• 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

Light B&W prints ??

ekkybedmond

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
40
Format
35mm
Hi,
as a keen (and relative new) B&W phographer, not in possession of a dark room and thus dependable of labs and/or ilford.lab.uk, I notice quiet often that prints come back light/ too light. I use ilford only: FP4+, Delta 400, HP5
I do use box speed and my camera (EOS 50) is not known for over-exposing.

Is this a fault (or: characteristic) by the lab, or are they just tuned to not under-print ?

I read this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

would the answer be to expose more, rather than less ? Say: 100 for FP4+.

Or let the lab scan the neg's, adjust myself when neccesary, and have the JPG's printed.

Perhaps this question is somewhat 'broad', but any input would be welcome.
 
Dear Ekkybedmond,

If you use the ILFORD Lab here at Mobberley all the prints are hand inspected by an expert before they are sent out. We would therefore suggest it was either an exposure issue or a personal taste issue. I frequently look into the lab area and look at the print quality myself and in line with our customer feedback they look, and have to be, excellent.

Firstly, the ILFORD lab can send you a test print and you can guage the density that we print at from a correctly exposed negative ( or d****l file ) if you feel that it is too light for your personal preference you can 'request' that they print your prints darker, within the context that this is a D&P service not a 'hand print' pro lab.

Just e.mail them or call them and they will help you..

Simon. ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
 
OP,

without going into detail about ilfords lab (because i have never used it) i can say that the majority of photographers new to b&w tend to prefer darker images and think properly exposed ones are too light. i myself was guilty of this at one point. maybe your prints are really too light and thats fine, im just saying that some people think there prints are light when in reality they are fine. any way you can take a picture of the print and post it here. i ask not for a scan because the scanner will manipulate it and i want to see what you see in your home with your own two eyes.

-Kauffman
 
ekkybedmond,

There are good labs around, you may have to mail the film off to get it to one though.

My biggest criteria for picking a lab is "will they listen?" If they won't even try to help it's no fun.

The second is "will they give me constructive and believable feedback?" I need to know if I'm overdoing things, if their advice makes no sense or isn't helpful it's no fun.

The third is "are they professional about their work?" The best lab I know keeps track of me, they know how I shoot and how I like my proofs.

If we had some idea of what part of the world you were in we might be able to suggest a lab.
 
I use mostly Ilford film and the Ilford lab at Mobberley, and am always very satisfied with the results, specifically (in view of your enquiry) the density of the prints, neither too light nor too dark.

B&W film has a very large latitude in exposure, so (within reason) over- or under-exposing will not affect the density of the finished prints....that is much more a factor of the printing stage, and is, of course, something which the home darkroom (or d-----l) printer can adjust to his taste or for a particular effect.

I would take advantage of Simon's offer of a test print, and certainly try the Ilford lab if you have not done so already. Kauffman's comments are also, I think, worth considering...I, too, printed my own B&W far too dark when I first tried darkroom work (at school ) , until a more experienced camera club member showed me how to get a full range of tones in a print, from almost-white to very-nearly-black.
 
buy yourself a copy of the Fred Picker Zone manual; buy yourself a developing tank and some chemicals; and never over or underexpose again....
Best, Peter
 
Hi, thanks so far.
here's 3 pic's, taken with Canon 1D/ 50mm, and made B&W.
Can;t remember filtering on originals, I think the building might just have had yellow, and the horse (?) perhaps green.
 

Attachments

  • 811B9097-crop3.jpg
    283.5 KB · Views: 170
  • 811B9104-crop.jpg
    400.9 KB · Views: 151
  • 811B9108-crop.jpg
    521.5 KB · Views: 152
The first two prints do not look right to me and even the thrid is only just approaching acceptable. It might be the lab. Can you remember which lab printed these?

Like some others here I had the chance to look around the Ilford lab on the 2008 tour and all the prints I saw were fine. Yes it D&P and not a custom lab but at the money the care taken is probably as close to custom as you could reasonably expect.

I note that the camera is a digital so no negatives to show us and the Fred Picker book in that case may not give you much in the way of help.

If you have any negs from an analogue camera you might try sending them to Ilford to see how they come out or try borrowing a film camera that someone can vouch for in terms of exposure accuracy and then sending the film to Ilford.

pentaxuser
 


Hi pentax, thanks.

There are negatives, Delta 400, exposed as 400.
These pics here were taken with my 1D from the actual prints . I messured the light with my Sekonic. The 1D indicated 'bout 1 1/3-1.5 stop over-exposure fwiw.

How would I show the neg's on APUG ?
 
Find a north facing window, hold the negatives up to the glass and take a picture of it; then invert in your computer (or post it as is here).

To me the pictures look like there is not sufficient contrast, not overexposure which would be more white instead of gray. Either the chemicals at the lab are old/exhausted or there is insufficent agitation during developing, neither of which you control. Another reason to do it yourself.
 

you reckon the developement is a bit off ?
I'll try and post these neg's tomorrow, thanks !
 
from the pics you posted i can see your concern. do the pictures on the screen resemble what you're seeing in person? if so, there is a large lack on contrast, especially in the first 2 images. also the first 2 are a little light, but no way to tell if its the negative and/or print that faults, although with b&w printing ive been able to make a nice print from a negative 3-4 stops over exposed.
 
Yeah, the pics are what I see.
Neg's to follow. Thxs so far.
 
To all contributers:

Simon Galley from Ilford Lab -where the negs were developed ad printed - contacted me. I've sent him the negs and prints. The negs (and exposure...) were declared A1 OK, the prints were OK too, be it on the lightish side.
Simon offered to reprint the lot. They were, and they turned out EXCELLENT. They are slightly darker and with a bit more contrast. I am happy now.. )
Thanks to Simon and Ilford for an excellent service.

THREAD CLOSED, I PROPOSE !!
 
Dear Ekkybedmond,

Thanks for taking the time to post.... very pleased you are happy.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
 
The main defect in all the shots seems to be muddy highlights. Contrast is reasonable, so development is probably close to right. More expose might help - try EI 320 or even 250 for a few shots, and see if it makes a difference. Expose the same shots at 400 also so you have something to compare to. Or it may be the lab. Most inexpensive labs use automated systems to judge print exposure, and they may not be optimum. Pro labs will work with you, but they are quite expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register