lack of contrast

[Flyfishdk]

Hi there

I think I have a problem with lack of contrast when developing my film. I have a scan workflow and no darkroom.... it will come

But my negatives i flat and when I have scanned them on my canon canoscan 8800F I get flat results. I need to give them some S-curve in photoshop to get them look contrasty as I like. I use vuescan as software.

I use the 120 Tri-x 400

Developer: Adonal 1:50
Stop: Ilfostop
fixer: ilford Rapid fixer

Developer time: 13 min.
Agitation scheme: 1.00 min + 10 sec every minute

What do I do wrong? better way to get the contrast up?

 

[marco.taje]

Kind of had similar problems: see this ---> (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Using distilled water to mix my Rodinal helped a great way. Also, I found that times listed on Agfa publications tend to be "better" than those published in the film manufacturers' sheets or in the Massive Chart. See this ----> http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/agfa_Chemie_Film_gb.pdf

Hope it helped

 

[Flyfishdk]

Hi Marco

I will try with distilled water. I have noticed a lot of chalk in the water, maybe it's the problem. thanks.. please let the advices come

 

[nworth]

Try developing about 10 percent longer. Scanning is different from printing, and sometimes you need to make additional changes in the scanned file to get what you want.

 

[MattKing]

Remember as well that you have scanning software intervening in the midst of this.

It may very well be the case that your software is actually reducing the contrast, in order to ensure that all of the dynamic range of the negative ends up in the file.

If you find it easy to restore that contrast using your photo editing software, it may have been there all along.

 

[Zvonimir Ervacic]

But my negatives i flat and when I have scanned them on my canon canoscan 8800F I get flat results. I need to give them some S-curve in photoshop to get them look contrasty as I like. I use vuescan as software.

Same here, 8800f and software. Don't judge your negatives according to the scans. The scans are good just to check composition and it is OK if heavily photoshoped and resized to web resolution. Start printing in darkroom, totally another world and results.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Try developing about 10 percent longer. Scanning is different from printing, and sometimes you need to make additional changes in the scanned file to get what you want.

Best advice I can offer. I routinely add 10-20 percent more time onto development recommended by the Massive Development Chart or manufacturers' information, and for the most part my negs print the way I want them to.

Increasing development time is the first and simplest way to increase contrast in negatives.

 

[ntenny]

If you find it easy to restore that contrast using your photo editing software, it may have been there all along.

Amen to this. Scanning per se is off-topic, of course, but you *want* scans to come out looking flat, because it means you captured all the information and can postprocess to get the contrast where you want it.

Paper characteristics are the equivalent of the Photoshop "Curves" tool, very roughly speaking. What you should expect to see in an optical print would resemble the scanned file after some "reasonable" contrast adjustment, rather than straight out of the scanner.

Medium format is quite contact-printable; you don't need a fully-equipped darkroom (enlarger and all), just---well, a dark room. If you have a bathroom with no windows, that's perfect. "Real" printing is a whole different world and highly educational.

-NT

 

[Flyfishdk]

Hi all

Thanks for the very constructive feedback... tonight is the night of the nights nights.... I go into the darkroom and will make some prints from the negatives. Then I can judge them better. I will give you some feedback tomorrow.

 

[marco.taje]

Wow! Yes, that's the Night ;-)

Is it your first time EVER?

 

[Flyfishdk]

Hi

No I used my teens in There. I'm 33 so it's about 10 years the last time. Can't really remember a lot about so I have "hired" one of the "old" ones Gonna be fun

 

[marco.taje]

Nice, welcome back! I had a similar hiatus, as well. It feels weird getting back, you'll see ;-)

See ya.

 

[Flyfishdk]

And it Was fantastic.

 

[marco.taje]

As far as I can see, those negatives printed nicely! What are your feelings about the lack of contrast you were talking about?

 

[Flyfishdk]

it's the scanner and that process there. I was really in doubt.... I'm a pj and think I can expose a picture.. thats why I thought it was strange. But now I'm very happy Thanks for all your inputs

 

[fschifano]

It's not at all unusual for a raw scan to look flat. In fact, I prefer it that way. If you can see detail everywhere in the raw scan, you're doing something right. You have captured as much information as possible, and now you have the flexibility to tweak it to your liking. I know this is APUG, and we are concerned with all thins analog here, but let's facce facts. Any samples we show here are by their very nature digital artifacts, and I don't think I'm terribly out of line with my comments.