Request for comment

[shutterboy]

Hello,

I am a recent film convert, and this is one of my first films that I scanned. This was Kodak TMAX 100 with TMAX developer. Everything as per manufacturer recommendations. I would have wanted a bit more texture in the T-shirt though.

What do you think? How could this photo be improved?

http://500px.com/photo/68928693/father-and-son-by-shutterboy

Thanks

 

[whlogan]

Your photograph is quite contrasty which if that is what you were after, is OK. Very sharp and well composed. I clicked on the right arrow and some of the following photosare also are very contrasty, but what stikes me is that youshow a marvelous sense of fun and that we don't enough of in photography these days, so keep it up. Marvelous to see. Nice work and keep at it.

Logan

 

[JW PHOTO]

Are you going all the way? What I mean is are you going to wet print your negatives? If so, then disregard the scan results for now and see how they wet print. If you only want to scan and web use then you should use some curves or other software to "tweak" your negative to your liking. If your example was a scan from a wet print then I'd say you are underexposing your negatives slightly. More exposure gives better shadow detail. That is if I understand you correctly in that you are talking about the fathers black shirt. JW

 

[shutterboy]

Are you going all the way? What I mean is are you going to wet print your negatives? If so, then disregard the scan results for now and see how they wet print.

I have taken up photography courses in University of South Carolina this spring. So I had access to a dark room and did a few prints (about 40). However, now I am out of a dark room so, I believe all I could do for now is scan. That might change this fall since I intend to take up courses again so would be back printing optically. Now, if I actually want to ask for comments, do you think it would be any better if I scan the prints vs scanning the negatives?

If your example was a scan from a wet print then I'd say you are underexposing your negatives slightly

I am assuming you meant if this photo which I posted was a scan from a print. No it was a scan from a negative using the school Imacon scanner.

If you only want to scan and web use then you should use some curves or other software to "tweak" your negative to your liking.

Well this is another thing I wanted to discuss about. I somehow like pure whites (not blown out though) and blacks (again not blocked up though) in my photos. I believe that spreads out the tonal range across the whole histogram (pardon that word. Being a digital convert, I do not know how to express it otherwise). Is that a bad thing? Also, when I am optically printing it, I try to put the darkest object (dark hair or the T-shirt here) in zone 3 or 4 and try to burn in light things (say sky here) to a zone 7 or 8. Is my technique correct? Can you suggest improvements?

That is if I understand you correctly in that you are talking about the fathers black shirt.

Yes I was referring to the father's T-shirt.

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer me.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

For photographing a candid moment when neither of the two subjects are particularly aware of your presence ... well, that is something people strive for years to achieve. Excellent.
That said, the image looks quite contrasty (the blacks are very dense) and the composition is a bit lose; consider cropping square to eliminate unserviceable peripheral elements — just the people, nothing more.

 

[shutterboy]

Your photograph is quite contrasty which if that is what you were after, is OK. Very sharp and well composed. I clicked on the right arrow and some of the following photosare also are very contrasty, but what stikes me is that youshow a marvelous sense of fun and that we don't enough of in photography these days, so keep it up. Marvelous to see. Nice work and keep at it.

Logan

Thank you so much for taking the time out to review my work. I actually like a bit contrasty images. But now that I have heard this from quite a few people, I might be overdoing the thing. Do you think my photos would look nicer if it was lower on contrast?

 

[dehk]

I would change the scanning parameter to make it less contrasty, especially the shadow that you already mentioned.

 

[shutterboy]

For photographing a candid moment when neither of the two subjects are particularly aware of your presence ... well, that is something people strive for years to achieve. Excellent.

Thank you so much for the appreciation. I was however told by my professor that generally it makes a stronger photograph if your subject is looking at you in your eyes. But somehow I do not like people being aware of the photographer. Generally the expressions are not as per my liking then. But I might be completely wrong.

That said, the image looks quite contrasty (the blacks are very dense) and the composition is a bit lose; consider cropping square to eliminate unserviceable peripheral elements — just the people, nothing more.

I attached another crop to this post. Do you think this one works better?

 

[bdial]

It's hard to tell without seeing the negatives, but you may need a little more exposure if you want some texture in the black shirt.
Off topic here, (see dpug) but if scanning is your goal you may do better with negatives with a little less contrast, most scanners struggle a little if the negative has too much range.

Try some similar scenes with more exposure ( 1/2 to 1 stop) and maybe 20% less development time, and compare.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I am less concerned with overall exposure and occupied with the basics of effective composition.
Your crop is balanced and pleasing, but there are problems. The Chev is in crisp focus but we now see the prime subjects are not. If necessary, crop narrow to exclude all but small parts of both vehicles. I would be loathe to do this if all the other elements are of equal weight and importance, but unfortunately the distraction of a sharply focused Chev vs less than optimally focused prime subjects needs to be dealt with to get the image over the line. Crop severely, even if it makes you cringe or cry. And thus...

...I've taken some liberty to illustrate my point to make a more powerful image without the irritating, distracting clutter. Ultimately, you make the choice.



Your Professor is both right and wrong. How effective that is depends a lot on context. In posed, active modelling/stills, it can be very, very effective. In candids where you are operating virtually unseen, not so. In the case of your photograph, the timing and context are spot-on. Score: Professor, 0. You, 1. Done.

 

[jcc]

Have you looked at the actual negative itself to see if there is some density in the shirt? If so, then you can pull it off. Also, since you are sticking to scanning your negs, you can try scanning the neg at different exposures and merge them together (a.k.a. HDR processing, don't quote me on this because I will deny ever saying it)--this will help if you want to keep details in your highlights and bring out the existing (if any) textures in the shirt. It's sort of like split filtration in wet printing, but digital.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm not going to comment or critique your shot on composition, subject matter, focus or whatever, since your original question was about the detail (or lack of) in dads black tee shirt. Now that I know the scan was from a negative it is easier to judge what is going on. I scan my 35mm/120 film on an older Nikon LS-8000 and do know that it likes a slightly thinner negative. I find that I usually seem to have to give my shots a 1/2 to 1 stop shot in the arm on exposure and then cut my normal developing times just a hair. That's just for scanning and not wet printing. For each, scanning or wet printing, the optimal negatives are not the same. There are exceptions to this as I just recently found out and that was when I processed some film in Pyrocat-MC and WD2D+ Pyro. It seems the staining developers are a happier compromise for the person who wishes to scan/print digitally and also wet print from the same negative. Of course this is just my experience with my film, developer, scanner and paper I use. Like is said above, if you look through the negative and can see wrinkles, folds or texture in dads shirt then you should be able to draw some of that out with some scanning skills. DPUG might be the better place to test the waters on how to do that than APUG, 'cause people get a little funny here talking about anything digital. Have fun! JW

 

[shutterboy]

Thank you so much everyone for commenting on the post.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), Thank you so much for the crop and analysing the focus. That brings one more question to mind. Since I am shooting 120, the depth of field is much shallower than 135 (which is what I have shot so far). Since the light was low, I HAD to open up wider to get a hand held shutter speed. As far as I can recollect, this was shot at F/4 at 1/15th. Since the Chevy is in sharp focus, I would assume that there is no camera shake. So either my DoF was too shallow OR the subjects moved. Which one could be the likely cause? Also, would you suggest any way to (at least partially) deal with such situations?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), Thank you so much for suggesting the tip with having lighter negatives for scanning. I am very new to this, so this could be very very dumb. But is Pyrocat-MC and WD2D+ Pyro types of developers? Since I might print optically at times, do you suggest me to try the same technique you do with Pyrocat-MC and WD2D+ Pyro? It would be super nice if you could explain a bit more.

Thanks again!!

 

[shutterboy]

Have you looked at the actual negative itself to see if there is some density in the shirt? If so, then you can pull it off. Also, since you are sticking to scanning your negs, you can try scanning the neg at different exposures and merge them together (a.k.a. HDR processing, don't quote me on this because I will deny ever saying it)--this will help if you want to keep details in your highlights and bring out the existing (if any) textures in the shirt. It's sort of like split filtration in wet printing, but digital.

I have heard of split filtration. I have heard about this earlier and asked my professor about it, but he said that, it is trying to fix something in the wrong place. Split filtration is required only when you screw up while taking the photo. Could you please let me know a bit more about this technique?

Thanks!!

 

[jcc]

As the name suggests, you use different filters on one print. I've only done this one BW printing. Maybe it works for color, I don't know (I've never printed in color). It requires extra steps, so I understand the reluctance.

Using the lowest contrast filter:
With a test sheet, find the shortest time when you get the lightest highlight density on the print. Note the time.

Using the highest contrast filter:
With a different test sheet, find the longest time where you keep the shadow detail that you want. Note the time.

On your final print:
Use the lowest contrast with its corresponding time. Then use the highest contrast filter with its corresponding time. This essentially squeezes the gray tones as you fit the desired highlight and shadow detail on the paper.

I've also been told that you only do this to negs that are messed up, but I disagree. It's just another type of workflow, and the look is very different from a single filter print.

 

[shutterboy]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain.

On your final print:
Use the lowest contrast with its corresponding time. Then use the highest contrast filter with its corresponding time. This essentially squeezes the gray tones as you fit the desired highlight and shadow detail on the paper.

Is the whole paper exposed to both the filters or do you cut a mask with an Exacto or similar while exposing with the second filter? If the whole paper is exposed, will the higher filter not overwrite the effect of the lower filter?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Thank you so much everyone for commenting on the post.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), Thank you so much for the crop and analysing the focus. That brings one more question to mind. Since I am shooting 120, the depth of field is much shallower than 135 (which is what I have shot so far). Since the light was low, I HAD to open up wider to get a hand held shutter speed. As far as I can recollect, this was shot at F/4 at 1/15th. Since the Chevy is in sharp focus, I would assume that there is no camera shake. So either my DoF was too shallow OR the subjects moved. Which one could be the likely cause? Also, would you suggest any way to (at least partially) deal with such situations?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), Thank you so much for suggesting the tip with having lighter negatives for scanning. I am very new to this, so this could be very very dumb. But is Pyrocat-MC and WD2D+ Pyro types of developers? Since I might print optically at times, do you suggest me to try the same technique you do with Pyrocat-MC and WD2D+ Pyro? It would be super nice if you could explain a bit more.

Thanks again!!

All I know is that a slightly thinner negative gives me a better/easier scan. A denser negative cause more of a grain/contrast problem with my Ni8kon LS-8000. You don't want to go to thin or you'll start losing detail. You'll want to expose just enough to get detail in the shadows and develop for a little less to keep the highlights down some. It's something you're going to have to work out for your film, developer and scanner combo. Pyrocat-MC and Pyrocat-HD are pyrocatechol(catechol) type developers and WD2D+ is a (pyrogallol(pyro) type developer. For me, these staining developers seem to work very well doing double duty for scan and wet printing, but I've had pretty good luck with old Rodinal as well. Still, I seem to like the ease with which staining type developers scan as well as wet print. That's just me of course and other folks might have different views. JW

 

[winger]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain.



Is the whole paper exposed to both the filters or do you cut a mask with an Exacto or similar while exposing with the second filter? If the whole paper is exposed, will the higher filter not overwrite the effect of the lower filter?

You can do either. Sometimes a mask is good if you want to really burn in a spot, but most of the time the exposure with the lower filter is way longer than that with the higher filter. The higher filter doesn't really affect the same areas as those you're trying to burn in with the lower filter. There's an explanation of how the emulsion responds to the filters somewhere in Ilford's info either on the insert that's in every box of paper or maybe on their website. Reading and understanding that will be an "aha" moment. Sometimes you need to adjust the times after doing the first combined print.

 

[nworth]

Scans can be misleading, since the scanner alters the contrast and tonal scale. But we may be seeing something that is common with T-Max films - excessive contrast. You have to be very careful with development (and agitation) with these films or the contrast can become too high. Look at the negative to see if you have the shadow detail you want. I notice the highlights look a bit contrasty as well, so you may have overdeveloped a tad (but not a whole lot). While you are calibrating your processes, some work with a spot meter can be useful. Note where (as relative exposures) the significant shadows and highlights lie, and then see if they are recorded properly on the negative. T-Max films respond well to development manipulation, so you can change contrast by just changing the development time. Check the Kodak data sheet on their web page to get an idea of what the response is.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well done picture for first time developing!

Assuming what exposure was correct at the moment of the picture taking.
If I can't see something because it is too dark after scan, I use Adobe LR brash to make it less dark and more texture (details) will come out.
B/W film is amazing for it comparing to digitals.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Well done picture for first time developing!

Assuming what exposure was correct at the moment of the picture taking.
If I can't see something because it is too dark after scan, I use Adobe LR brash to make it less dark and more texture (details) will come out.
B/W film is amazing for it comparing to digitals.

That works just fine if the details are there to begin with, but if there is to much under exposure there will be no detail in the dads shirt and it will come out all black. I would say, even without looking at the negative itself, that there is detail in the dads shirt, but the scanner setting didn't let it show. Of course if the meter picked up to much of the sky/highlight area it would call for less exposure, which in turn would lead to a much darker tee shirt. Really hard to say without the negative to look at. JW

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't see any "too much under exposure" on the scan provided by OP. The scan would come different in case of underexposure.
But I can't trust to my monitor at work to tell 100%

It might be just the "brightness" brush in LR or "Shadows", "Darks" slide bars.

Also if scanned as B/W, but with 24/48 for color, it helps sometimes to convert in to B/W in LR and play with temperature slides to reveal more details in dark areas.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't see any "too much under exposure" on the scan provided by OP. The scan would come different in case of underexposure.
But I can't trust to my monitor at work to tell 100%

It might be just the "brightness" brush in LR or "Shadows", "Darks" slide bars.

Also if scanned as B/W, but with 24/48 for color, it helps sometimes to convert in to B/W in LR and play with temperature slides to reveal more details in dark areas.

You might be right, but I couldn't say since I don't use LR. You'd still almost have to see the negative to really judge the detail in the shadow areas of the negative. So, that means I'm just guessing at this. JW

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Thank you so much everyone for commenting on the post.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), Thank you so much for the crop and analysing the focus. That brings one more question to mind. Since I am shooting 120, the depth of field is much shallower than 135 (which is what I have shot so far). Since the light was low, I HAD to open up wider to get a hand held shutter speed. As far as I can recollect, this was shot at F/4 at 1/15th. Since the Chevy is in sharp focus, I would assume that there is no camera shake. So either my DoF was too shallow OR the subjects moved. Which one could be the likely cause? Also, would you suggest any way to (at least partially) deal with such situations?
[...]!

Yes depth of field can be a tricky problem with MF. 1/15th is about the place you might encourage blur/shake. We are fortunate aren't we that medium format clunkers are devoid of image stabilisers. There appears to be softening of the main subjects so it would appear to be mis-placed prime focus point (you have focused on the chev and the subjects have walked close by it but not quite in focus). You may wish to invest in a wide to ultra-wide lens (55 down to 45 or so) for inherently greater depth of field and just leave it on f8 or f11 when approaching subjects candidly. You will get more in the frame but you can easily crop out what you don't need. Personally I couldn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail as to exposure problems (but all credit to you for your first souping — you've got a working image).. That said, I also do not pass judgement on the exposure of scanned images reproduced on PC screens of any persuasion — fine for a representation of what you have photographed (and/or printed), but never for judging the exposure of the actual negative (or more critically, a transparency).