very bad result from my first film

Aja B · Feb 16, 2011

The image of the palm tree looks fine so it's reasonably safe to exclude problems associated with your camera/lens. That's the good news. I suggest a different lab but with another roll of XP2 Super. This is a chromogenic film, not a traditional B/W film. It requires C41 processing. Perhaps your lab had bad chemistry and/or bad scanning. Stick with it, you'll get there...XP2 is a very nice and very foregiving film.

Rick A · Feb 17, 2011

In post #22 you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a black and white image against color and expect to get an accurate comparison. The blacks are super black and any detail is blocked by the scan and post process manipulation by the scanning tech. Whoever processed these for you gave their idea of what he(or she)wanted it to look. You really must do your own work to see what the negatives will render. XP-2 negatives can be printed on traditional photo paper.

Man from moon · Feb 17, 2011

ralnphot said:
In post #22 you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a black and white image against color and expect to get an accurate comparison. The blacks are super black and any detail is blocked by the scan and post process manipulation by the scanning tech. Whoever processed these for you gave their idea of what he(or she)wanted it to look. You really must do your own work to see what the negatives will render. XP-2 negatives can be printed on traditional photo paper.

hello

Iam only compare the results from the same scanner
First one look very good

But the second one

Look from different scanner

Rick A · Feb 17, 2011

Its not the scanning machine that is suspect here. The post scanning alterations made the B&W look terrible. You must learn to do your own work, that way you will have the option of smoother gradation shifts. The best thing you can do is learn to print in a darkroom and process your own film and prints.

angrykitty · Feb 17, 2011

Attached is an example of my experience with xp2...

The top photo is my darkroom variation of the image, the bottom was the c41 print from a machine. I did a lot of dodging/burning on this one.

As you can see, my negs were very contrasty, xp2 in general is very contrasty if you are using a lot of flash like me...

but the good news is you can compensate for that if you print it yourself.

Athiril · Feb 17, 2011

Vaughn said:
Are you planning on printing these using traditional (wet) photo process? Otherwise you are at the mercy of whatever scanning hardware and software was used to make the CD.

Actually you're at the mercy of the operator, just like with a printer.

Athiril · Feb 17, 2011

Man from moon said:
thanks you very Mach

i show the photo in a seravel screen (ELD Screen , CRT) and No improvement

gays , i think the problem in the scan only , not from me or Process or film , see photo number 3 , i make a 100% crop to show you the spots in the sky

and see this photo (100% crop)

and the problem its in my city we have only one lap make Process and scan

I am thinking to buy a film Scan (like a plustek 7600) but iam Afraid to spend my money on the scan and the relay problem in the Process

are you recommended with me ?

The pattern in your photo is from sharpened noise, it isn't grain, the grain is not resolved in that image, shoot me a PM or post on DPUG.

Athiril · Feb 17, 2011

stillsilver said:
One thing that is also the problem is the contrast level of your scenes. You are asking too much from your film. Without hand printing it will be impossible to get shadow AND highlight detail. For the first shots if you can go back and shoot very early in the a.m. or late in the p.m. try that. For building interior, try shooting those scenes on overcast days.

Mike

Quite possible for both scanning and printing, but as you said, by hand, not by a shop/minilab/etc.

Eg,

Plain Sunset by athiril, on Flickr

jp498 said:
put a digital photo of your negatives backlit, such as taped to a window or something. No telling if it's the negatives or the scans at this point. Get a little closer than I did.

Sort of like this:

It's scan clipping (software/operator), highlights on a C-41 neg arent going to blow out like that, even my Ektar at least overexposed 4 stops accidentally, still held detail in the highlights like that.

Athiril · Feb 17, 2011

jp498 said:
Just for a clear contrast in handling tones. Here is what happens when you can develop your own B&W film. Bright sun and deep shadows? No problem.

Kodak TMY2 with PMK developer. Epson scanner, epson & gimp software. All very standard, inexpensive, and common stuff. I am not trying to boast, but most normal labs do a serious injustice to B&W photography with bad scans, bad prints, etc... Anyone who can be 80% right on exposure time and follow basic directions for developing can make nice B&W exposures. I had lots of experience with B&W, but this was one of my first shots using PMK developer, so I was just following instructions like a new student during the critical step of developing.

Yeah, I agree B&W is better than chromogenic B&W, but chromogenic is a standardised process, all he has to learn correct exposure, then give it a little more (can take much more, but obviously difficulty printing, and will have serious scan noise), C-41 holds highlights to the moon.

very bad result from my first film

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency