Beginner Home Developer/Scanner - please critique my work

[RichardH]

Dangerous first post I know, but I have just started developing/scanning my own B&W film. Have finished my 3rd roll and would appreciate honest opinion and advice on technique (not really the actual image, but the processing). So some information:

• Contax RTS II, Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4. Ilford Delta 100 pushed to 200. Ilford DD-X
• Scanned using an Epson V550 at 3200 DPI and saved as TIFF
• Processed in Lightroom: Exposure +1/2 stop, Contrast +25, Highlights -50, Shadows +25, Sharpening +100 (to sharpen the ice, not usually that high), Masking +50.

See below the vanilla scan followed by the processed file. I am trying to keep the essence of film in the picture. Thoughts?

 

[excalibur2]

Hi..well I can't see what the problem is as the rough guide for B\W is to show the tones from Black to white (if they are in the shot) and those shots have them...I prefer the R shot but others may prefer the left.

 

[medwaygreen]

For B&W LH shot is so much better,much more contrast on the subject which for me is the most important thing.

Well done.

 

[FujiLove]

Good job

The only advice I can add from experience is, don't ask women to stand around with their feet in freezing cold water while you fiddle with your camera. Unless you enjoy being verbally abused.

 

[skysh4rk]

I am trying to keep the essence of film in the picture.

Editing your scan does nothing to reduce the essence of film. Negatives require interpretation whether you opt to print them in a darkroom or edit them digitally. I've spent many hours in the darkroom trying to hand print just one photograph the way that I wanted and many of the features in Lightroom will be based on those very darkroom techniques.

There is no one way to develop, scan, or edit your film photographs. Experiment, have fun, and find what you like.

 

[RichardH]

Hi..well I can't see what the problem is as the rough guide for B\W is to show the tones from Black to white (if they are in the shot) and those shots have them...I prefer the R shot but others may prefer the left.

No problem as such, just want to see if I am missing a trick.I am happy with the output. Tried saving to jpg, but was getting too many artifacts in some of the scans.

For B&W LH shot is so much better,much more contrast on the subject which for me is the most important thing.

Well done.

Odd. From my perspective I created and see more contrast in the RH photo.

 

[FujiLove]

Editing your scan does nothing to reduce the essence of film. Negatives require interpretation whether you opt to print them in a darkroom or edit them digitally. I've spent many hours in the darkroom trying to hand print just one photograph the way that I wanted and many of the features in Lightroom will be based on those very darkroom techniques.

There is no one way to develop, scan, or edit your film photographs. Experiment, have fun, and find what you like.

 

[RichardH]

Editing your scan does nothing to reduce the essence of film.

I get this, but surely if you over sharpen and pile on the noise reduction (losing the grain), you start to get a digital looking image. There is probably a tipping point.

 

[skysh4rk]

I get this, but surely if you over sharpen and pile on the noise reduction (losing the grain), you start to get a digital looking image. There is probably a tipping point.

You can overmanipulate and/or mangle an image in the darkroom too. Garish photographs aren't the exclusive domain of digital photography.

As for grain, there are many film users who try to minimise its appearance (e.g., by shooting large format or using finer-grained films), so I don't see how trying to minimise the appearance of grain necessarily makes any image less film like. Of course, noise reduction might make the photograph look less like what you are wanting from your film photography (I would include myself in this group too usually) and there are also those who like to emphasise grain by shooting smaller formats, using faster film, or altering development.

What is nice about film is that there are so many options (e.g., scan, hand print, project, alter development, etc.) and there is no one right way to do anything.

Film has many looks.

 

[Asha]

I get this, but surely if you over sharpen and pile on the noise reduction (losing the grain), you start to get a digital looking image. There is probably a tipping point.

The "tipping point" is the moment that you see your film image looking like what you would consider a digital image....Solution: Don't over sharpen or pile noise reduction onto your image!......If it is focused correctly and captured at a suitable shutter speed to freeze the moment without blur ( unless intended of course) then a minimal amount of sharpening is required, not loads, to compensate for the softness incurred when scanning the negs. As for noise reduction, Use a slower film speed or assess developing methods ( agitation, developer etc) and chaange accordingly.

Tbh the only way you will obtain the true essence of film is by wet printing the results in a darkroom.

Viewing and working with the digital scans!! from film negatives on a computer screen is, imo, no different to viewing and working a file produced by a digital sensor ( which is essentially what a scanner is!).....You are working with dots ( pixels) either way.

One can play around in PS from now 'til doomsday manipulating film scans tolook like they've come from a DSLR or a making DSLR file look like it was produced by film .

Personally I'd sooner just go out, shoot some film, enjoy the experience of using film cameras, then after development, scanning and printing, feel satisfied of the process that I incorporated to obtain those results, which, if displayed alongside a print produced by a dslr, are often difficult to tell which one is from film.

EDIT: Just to add the processed file (RHS) that you added in your first post looks perfectly fine.
The tones, contrast and luminosity draw the subject matter ou of the image nicely without being overcooked.

If you PP most of your work along those lines then i don't see that you have a need to change much tbh ( unless you are someone that HAS to try and improve all the time ......Personally I'm not, if my method works for me then i stick with it

 

[GreenNinja67]

The question (already suggested) is do you like them?

Photography is subjective and emotive.


I personally think you've done a great job.

 

[excalibur2]

No problem as such, just want to see if I am missing a trick.I am happy with the output. Tried saving to jpg, but was getting too many artifacts in some of the scans.

Well it is nice to know what everyone thinks but what pleases you in the end result is most important (you'd be amazed what some well known photographers do to their shots), if you want you could do a soot and whitewash shot or high key, low key or whatever makes you happy shooting B\W film, make your own "rules" and enjoy.

 

[Asha]

Tried saving to jpg, but was getting too many artifacts in some of the scans.

Just out of curiosity, these "artifacts", are they visible at what would be considered to be a normal viewing size of the image or are we talking when the file is blown up to a million percent!

I ask because pixel peeping, imo, can destroy the initial enjoyment of being pleased with the compsure, tones etc etc of a shot, ...... one zooms in and sees all these faults and decides that the shot is all of a sudden,carp,

Yes, been there done that and no more ( I zoom in to do intricate work but not to find fault)

Returning back to prints.......99% of my photos look MUCH better on PAPER than on a computer screen....Why??, cos the print is made up of liquid ink and not pixels!
If i was to reject images on the grounds of blemishes or artifacts seen on screen at 100% or more,, i would print next to nothing.

Digitisation ( is there such a word ) has a place and without doubt it can offer fantastic results and services in our modern world, however there are times that some of the tried and tested older ways work better!

 

[ChrisR]

@RichardH for someone who has only developed and scanned a few rolls, you should be very pleased. On balance, I prefer the second shot, because the subject stands out a bit more, and there seems to me to be ample contrast and a decent range of tones. I usually do no noise/grain reduction (but I don't shoot HP5, obviously!) and very little sharpening (in fact usually no sharpening as such, just a nudge on the definition slider in Aperture), but each to his or her own. While admitting that my shots might look better if wet printed, that's unlikely to ever happen, and I'm fine with starting with film and (usually) ending with a digital version. I MUCH prefer that to starting with digital in the first place! I do try and print more images these days, but with limited space to put them, it doesn't happen as much as I would like.

I have a general intention, when entering our little "challenges" to print out my candidate shots as part of the selection process, but again this happens less than I would like. When I've done it, I've often changed my mind, or gone back and worked on some of the images a little more. I think I see things differently when it's a print.

 

[RichardH]

Just out of curiosity, these "artifacts", are they visible at what would be considered to be a normal viewing size of the image or are we talking when the file is blown up to a million percent!

Not quite a million %! See this similar shot which I had scanned as a jpg. If you look closely at her woolly hat - particularly on the right edge, something (either the scanner or the jpg algorithm) has given up and produced a hard black line. I see a lot of this in high contrast edges when I scan jpg.

 

[RichardH]

@RichardH for someone who has only developed and scanned a few rolls, you should be very pleased.

Thanks! Roll number 2 was a disaster. Schoolboy error. I have a 2 reel patterson tank and put the reel with the film on top of the empty reel, and poured in only enough chemicals for one reel! . They actually developed pretty well (presumably due to the agitations), but they were very streaky. I'd like to think everyone has similar stories... Also dust was my prime enemy, so I bought an anti static cloth and a can of spray air duster. And that seems to have fixed most of the specks.

 

[excalibur2]

Not quite a million %! See this similar shot which I had scanned as a jpg. If you look closely at her woolly hat - particularly on the right edge, something (either the scanner or the jpg algorithm) has given up and produced a hard black line. I see a lot of this in high contrast edges when I scan jpg.

View attachment 95592

Well I asked that question a few years ago on another forum for a colour shot..h'mmm never got an answer...unless someone knows, the way you would find out if it's the neg or scanner is to do a wet print in the darkroom or maybe look at the neg with a loupe or microscope.

 

[schpleep]

See this similar shot which I had scanned as a jpg. If you look closely at her woolly hat - particularly on the right edge, something (either the scanner or the jpg algorithm) has given up and produced a hard black line. I see a lot of this in high contrast edges when I scan jpg.

If you only see it when you're scanning to jpeg, it could be that there is some extra sharpening being applied during the scanning/conversion to jpeg. Maybe try scanning with no sharpening to see if it clears up?
Or, as already asked above, can you see a corresponding edge on the negative? If it's on the neg. it _could_ be related to how much/little agititation during developing or how long you developed for given the speed the film was shot at etc etc...

Hopefully its the scanner ading sharpening as that'll be a lot easier to pin down than trying to pin down something in your dev process!

 

[john.margetts]

Not quite a million %! See this similar shot which I had scanned as a jpg. If you look closely at her woolly hat - particularly on the right edge, something (either the scanner or the jpg algorithm) has given up and produced a hard black line. I see a lot of this in high contrast edges when I scan jpg.

That could be an acutance effect of the developer - frequent if you use a low agitation developing technique with the film. It is caused by unused developer diffusing into the dark parts of the negative (increasing development) and used developer (and its products) diffusing into the light parts of the negative (reducing development). The end result is the edge of dark parts of the negative being darker than the rest and the edge of pale parts being paler. Most prominent at the edges between very dark and very light areas.

Edit: you can see a pale fringe just below her gloves which is the same effect.