Under-developed or under-exposed (or scan problem)?

[Marijan Radaljac]

Hi all,

I am trying to return to film medium after 20 years. I could use some help.

This are two typical examples of the negatives I am getting out of my developing tank. "Portrait" is 6x7 the "Vila Monet" is leica format.

Mamiya rb67 3,8/90 Sekor C and Nikon Nikkormat FT3 + 2/85 Nikkor. Gossen Profisix meter (check with few digital cameras).
Using Paterson dark bag. Kaiser tank. "Scanning" by Canon camera M5, 2.8/100mm Canon macro lens. I shoot the negatives in colour mode, not B&W (good, not good?), manual setings at around f7.1-f8 1/250-1/500 on Kaiser pro scan light plate.

6x7 - Kodak Tmax 100. 20°C. Developed 7 min in hc-110 1-31 dilution. Stoped in water, fixed Adofix PII 4-5 min (could it be fixer??). Washed 10 minutes, running water.

Leica format, Fortepan 100 DX 135-36. Expired 2009. Developed d76 1+1 11 min. Other things - same as 6x7.

Just want to know if I need to re-learn to use the film camera. Or to learn how to develop the film. This dull foggy look is over the entire film (both). I scanned some old negatives and glass plates. Small amount of that un-clearness is still present when I invert, before the image is "improved" using levels in PS, but not as much as on my "new" ones.

Thank you for suggestions.

 

[macfred]

I think your negative is not too bad to get a nice scan - quick and dirty :

 

[macfred]

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

Yes, correct McFred. That is what I got after playing with levels in Photoshop. But I would like to get my negatives as perfect as possible in the first place. This two films are far away from that and I would be happy to know what am I doing wrong. I will try new Ilford rapid fixer next week, and some longer development times. Play with digital camera settings, recheck the light-meter....

One more sample. After initial inversion (without corrections) things are simply flat, dull and foggy. Does this corresponds with underdeveloped film?

 

[MattKing]

Please provide us with a backlit photograph of your negatives, showing the film rebate and the space between frames.
That will help us analyze the negatives themselves, rather than the combination of your negatives and your digitization setup.
Based on macfred's efforts, I'm guessing you will probably just need to incorporate some initial standard presets into your digitization procedure.

 

[macfred]

What I see with my old eyes is almost correct exposure and a little underdevelopement but we have experts here - let's wait 'til they awake

 

[MattKing]

What I see with my old eyes is almost correct exposure and a little underdevelopement but we have experts here - let's wait 'til they awake

I think you are probably right, but I'm assuming that what we are seeing is in essence a non-inverted "scan" of the negative, rather than a photo of the negative.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Marijan Radaljac are you setting the base+fog density (the rebate density) as white before you invert?

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

@Marijan Radaljac are you setting the base+fog density (the rebate density) as white before you invert?

Ashamed to say, but to be honest, I don`t know what the base/fog density is (at the moment). So no, I don`t, I will educate myself asp. I guess it has to do with the back light coming through the "transport holes" on the edge of the film? Thank you for pointing that out. As I say, it was 20 years, and in combination with digital part, well I guess I`ll need some time.

BTW: Matt, what you see are the photographs of my negatives. Not scans. Sorry, I thought I made that clear in first message. I will take a shot or two of the wider view of the negative including spacing tomorrow. It is getting late here in EU.

 

[cliveh]

Please provide us with a backlit photograph of your negatives, showing the film rebate and the space between frames.
That will help us analyze the negatives themselves, rather than the combination of your negatives and your digitization setup.
Based on macfred's efforts, I'm guessing you will probably just need to incorporate some initial standard presets into your digitization procedure.

Matt is correct in his request, as to ascertain if it is under exposure or under development, we need to see the density of the edge markings outside the image, as these are put there by the film manufacturer.

 

[MattKing]

BTW: Matt, what you see are the photographs of my negatives. Not scans. Sorry, I thought I made that clear in first message. I will take a shot or two of the wider view of the negative including spacing tomorrow. It is getting late here in EU.

Hi Marijan,
I understood what you posted - that you were digitizing using a camera - but the problem with what you posted is that it doesn't offer any comparative reference.
Even if you are working with camera RAW output, there is a whole bunch of "under the hood" software and hardware working on the results before you get something that shows on a screen. The screen image is, arguably, as much a product of the camera as it is of the negative.
If you show us the results of the wider view, you will most likely adjust that so it appears on the screen in a manner that at least resembles real life.
That close to real life image allows us to make observations about the range of densities, the density in the shadow areas, and the comparison between things like the density of the edge printing and the image, as well as the density of the clear edge and the image itself.
By the way, while I agree with Clive that the edge printing does provide you with some useful information, it can also mislead, because it isn't always consistent in appearance, due to factors like latent image degradation.

 

[cliveh]

By the way, while I agree with Clive that the edge printing does provide you with some useful information, it can also mislead, because it isn't always consistent in appearance, due to factors like latent image degradation.

Matt, can you explain what you mean by latent image degradation?

 

[MattKing]

Matt, can you explain what you mean by latent image degradation?

The edge printing is done at time of manufacture. The time between that and development can vary widely. And that can result in variable amounts of edge printing density.
All films lose at least some density over time - latent image degradation - if there is a long delay between the time of exposure and the time of development.
For some films, the degradation is incredibly slow - those are the films that perform well when exposed but long forgotten films are developed. Absent issues with fog, those films are likely to exhibit consistent edge printing density if developed consistently.
Other films are much more susceptible. Ilford Pan F is particularly susceptible to the problem, and the manufacturer includes a specific warning about the problem in the film's datasheet.
Due to the variability between films, and the delay between manufacture and development, you need to be careful if you use the edge printing as an indicator of correct exposure and development.

 

[cliveh]

Matt, well said and I understand.

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

Thanks to all.

I understand what you mean Matt. Here are the same samples as yesterday rebate and spacing included, looking forward to hear what you and others think.
All of the photos of the negatives, larger format too, has some out of frame/film area too.

Although my negatives are far from perfect, a also I suspect that, as Lachlan pointed out (may I ask you Lachlan, to point me to some article or topic, where I can read about setting the rebate (base fog) density to white in PS or Lightroom, I searched but couldn't find much), I should do something with white setting, before I invert the negative in PS. Going directly to invert button ends up with that kind of dull, foggy look (on other older films I have too) and as you can see, wet plate negatives, although dealing with that is quite easy in PS. Main thing for me is to get my "grip" to expose and develop correctly, back.

 

[Chan Tran]

Hi all,

I am trying to return to film medium after 20 years. I could use some help.

This are two typical examples of the negatives I am getting out of my developing tank. "Portrait" is 6x7 the "Vila Monet" is leica format.

Mamiya rb67 3,8/90 Sekor C and Nikon Nikkormat FT3 + 2/85 Nikkor. Gossen Profisix meter (check with few digital cameras).
Using Paterson dark bag. Kaiser tank. "Scanning" by Canon M5, 2.8100mm Canon macro.

6x7 - Kodak Tmax 100. 20°C. Developed 7 min in hc-110 1-31 dilution. Stoped in water, fixed Adofix PII 4-5 min (could it be fixer??). Washed 10 minutes, running water.

Leica format, Fortepan 100 DX 135-36. Expired 2009. Developed d76 1+1 11 min. Other things - same as 6x7.i
Just want to know if I need to re-learn to use the film camera. Or to learn how to develop the film. This dull foggy look is over the entire film (both). I scanned some old negatives and glass plates. Small amount of that un-clearness is still present when I invert, before the image is "improved" using levels in PS, but not as much as on my "new" ones. I shoot the negatives in colour mode, not B&W (good, not good), manual set on Kaiser pro scan light plate.

Thank you for suggestions.

View attachment 267562 View attachment 267563 View attachment 267564

What scaner do you use? The negative always have very low contrast by design. Printing paper has very high contrast even low contrast grade. The scanner must increase contrast to make the negatives look right.

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

I don`t use scanner, I photograph negatives with the equipment listed in my first message of this topic.

 

[cliveh]

Under development.

 

[MattKing]

The large format negatives look to be fully developed. The one with the old motorcycle might even be over-developed.
The medium format negatives might benefit from more development, but might also be perfectly appropriate for a digitization workflow. The shadow densities seem reasonable, so I expect that you have enough exposure.
Based on what I see, all of those negatives would be easy to print in a darkroom, with a reasonable amount of contrast adjustment. I expect that the same would apply to a digital workflow. You just need a way to systemize those adjustments.

 

[macfred]

What about not enough agitation has been given ?

 

[cliveh]

The large format negatives look to be fully developed. The one with the old motorcycle might even be over-developed.
The medium format negatives might benefit from more development, but might also be perfectly appropriate for a digitization workflow. The shadow densities seem reasonable, so I expect that you have enough exposure.
Based on what I see, all of those negatives would be easy to print in a darkroom, with a reasonable amount of contrast adjustment. I expect that the same would apply to a digital workflow. You just need a way to systemize those adjustments.

Matt, look at the contrast and edge markings. This is clearly underdevelopment.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, look at the contrast and edge markings. This is clearly underdevelopment.

It wouldn't be how I target my negatives, but that is because I prefer to print them in the darkroom. Based on what I can tell, those are printable in the darkroom, although probably in need of something like grade 3 or 3.5.
If my target was digitization, then the lower contrast would work quite well.
I've posted this a few times already.
This is from a very thin looking negative, that nevertheless prints well and scans wonderfully:

 

[Lachlan Young]

What about not enough agitation has been given ?

More likely to be the case than many assume.

 

[MattKing]

What about not enough agitation has been given ?

While an increase in agitation can effect a change in density and contrast, if you don't see any signs of uneven development then the amount of agitation is at least sufficient. It is easier to effect and control a change in density and contrast by increasing the developing time.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Your film looks a little under developed. Increase development time by a bit. How much? Hard to say, but if it were me, I'd increase time by about 15-20%.