Overdeveloped? Bad prints? Help me diagnose!

[luckycharms]

Though I know I've asked a lot of questions, I'd like to thank all of you for all of your help. Thanks to you and other resources, I've developed some semblance of ability to work with my own black and white film, and I am completely self taught and have no access to local help or advice. It is only by the kindness of people like you that I've figured out how to do this.

That said, I tried my first push yesterday: Agfa APX 400 shot at 1600. With no developing times to go on, I tried Clayton F76+ at 1+19 for 21 minutes and got what appear to be mostly usable negatives, though it's hard for me to tell. Since I still don't have a film scanner or any semblance of anywhere to put a print darkroom, I had a few frames printed at my local drugstore to check the results, and they were not impressive. Here's an example:

Dead Link Removed

It seems to me like the exposure looks pretty good, but there are no blacks (and heinous grain, which is what I get for pushing APX 400 that hard I guess, especially on an underexposed scene). There are also lots of white specks, which I assume are artifacts from the scan/print process at CVS- is this right?

To further illustrate the black point issue, here are the curves in GIMP:

Dead Link Removed

After simply sliding the black point to the base of the curve I got this, which seems more usable though still not pretty:

Dead Link Removed

This is what I have to go on as far as diagnosing development problems and time corrections. It seems that the blacks were way lacking in the original print- could this indicate too much or too little developing time, or is it just a result of how CVS does their printing? Also, are all those little white spots a function of the low-quality scanning and printing, or are they a result of my long development time or developer concentration? I don't see dark spots on my negatives, but I'm not exactly magnifying them or anything.

If there's anything you can tell me from this about my development time or techniques (or anything else that can help figure this out), please don't hesitate. You guys are more or less my sole source of info on these things.

 

[Poohblah]

the first thing to go when pushing film is your shadows, so i would suggest either exposing your film at 1250 but developing it at 1600, using exposure compensation in your camera (or just shoot full manual for that matter), finding a different film to push, or if you shoot high ASA's often, just go with Delta 3200.

the white specks are dirt/dust on the negatives. possibly from CVS mishandling them.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Never quite believe what your drugstore tell you with film! My local printer knows not to adjust any of my photos but since most labs work with a computer algorithm (without a person actually seeing most films unless the computer flags them as a problem), it naturally tries to compress you photo to fit a profile which can account for the lack of black. The marks are definitely dust/scratches, often found in scanning the negative/print. Grain is accentuated when pushing, so use a higher ISO film if that is a problem. I also don't know anything about that particular developer, but there might be better developers for pushing than what you are using.

 

[ic-racer]

Film speed and development are essentially independent. Exposing that film with an exposure index of 1600 caused you to underexpose that scene by about 2 stops. It just isn't going to look pretty.

 

[Tim Gray]

Another important point is how you metered...

 

[luckycharms]

Film speed and development are essentially independent. Exposing that film with an exposure index of 1600 caused you to underexpose that scene by about 2 stops. It just isn't going to look pretty.

I know it's not going to be smooth and grainless, but pretty is not necessarily what I'm after.

What I'm really looking for is this: Is there any way I can make an observation about my development time given what I can see? I really made up a development time (21 minutes) using the one-stop push concentration (1+19), and I'd like to do a better job next time. I feel like a little less contrast wouldn't kill me, maybe try 1+25? But my real question is, should my next attempt be 19 or 23 (or anything else)?

I get the feeling I way overcooked these.

 

[jmal]

A few observations:

CVS, as has been mentioned, uses an automated machine run by someone that has no idea what you want in a print, nor do they care. You will not be able to tell what your negative is capable of until you print it yourself or take it to a true prolab. Contrast can be adjusted with filters during the printing process (as well as through exposure and developement prior to the printing). The white specks and lines are dust and fiber/hair. Lastly, the there is very little effective/interesting light in the photo (in my opinion) which makes it hard to get a glowing print that will impress. I would strongly suggest that you seek a used enlarger and get started printing your own photos. It doesn't take much space and it will make all the difference in your photos.

PS: CVS probably prints froma scan of the neg which will only increase the graininess.

 

[ic-racer]

I know it's not going to be smooth and grainless, but pretty is not necessarily what I'm after.

What I'm really looking for is this: Is there any way I can make an observation about my development time given what I can see? I really made up a development time (21 minutes) using the one-stop push concentration (1+19), and I'd like to do a better job next time. I feel like a little less contrast wouldn't kill me, maybe try 1+25? But my real question is, should my next attempt be 19 or 23 (or anything else)?

I get the feeling I way overcooked these.

Someday, maybe someone will write a history of 'push processing' but my theory is that in reporting and documentary work, the human face can still be recognizable when film is grossly underexposed. I suspect they increased development to add some density to make it easier to print on #2 paper. Your pictoral scene seems to require shadow density to work and that is all lost from underexposure.

It seems that the blacks were way lacking in the original print- could this indicate too much or too little developing time

Your lack of detail in the blacks has nothing to do with development time. You can develop the film until h*** freezes over and the clear areas of you negative (where the shadow detail is lacking) will not gain any image. The only way to get a better image in the blacks is to expose the film longer or use a faster lens.

 

[luckycharms]

Your lack of detail in the blacks has nothing to do with development time. You can develop the film until h*** freezes over and the clear areas of you negative (where the shadow detail is lacking) will not gain any image. The only way to get a better image in the blacks is to expose the film longer or use a faster lens.

What about the fact that the "blacks" are gray in the original print? I figured this was nothing to worry about since it's pretty clear on the negative. I can live without shadow detail, but no blacks is a major issue. Is that a result of the lovely CVS scan/print process?

 

[JBrunner]

FWIW until you print your own negatives you are just bumping around in the dark (hey, I made a pun!)

Seriously, the folks down at the drugstore really aren't set up for printing what you are doing, rather they are dialed in to process and print c41, that has been shot in a DX reading P&S, and processed for normal, and it's that normal c41 color neg that the machine is set up to print. It's a remarkable system, but not very flexible (in general). The blacks in your prints are likely grey from the machine being set to a baseline that conforms to the average (not a pushed neg as thin as my fantasy girl). Color negs with lots of blacks tend to be muddy from these sources for the same reasons.

The only real way to get the control needed to answer your basic questions about your negatives is to print them several different ways yourself, and evolve your exposure and processing from that experience. Maybe thats not what you want to hear, but that's the basic facts.

 

[ic-racer]

What about the fact that the "blacks" are gray in the original print? I figured this was nothing to worry about since it's pretty clear on the negative. I can live without shadow detail, but no blacks is a major issue. Is that a result of the lovely CVS scan/print process?

One way to look at it is that you have made a good learning experience in that now you will be able to tell an underexposed negative. If it is printed with black-blacks, there is no detail. If it is printed to try and see any detail in the blacks, the blacks will be gray.

As Brunner suggested, printing you self would be a good next step. Its pretty easy, especially with the help available on this forum. This is a fantastic time for analog darkroom work as the equipment is inexpensive and readily available.

 

[jmal]

The "gray" blacks are a result of the CVS prints, not the negs. Contrast filters would do the same thing that you did on your PC, roughly. Store prints of BW film almost always look flat and lifeless.

 

[luckycharms]

Thank you all for your advice. I really would kill for a darkroom, but my (four) roommates are irritated enough that I fill the sink for hours at a time with noxious toxic chemistry (because F76+ and Clearfix and definitely more toxic than the Drano my roommate poured into our kitchen sink last night), so I'll be living without one for at least the next two years.

As far as what I can learn from my process, it seems that without doing my own printing, I'll just have to keep going for "good enough," which these exposures seem to be. This was not necessarily my favorite or an image I'm in love with, just the one of the random three or four I had printed that best exemplified the issues.

I have another APX 400 roll loaded and am exposing it at 800 ASA (one stop push), for which there is a published developing time and dilution from Clayton. I'm also going to try to shoot at least some of the roll in situations that aren't dominated by extreme shadows and hope for better results. At the very least I should have a better idea of what pushed negatives developed correctly should look like, and how digital labs handle those. Once I get Lightroom running again it'll be no trouble to make the corrections digitally.

Thank you again for all of your help.

 

[srmcnamara]

another factor involved is the reciprocity effect where the film doesn't respond normally during a very long or very short exposure. Often you need to double or more the exposure time to the film. It hasn't been mentioned yet and may be a factor in the underexposure.