What's the problem with these shots?

[zyran]

Sent 2 rolls of Ilford Pan F 50 to a lab to be developed and scan and the photos came out without much contrast and just looked very grey.

What went wrong?

I'm very new to film so if some of you could enlighten me that would be great.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

They look underexposed to me.

 

[Dr Croubie]

You scanned or they did?
Either way, it's a bad scan.
The black point (ie the blackest part of the image) needs to be set a lot lower (blacker).
Ditto the white point, needs to be set a lot higher (whiter).
Then the rest of the tones will fall in between black and white, not between grey and greyer as they are now.

 

[zyran]

They scanned it.

The rest of the rolls are equally greyish, underexposed or not.

Thanks Dr Croubie, might take the negatives elsewhere to be scanned.

 

[Dr Croubie]

You can easily see if the negs are OK, just hold them up to the light. If they look as greyish and dull as these scans, then there's something wrong with the negs. But if you can easily see dark bits and light bits in the negative, then yeah, it's a scanning problem.

(ps, I like the tree in the temple one, should look great when it's scanned/printed properly)

 

[dismalhiker]

Scanning negatives, whether color or black & white, is tricky. If you know what you're doing its easy for correctly exposed shots and correctly lit scenes. When the exposure or the lighting off, or extreme, it can be difficult. I agree with previous posts... looks like really bad scans.

 

[Fixcinater]

Making simple black and white point adjustments (research this on DPUG or elsewhere with more info on scanning) show the shot with the boy to be underexposed (if you were wanting his face to be properly exposed) and the tree image to be correctly exposed.

Hope you don't mind me posting these slightly edited versions.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Since this is APUG, you could always just get "real" silver gelatin prints made.... Just a thought.

Really, this forum is not for scanning discussions. Do go to DPUG or somewhere; you'll get your answers there.

Doremus

 

[K-G]

How long did you have the films between last exposure and sending to development ? PAN F+ is an excelent film but it has rather poor latent image stability. You should develop as soon as possible after exposure. Exactly how long you can store it exposed but not developed is dificult to say but I don't think the delay should exceed a month.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[gone]

How about posting a shot of the negs? Could be fogged film, could be underexposure. The negs will tell the tale.

 

[removed account4]

bad negatives or bad skanns, hard to tell, but easy to fix.
they are both very nice images.
not meaning to push you in one direction or another
but ...
if the NEGATIVES were processed poorly
and there aren't other locallabs or ones to send to,
you might consider spooling the film yourself and processing it yourself
it really isn't very hard ( actually pretty easy to do )
and if it is the SKANS you can get them done somewhere else.

thanks for posting your images, i live in a bland boring place
and it is always a breath of fresh air to see someplace less bland and less boring.

john

 

[jochen]

Hello,
look at your negatives. If they are o.k. they should have details in the shadow areas (zone II) and in the highlight areas (zone VIII/IX). Correct development can be seen in the shadow areas, correct exposure in the highlight areas.

 

[edcculus]

If you have access to a light table (or a window even), you could take a picture of the negative with some light shining through it. Even a decent camera phone pic of negs on a light table could help people here help you troubleshoot if its a problem with your negative (exposure, processing etc). Hard to tell from a scan, since so much can go wrong, but this isn't really the place to discuss scanning techniques.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Making simple black and white point adjustments (research this on DPUG or elsewhere with more info on scanning) show the shot with the boy to be underexposed (if you were wanting his face to be properly exposed) and the tree image to be correctly exposed.

Hope you don't mind me posting these slightly edited versions.

Those very quick fixes make a lot of difference.


----
The photograph of the boy is definitely underexposed. You need to learn how to properly expose those shots, and when you learn a film you can either do a film test, or at least bracket your exposures until you see what you want or need.

His face is almost entirely shaded, and since it's meant to be a portrait, that works against this photograph.

The tree photograph I actually think is better because it is underexposed. Those featureless shadows are not bothersome at all, and accentuates the form of the tree quite nicely. Here it works, even though it was perhaps not as you intended.

Shoot Pan-F+ at 25 and don't be afraid to ask the lab to process the film longer if you don't get enough contrast.

 

[removed account4]

hi thomas

i like backlit / sidelit/ shaded portraits, not sure if that was intended by the OP
but it worked for me ..

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

hi thomas

i like backlit / sidelit/ shaded portraits, not sure if that was intended by the OP
but it worked for me ..

That's true. It could have been.

I am of the belief, though, that with negatives that have abundant information, from shadows to highlights, you can still create that type of an end result by adjusting tonality in printing/digitally. But if you wanted detail in the side of the face you can't somehow create it with an underexposed negative. It gives more options to have a negative with full information.

 

[mfohl]

Scanning negatives, whether color or black & white, is tricky. If you know what you're doing its easy for correctly exposed shots and correctly lit scenes. When the exposure or the lighting off, or extreme, it can be difficult. I agree with previous posts... looks like really bad scans.

I have an Epson V600 film scanner, and it works great. It works on each negative and tries to make the positive image look reasonable. Whether the negatives are underexposed or overexposed, it does a pretty good job of making reasonable positives. To my mind, that is almost a disadvantage; you don't know how well the negatives are exposed.