Questions on judging b&w negatives

[TheTrailTog]

I just processed my first negatives last night. Did 2 rolls of 35mm Plus-X 125 in HC-110 for 5.5 minutes at 72 degrees. 1 roll was shot with a Nikkormat EL and the other in a Canonet QL17 GIII. Now about 2/3rds of the shots look a little overexposed. How can I tell if this is from the cameras during initial exposure or if I over developed the negatives? These were mostly shot in fairly bright midday light and shot according to the meters on the cameras. I've attached a couple frames that I adjusted to a b&w positive. If it would help, let me know if I should post a straight negative scan. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

From the images you posted, they look quite within acceptable range to me. One way to tell if they are in fact over exposed/developed is to contact print a set of negatives you know are "good", and then contact print these using the same exposure and development settings as the "good" set. That will show you how far off you are, and help you determine where the problem, if any, lies. If the problem is over-exposure, not only will the contact prints be too bright, but they will be too bright across the range (great detail in the shadows, but weak blacks). If they are overdeveloped, your highlights will be blown out and detailless, but you will still have good blacks in your shadows.

IF there is indeed a problem, I'd be first inclined to blame the meters, given the age of both cameras. It is quite possible for their meters to drift over time and become less sensitive, thereby encouraging over-exposure. Black-and-white film is very tolerant of overexposure, so this is not something to be too worried about unless you start getting really dense dark negatives that take a very long time to print.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Thanks TheFlyingCamera Unfortunately, I have no other negs for comparison and I don't have the ability to do prints YET. Right now I only have supplies for processing negatives. After looking more through the roll, I am inclined to say it is the metering. HEre's a couple shots from that same roll taken indoors and they seem fine. I'm assuming the harsh mid day sunlight was throwing the meter off or maybe I was doing something wrong? Think I might have to start looking for a handheld meter.

 

[efreddi]

In my opinion your film looks ok.

When you overdevelope you get a film with very high contrast, so the bright parts are too dense and the shadow still closed, making a contact print you will spot it immediatly.
On the opposite a overexposed film will be with similar highligths, but the shadows will be too clear and open, with a lot of details.

Don't forget the basic rule: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, so don't be worried if your cameras do a slight overexposure, just fix the development to avoid too dense highlights and be happy.

Regs


Elia

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's tough to guess from your scans because the scanner software will auto-adjust the exposure toward "right" exposure. To me, the indoor shots look a bit flat and gray, and the outdoor shots look good. That would still point toward a metering problem, which would make more sense - that the dimmer the light, the less accurate the meter gets. It would also help you if you could get to see some good negatives made by an experienced photographer. Every medium of output, be it scanner/printer, silver-gelatin paper, platinum/palladium, cyanotype, or something else requires a negative crafted to suit the medium. A negative that produces a good scan will look different than a negative that produces a good silver-gelatin enlargement. Since you don't have ready access to darkroom materials, another good way to judge your meter accuracy is to take film processing out of the equation. Go shoot some slide film. If your meter is overexposing, it will give you washed-out slides. If it is underexposing, you'll get dark dense slides. Since slide processing is done to a standard methodology, this will eliminate operator error (yours) in processing. If your slides come back well exposed, then you'll know it was your error in processing. The best way to determine this is to shoot some scenes on the roll that have some bright highlights with detail, like clouds. Shoot some others that are more even in brightness range - perhaps a well lit interior with natural north lighting. This is soft and diffuse, and will not create brilliant highlights or profound shadows to fool the meter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I REALLY wouldn't worry. As far as one can tell from scan/monitor, they're OK -- but the only true test is whether they print OK on grade 2-3 paper, with adequate shadow detail, and until you can do that, all any of us can say is that they don't look at all bad.

Cheers,

Roger (41 years' printing and still learning)

 

[JBrunner]

Its really hard to tell from a scan, because the scanner can correct a great deal for overexposure. Keeping that in mind, whatever exposure you used, it was well within range of the film, so I would tend to echo Rogers sentiment in that you are on the right track.

Getting perfect exposures on every frame is difficult, especially when you are first starting out, and learning how your meter behaves. I would suggest getting a hand held spot meter and using it in conjunction with your cameras meter, to see how values within a composition play out on the film. Try it with slide film as well, so you can appreciate the difference in latitude.

Another suggestion is to run a roll on the same subject and composition with unchanging light, and bracket exposures in 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments for several stops in each direction from the metered exposure. This will help you see how your negative looks as it transitions from under, to over exposure.

There is no "really correct" exposure, except the one that suits a particular preference. I prefer to work with "thick" or "bulletproof" negatives (what someone else might call overexposed), because it suits my processes and printing style. Photographers often develop personal film speeds for particular emulsions, that differ from the manufactures box speed, to suit different processing and printing methods.

Some photographers feel a slight overexposure from "correct" is better, as you can't print what's not there. When in doubt, bracket.

BTW, after 25 years of shooting, I still blow an exposure on occasion.

 

[MattKing]

See if you can find a Kodak Black and White Darkroom Dataguide. In the versions I have, they show examples of how various adjustments (underexposure, overexposure, under development and over-development) appear. They are not perfect, as they too suffer from issues of reproduction, but they will at least give you a feel for what to look for.

Even better, find an experienced film photographer willing to show you some of their negatives, and review yours.

Matt

 

[c6h6o3]

Print them. That's the only way you can judge anything about them.

 

[pentaxuser]

Most B&W books about developing and printing will give examples of underexposure v underdelopment. I was looking at "The Darkoom Book" by Jack Schofield today and he uses an example of a teddy bear in both neg and print to demonstrate.

He covers a lot of other B&W faults as well. Mine is a 1981 edition so it is old but as the author took his Master's degree at the University of British Columbia there's a very good chance, I would have thought, that the book was also published in N America.

May still be available. Worth a search if nothing suitable comes up.

pentaxuser

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Henry Horenstein books on Basic Black and White and Beyond Basic Black and White are really good reference books too - I think they have illustrations of thin, normal and dense negatives as well. I'll look in mine when I get home. They are often used as texts in introductory photo courses at colleges in the US.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Thanks everyone for your help. I was so excited having done my first negatives that I didn't check any of the various books, including the Kodak B&W dataguide, I have for evaluating them. DOH! Will be a bit before I am able to print my own but, I have some Velvia 50 in the Nikkormat right now. When I get those processed I should have a pretty good idea. Where my metering stands. Thanks again all for helping the new guy

Aaron

 

[copake_ham]

Aaron,

I concur that the shots don't look particularly over-exposed and that it's very hard to tell anyway looking at a scan on a monitor.

But, FWIW, I shot with a Nikkormat FT2 for many years (an earlier model to your EL) and I tended to set the exposure with the meter slightly negative of centered (i.e. a tad underexposed) but still within the "safe zone". To be honest I did so mainly because someone I knew also did so - but I was generally pleased with the results.