Not sure where to post this

[Raffay]

First 2014 shot, but I suppose I am still struggling to get whites and blacks. Meter readings at the base of the trunks where it is dark was 1.4, on the trunks it was 2.8 and the bright grass behind was at 5.6.

I rated the film at 320 and overexposed by one stop. Focus is not great as the camera was not focusing not sure why. Developed in D76 stock for 9 minutes at 18 degrees.

Would have liked more range and sharpness.

Cheers
Raffay


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jesper]

The Gallery is the best place to post images.

 

[Raffay]

I meant in which thread, since there is no trees thread available.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rick A]

There is no image sharing and discussion thread here, the gallery is the best place to post images, but is for paying subscribers. Is this a scan of a negative or print? When printing, remember that time controls whites, and contrast controls blacks.

 

[Raffay]

This is a scan.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jimjm]

Raffay - This looks like a well-exposed negative to me. You've got good detail in the shadows and no overblown highlights in the sunlight background. If this is is a straight scan of the negative, there's no reason you can't get deeper blacks and more "punch" in the image when you print in the darkroom or post-process. If you had underexposed/overdeveloped the film, you would see more contrast, but at the expense of highlight and shadow detail.

Can't answer to your problems with sharpness except you will want to use smaller apertures to obtain enough depth-of-field throughout the scene, especially with landscape and scenery shots. If this is 35mm shot, I would shoot at no larger than say f11, which (on a 35mm lens) will means everything from 2 meters to infinity will be in focus. If you took this at 2.8 or 5.6, some areas will be unsharp, depending on where you focus. If you're using autofocus (and it's malfunctioning) I would switch to manual focus.

 

[Raffay]

This 4x5 but cropped, and I used f11


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

This almost looks like camera movement, motion blur. But could the folding 4x5 camera have not locked properly on the front struts?

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Raffay,

Can you post the density readings at the points where you metered?

 

[wildbill]

Try f32.

 

[LJH]

Try f32.

+1

 

[Raffay]

Hi Raffay,

Can you post the density readings at the points where you metered?

Will do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Raffay]

Trees by february71, on Flickr

Rescanned, and cropped a little based on feedback from a member on the LFF site.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

Raffay, Certainly no camera issue. It's a fine photograph and you need not make negatives any better than this!

I think density measurements, along with meter readings (you already gave), camera settings and development time...

There would be enough information (in terms of time/contrast) - to give you a point of reference that you can use going forward.

 

[Raffay]

What could have gone wrong here, beats me.


The first negative on the left I shot sometime back and it is securely place in my folder. The one on the right I exposed last weekend, when i developed it I thought the negative had been scratched but when i scanned it this negative had double exposure of the briefcase picture, How is this possible?

But I am very happy with the exposure and development of the one on the right, am i rightly happy Bill?

excuse the quality of the picture posted, i snapped it with my blackberry off the monitor.

Cheers
Raffay