ily. Of course, don't do any experimentation on pictures which are not repeatable.

 

[grommi]

Imo there's nothing wrong with the tones. I like it as it is, except the framing ;-)

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Final results

It's my opinion after a lot of consideration that the background in this particular scene really sucks up available light as compared to reflective skin tones, making a pleasing photograph a matter of adjusting development up and down accordingly. Hard to predict in this case as compared to a scene with a huge spread of luminances. (for me anyway)
All of the shots were shot in about the same light minutes apart but they seemed to vary considerably. I decided to develop one or two at a time and adjust accordingly. I've previously only developed for my normal time.

I develop in a jobo so developing one at a time is a ton of extra work but this series was for an important client so it was worth it. I got lucky and the negatives I developed badly were the not so good ones.
Thanks again for all of the opinions, Here's what I ended up with.
SE