First time with Big Mini

[norim_13]

Hi guys!

Well, today I picked up from the store my first roll with my most recent purchase: Konica Big Mini. Also it was my first BW roll.
I was a bit disapointed... I expected more for such a rated camera, and good film (Tri-X, 2015).

Some of the photos:


Big Mini BW by joaonorim, on Flickr


Big Mini BW by joaonorim, on Flickr

Please, check this album for a few more samples.

My main complaint is the excess of grain/noise/whatever, and the complete lack of detail on shadows, and sometimes, totally blown highlights. I would expect this on some scenarios of extreme lighting, but I got this a lot in all the 37 photos...

As I'm not that experienced in film, I'm asking you help to identify the problem, because I really wanted to make this little camera my main pocket friend . I believe there are 4 possibilities: bad camera, bad film, bad development, or bad scanning.

Thanks in advance.

 

[skysh4rk]

Hi guys!

Well, today I picked up from the store my first roll with my most recent purchase: Konica Big Mini. Also it was my first BW roll.
I was a bit disapointed... I expected more for such a rated camera, and good film (Tri-X, 2015).

Some of the photos:


Big Mini BW by joaonorim, on Flickr


Big Mini BW by joaonorim, on Flickr

Please, check this album for a few more samples.

My main complaint is the excess of grain/noise/whatever, and the complete lack of detail on shadows, and sometimes, totally blown highlights. I would expect this on some scenarios of extreme lighting, but I got this a lot in all the 37 photos...

As I'm not that experienced in film, I'm asking you help to identify the problem, because I really wanted to make this little camera my main pocket friend . I believe there are 4 possibilities: bad camera, bad film, bad development, or bad scanning.

Thanks in advance.

These photos look seriously underexposed to me; there's no shadow detail at all. Too many variables and too little information, however, to tell you what would have caused that.

Edit: If you've used fresh film and took the film to a decent lab, then I suppose you'd be looking at a problem with either the camera or the operator of the camera (that's one additional possibility that you didn't mention ). I'm guessing this camera automatically sets the film ISO using the DX coding on the film cassette?

 

[norim_13]

These photos look seriously underexposed to me; there's no shadow detail at all. Too many variables and too little information, however, to tell you what would have caused that.

Edit: If you've used fresh film and took the film to a decent lab, then I suppose you'd be looking at a problem with either the camera or the operator of the camera (that's one additional possibility that you didn't mention ). I'm guessing this camera automatically sets the film ISO using the DX coding on the film cassette?

Yes, the camera reads DX code, and it should calculate correctly the exposure as it's a full automatic camera... I always shot in flash off mode, and just checked, and the battery is ok (I thought that a slight undervoltage from battery could cause meter to miscalcuate exposure).

 

[skysh4rk]

Yes, the camera reads DX code, and it should calculate correctly the exposure as it's a full automatic camera... I always shot in flash off mode, and just checked, and the battery is ok (I thought that a slight undervoltage from battery could cause meter to miscalcuate exposure).

Hmmmm... I ordinarily shoot Tri-X at 200 or 250, which gives a little bit of wiggle room. In fact, I don't shoot any negative film at box speed, so you might want to consider adding at least a stop of exposure compensation, which I believe you can do with the Konica Big Mini.

Have you read through the manual to see how the camera calculates its exposures? I would ordinarily meter for the shadows with negative film, but you're obviously at the mercy of the camera's meter in this instance.

I'd probably run a roll of colour negative through the camera as that helps to eliminate some of your outstanding variables given that the C41 process is completely standardised, unlike B&W development which can vary tremendously. Colour negative is cheaper to develop too.

 

[NickT]

I've shot a lot of Tri-X over the years and I have to agree, your images look very poor indeed. They are either underexposed by a lot or underdeveloped. My money's on the latter, as Tri-X is a very forgiving film and you can hardly notice a stop of underexposure (I shoot it at 800 quite often and don't adjust the development time). I'll bet that the negatives look very thin and you should check the frame numbers for their density. If they are thin and pale, then the processing has been cocked up, if they are nice and dark, then it's the camera.

 

[FujiLove]

You know, that 'clipped black' look is very fashionable in 2014.

Seriously though - you should be getting way better results from Tri-X. Are these scans of prints or negatives? And were they produced by the lab or did you scan the negatives/prints yourself? Which lab did you use? If you did them yourself, what scanner and software did you use?

It's possible you have decent negatives and the scans have clipped both the shadows and highlights. Try putting the negatives up against a white page on your computer screen (makeshift light table) and see if you can see any more detail in the shadows and highlights where they have clipped in the scans.

 

[freecom2]

Check the negatives. All we can see is a potential problem with scanning; many labs are surprisingly poor at scanning B&W.

 

[norim_13]

Hmmmm... I ordinarily shoot Tri-X at 200 or 250, which gives a little bit of wiggle room. In fact, I don't shoot any negative film at box speed, so you might want to consider adding at least a stop of exposure compensation, which I believe you can do with the Konica Big Mini.

Have you read through the manual to see how the camera calculates its exposures? I would ordinarily meter for the shadows with negative film, but you're obviously at the mercy of the camera's meter in this instance.

I'd probably run a roll of colour negative through the camera as that helps to eliminate some of your outstanding variables given that the C41 process is completely standardised, unlike B&W development which can vary tremendously. Colour negative is cheaper to develop too.

I'm going on vacation soon, so I'll try to shoot a cheap roll on the first days and see how it goes...

I've shot a lot of Tri-X over the years and I have to agree, your images look very poor indeed. They are either underexposed by a lot or underdeveloped. My money's on the latter, as Tri-X is a very forgiving film and you can hardly notice a stop of underexposure (I shoot it at 800 quite often and don't adjust the development time). I'll bet that the negatives look very thin and you should check the frame numbers for their density. If they are thin and pale, then the processing has been cocked up, if they are nice and dark, then it's the camera.

I'll leave some samples below. Some numbers can be read very clearly, but there are indeed some things that are a bit washed out...

You know, that 'clipped black' look is very fashionable in 2014.

Seriously though - you should be getting way better results from Tri-X. Are these scans of prints or negatives? And were they produced by the lab or did you scan the negatives/prints yourself? Which lab did you use? If you did them yourself, what scanner and software did you use?

It's possible you have decent negatives and the scans have clipped both the shadows and highlights. Try putting the negatives up against a white page on your computer screen (makeshift light table) and see if you can see any more detail in the shadows and highlights where they have clipped in the scans.

Scans of negatives. The lab developed and scanned the film (the lab is not really important because I'm from Portugal, and you probably wouldn't know the lab ).
Below are two negative samples. I shot them against the window, with a blank page behind.

Check the negatives. All we can see is a potential problem with scanning; many labs are surprisingly poor at scanning B&W.

Could you point something out from these, or it isn't enough?

Thanks again

 

[freecom2]

Underdeveloped negatives. Look at the writing on the side of the negatives (the numbers, the KODAK 400TX) - that writing is usually bold and very clear on properly developed negatives.

 

[NickT]

Underdeveloped for sure. Here's a picture of some properly exposed and developed Tri-X that I did. Just look at the tone density, (the stripes are due to my just taping the negs to my monitor and photographing it with my phone's camera).



Put some colour film in and do another test, I bet the results will be fine. Don't use that lab again though for B/W. Find another or try developing yourself, it's pretty easy and not too expensive if you just want negatives to scan yourself.

 

[FujiLove]

Looks like the lab did a poor job with the negatives.

 

[norim_13]

Thanks guys.
I won't be going there again for BW for sure (and for color I have other options, near home).

@NickT I intend to start developing at home, but this was my first roll, and I don't even have the tank or chemicals yet, neither I have a film scanner (although I'm already checking some Epson V200 and V350 for around 30€, which will be more than enough for my home scannings), so I had to give it for someone to develop it...

Anyway, thanks for the help guys. I'll post some other samples from this camera as soon as I develop a new roll

 

[norim_13]

Well, it was hard to find a place to develop the film here, far from home, but I managed to find a small store that did the job.
This time I was not disapointed with the camera, because metering seems to be fine. Although the camera seems ok, the lab seems to have done crappy job:





Are these stains product of a bad development/scanning, or even bad film (I could have accidentaly picked an out of date film), or should I worry about the camera?

Some came reasonably fine, comparing to the examples above:

 

[NickT]

They look like water marks which occured during drying. The usual way to avoid these is to use soft water with a wetting agent like Photo Flo in the final rinse. I'm guessing that you live in a hard water area?

 

[freecom2]

The first one is water marks, the second is scratches (probably from rough handling). As before, have a look at the negatives - if you angle them, you should be able to see the water marks on the negatives (although scratches may be more difficult to see, especially on a small 35mm frame).

 

[NickT]

I think the short wavy white marks are more likely to be fabric fibres on the negative, but it doesn't really matter as the main point is that once again the end result is spoiled by careless processing. This will become more and more common as mini lab operators get less and less familiar with what constitutes proper practice. Once you do find a decent lab, stick with them. On the plus side it seems that camera and its metering are fine.

 

[norim_13]

They look like water marks which occured during drying. The usual way to avoid these is to use soft water with a wetting agent like Photo Flo in the final rinse. I'm guessing that you live in a hard water area?

I don't live here, I'm on vacation. I really don't know what kind of water they have here...

The first one is water marks, the second is scratches (probably from rough handling). As before, have a look at the negatives - if you angle them, you should be able to see the water marks on the negatives (although scratches may be more difficult to see, especially on a small 35mm frame).

You're right. Most marks were visible in the negatives.

I think the short wavy white marks are more likely to be fabric fibres on the negative, but it doesn't really matter as the main point is that once again the end result is spoiled by careless processing. This will become more and more common as mini lab operators get less and less familiar with what constitutes proper practice. Once you do find a decent lab, stick with them. On the plus side it seems that camera and its metering are fine.

A friend told me about a really good lab which I'm trying fot the next rolls, the big problem are prices: that lab charges almost double comparing to most others... I guess it's worth paying more for better negatives, but it means I'll have to shoot less film... Or that I'll have to start developing at home not only BW, but also C41