Missing something in my developments.

Hi all

Been shooting film only for a while now. Mostly photographing models and develop it on my own (b&w).
So far I've tried Rodinal (at the very beginning, only used it once), XTOL for the second time and since then I switched to HC-110 (Dilution B).

Shooting Tri-X 400 exclusively and liking the classic combo with HC-110 I think things look pretty good. These are some of my black & white developments:
Using the "recipe" from my lab (Carmencita Film Lab). 6m30s in Dilution B. 30 seconds initial and every minute 10 seconds: very gentle 1 inversion of the tank and at the same time rotating a bit

http://jessestr.be/albums/lookbook/content/lynn-6/lightbox/
http://jessestr.be/albums/lookbook/content/lynn/lightbox/
http://jessestr.be/albums/lookbook/content/lynn-16/lightbox/

So what's the problem? Well, when I'm on the streets, I'd like to shoot some pictures too (no models).
My negatives look really "dull". Probably because the light isn't always so interesting but let's give an example.

I really like these shots on Tri-X (the black & whites): http://www.johnnypatience.com/london-on-leica/. They are really contrasty & poppy. Bright and clear.

I tried a mid-yellow filter this time to increase the contrast but no real improvements. Look at the shots below. These are by no means good shots, but they prove what I want to show and what I want to work on.
What should I try improving on them? They had a little post-processing when I scanned them. Mainly exposure, pulling blacks deeper as they were even more flat / dull before that.
If you see the differences between Johnny's black & white and mine's. What are the key improvements I should make that could get close to the look, I'm looking for?

You can expand your developing time, but unless you print on paper(enlarge and chem bath) there is no real way to determine what you need to do. Post processing after scanning doesn't show what is really needed. Controlling contrast when printing is IMO the true test of a negative.

Looking at your photos as posted I cannot really figure out just what your problem is or what you think it is. I can only suggest you try to add to your development time or try another film developer, maybe D76. What works for other people may not work at all for you due to the difference in the ways you do things -- even a slight difference might make a big difference -- and the fact that you use a scanner. I get good results from making scans of b&w negs but it took a year of spare time and input from real computer-based pros to get me at that point. Good luck. I like your images.

Under-exposure is a pretty common issue when first starting out. Can you post a scan of your negatives in question? Prints from under-exposed negatives tend to lack contrast and need to be printed on a higher grade paper.

snapguy said:

Looking at your photos as posted I cannot really figure out just what your problem is or what you think it is. I can only suggest you try to add to your development time or try another film developer, maybe D76. What works for other people may not work at all for you due to the difference in the ways you do things -- even a slight difference might make a big difference -- and the fact that you use a scanner. I get good results from making scans of b&w negs but it took a year of spare time and input from real computer-based pros to get me at that point. Good luck. I like your images.

Click to expand...

Thanks ! I know Johnny's pictures are developed in XTOL. Maybe that's a difference? And mostly lightning conditions I guess. Should shoot and try more.
What do you mean by "add development time". Just develop for a little longer on the same dilution? For now, massive dev chart says 6 mins on Tri-X 400 , Dilution B (HC-110). Doing 6m30s for now. So maybe 7 mins?

ic-racer said:

Under-exposure is a pretty common issue when first starting out. Can you post a scan of your negatives in question? Prints from under-exposed negatives tend to lack contrast and need to be printed on a higher grade paper.

Click to expand...

The negs I shoot from models are mostly spot on (or at least that's what my lab told me). As I use an external meter for that. Missed it once due to harsh sun lights, the bright overcast fooled my meter which gave me one stop less than I should have. On the streets I use the M6 meter. Feels like I'm missing with it regularly as I don't use it that much. Maybe the third time in 6 months since I've used the internal meter. Could be the lack of experience with the meter. Well probably it is just that, which made me underexpose.

Jessestr, I am also not sure what you feel you are missing because your shots do not seem flat to me. Many of your shots were taken in open shade while the reference shots from johnnypatience are taken in direct, afternoon light, some backlighting with flare.

johnnypatience demonstrates awareness of the light, while you might be more interested in the subject regardless of the light. (If you've heard of projection, I might be doing that here. I often reflect on my own photographs and think they could be improved by paying less attention to the subject and having better awareness of the light).

johnnypatience's cafe shot is an example where he plays with light. The left background is straight gray, the right background is rich black and the centerpieces on the tables are each bright white. But you've got the shot of Lynn on the rocky beach with great lighting so I can't say you are ignoring light.

If you can separate your shots taken in shade from shots taken in bright light, you might consider developing shots taken in flat light... for longer time like snapguy suggested. This will brighten them. ic-racer hinted that you might expose more. For example instead of shooting at 400, set the meter to 250. I don't think your grain is real, it might be an artifact of scanning.

So to sum up: 1. Nothing is wrong with your photographs. 2. To avoid underexposing, set the meter to slower setting. 3. If you think the negs look flat, you can develop longer. 4. If you think your photographs need some key light, make sure to shoot in that kind of light (Ignore 3. if you do 4.)

With Trix use 200 ISO and incident meter off nose of model dome pointing back at camera.

Assistant with big reflector.

If model has dark skin give extra stop of exposure.

Though some people like all black shadows you get from underexposure it can be difficult to avoid with candits.

+1 on the comments of snapguy and Bill Burk.
Looked at your photos (the attached thumbnails) and to me they look fine, and have just as much "snap" as those in london-on-leica. In both cases, flat lighting, yet pleasant contrast with good midtones. I also second the comments of Rick_A; see also my response #22 in (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Your photos look fine.
Surely there is plenty of detail on the negs to play with during printing.
You want contrast? Use a contrast filter.
You want more "pop"? Do a split contrast print.

And anyway, I'm not sure why you're impressed with that Johnny Patience guy.
I knew not to expect much when I saw he went out of his way to make known he shoots a Leica (great, another guy with Leica doing "street").
But I visited the site anyway.
His shots (the London ones) are pretty cliched and some downright bad (the crooked buildings ones).
Turns out the guy doesn't even develop himself, he just sends them out to a lab.
And his wife sells instagramy hipster filters/presets for Lightroom/Photoshop for a living.

I don't think this guy is someone you should look up to in any way.

Jessestr, I think you are looking in the wrong place for a fix.

From the looks of what you've shown so far I think you probably need to be talking about how you print, not how you expose and develop.

What I'm getting at is that you are not shooting slides or JPEG's; negatives are just a storage medium, if you want a little extra snap, just adjust the print.

Your photos look perfectly normal.

What I do notice is that they seem to be shot in mainly overcast conditions (the shadows are very weak). This results in a flat light in the images.

There is nothing you can do about flat outdoor lighting (except bring a flash or reflector for portraits). I tend to avoid shooting on really cloudy days (unless there is a chance the sun will break though, then you'll get spectacular results).

Wait for a sunny day and watch the difference, i.e. more dramatic shadows and highlights.

Wow thanks for all these answers!

So the best thing is to get the most detailed negative and adjust it in the print & scan?
For the scanning part... isn't it cheating or changing the films "character"? Or is it just normal?

Few more questions though..
If I rate Tri-X at 200 or so.. It would be overexposed but won't I lose my highlights too much?
Would it help to push Tri-X 400 to 800 on flat lightning situations?

>Isn't it cheating or changing the films "character"? Or is it just normal?
No, it isn't. The film is the raw material, the basis upon which you build the look you're after. Have you seen the notes of some master printers? Lots of dodging and burning with intricate masks, different exposures at different parts, etc., to get the look they're after.
It's the end result that matters after all.

>If I rate Tri-X at 200 or so.. It would be overexposed but won't I lose my highlights too much?
Yes. 1 stop overexposure is nothing for traditional B&W films like TriX.

>Would it help to push Tri-X 400 to 800 on flat lightning situations?
It would increase the contrast, and probably lose some shadow detail, so if that's what you're after, then yes it would help.
But why do that? Why not capture on the film as much as possible, so you have the freedom to do whatever you want during printing?
If detail is captured on the film, you can discard it during printing (if you like , say, high contrast), but if it isn't there on the film, you can't bring it back in the darkroom.
I prefer nice, flat(ish) negs, so I can have ultimate freedom in the darkroom.

Jessestr said:

Wow thanks for all these answers!

So the best thing is to get the most detailed negative and adjust it in the print & scan?
For the scanning part... isn't it cheating or changing the films "character"? Or is it just normal?

Few more questions though..
If I rate Tri-X at 200 or so.. It would be overexposed but won't I lose my highlights too much?
Would it help to push Tri-X 400 to 800 on flat lightning situations?

Click to expand...

It's mostly about personal preference.

In traditional wet printing, it's perfectly normal to "mold" the print in different ways.

Personally, I prefer to stay close to the negative when I scan. So I expose and develop it with a particular look in mind. Then I process to bring out the details of the negative.

When it comes to Tri-X, I have tried different EIs, but I have returned to shooting mainly at 400. That way I can adjust for lighting by tweaking development a little from the base line.

Occasionally, I will shoot at 800 if there are a lot of highlights that will blow, or at 200 if the light is really flat.

The important thing to remember is that there is no right or wrong, only what works for you.

But I would still suggest getting really well acquainted with the base line before you start experimenting, otherwise it wll be hard to know what is normal and what different tweaks actually do.

It takes a while to wrap ones head around how negatives and printing negatives actually works.

With most any negative film there is a wide range of exposure settings that will work. Changing the EI 200, 400, 800, or whatever; moves things around on the film curve but it doesn't necessarily improve or hurt or even change anything in the print you planned on making.

For some people EI 200 (or 100) works better because shadow detail is important in their work, this is very typical of "landscapers". Others shoot Tri-X at 1600 happily. The difference is personal style and preference.

It doesn't matter as long as you get negatives that work for you. It does take you practicing at various EIs to figure out what your personal limits are.

Personally I target exposure mostly at box speed and it works fine for most everything I do. I will shoot 1 under to 2 over without batting an eye and if cornered will shoot 4 or 5 over on some films.

This is a well proven principle, think disposable cameras.

Thanks again. Always heard that overexposing without compensation in development on black&white was a bad idea.. Will try some more soon.

Jessestr said:

Thanks again. Always heard that overexposing without compensation in development on black&white was a bad idea..

Click to expand...

It's not.

Accurate and consistent exposure does have advantages and you will find the settings works best for you over time.

Underexposure with negatives is typically a bigger problem.

hi Jessestr

how are the negatives being reproduced ?
will they be sCnn'd or will you be printing them
in a darkroom ?

if they are going to be printed in a darkroom
you can easily print negatives with a little more meat on them .
sometimes meaty negives have trouble being scanned

how about bracketing your exposures until you find something that works for you ?

I'll be scanning AND printing hem. I'm mostly scanning all shots (unless they are really bad). For printing I'll only print the shots I want.

Could give bracketing a try next roll. See what's best for me indeed.. But these days I'm doubting about switching to HP5+ instead of Tri-X. Just to support Ilford instead of Kodak. Is there character much different. And what about overexposing HP5+?

contrast depends on how it is exposed and processed.
(like any film)

john

Jessestr said:

Could give bracketing a try next roll.

Click to expand...

While you are bracketing... take two shots of something gray - two f/stops apart. This will give you a way to measure how much contrast you get when you develop the film.

As others have said, I don't understand your problem, but they have very little or nothing to do with your processing. Some of your model shots are great. Perhaps you should do more of those instead.

Shooting 99% models, but afraid of experimenting with negatives of models. If they fail I have nothing.

You can build your confidence working with negatives, to the point where your opinion will turn completely around and you would be afraid to use anything else.

Developing too long can blow out highlights that's true, and that's important when there are white details to hold. But as markbarendt says... with negative film, blown out highlights do NOT happen with overexposure. (Slide film is quite the opposite story - once a slide is overexposed, detail is lost). With negative film you always have a chance to make up for inaccurate exposure. Exposure mistakes only shift things around, you can shift them back where they need to be at the printing step.

So while slide films are safer to underexpose, negatives are the opposite of slides. A negative that has been underexposed will never have shadow detail. That's why you will hear much advice to reduce the rated speed, I use 250 for 400 speed film. This gives me room to make mistakes in the undexposure direction that I would not have if I used the rated speed.

The perfect exposure is only relevant if you are seeking a certain kind of perfection. Sharpness, Resolution, Grain. These things are degraded with overexposure and are optimized with perfect exposure. But these days people who come to film expect a certain amount of imperfection in those qualities. I'll take a little grain and lost sharpness. But it doesn't mean I want to lose everything. On the contrary - I care more about every shot, so I rate the film lower to improve the chances of a usable negative.

For flat scenes with highlights in the background, you can often ignore the background and let it blow out because the detail in the background is not important, what makes the background interesting is how the shapes of the light patches fit in. You could have developed jesse0044 longer and the background would not have lost anything, but you might have achieved a more contrasty look - almost as if the scene was taken with brighter light.

And as far as metering, I think you would be happier if you work with the handheld meter and find a way to ALWAYS IGNORE the camera meter. Those camera meters always cause me trouble and lately I have been taking batteries out of the cameras so that I never take stupid advice. My recent example of this is a Pentax Spotmatic F which has a needle that moves to center... when battery is dead, when light is too low to activate meter AND when exposure is correct. One dusk I had the camera on tripod, checked the scene and fired two shots without realizing the meter was inactive. Certain specific Spotmatic F models corrected this "defect" but you need to know your equipment.

Again, your shots are beautiful and there is no deficiency I see when I look at them.

Thanks Bill ! (The "Jesse044" shot is done by my lab. Was the first serious roll of film I shot, before started developing myself.)

So overexposing won't lose highlights, but do I compensate in the developing of it or just, develop like I should? And then adjust in print or scan?
Thanks for all the helpful information. Wonderful community!