Diagnose my negative please

ok, i am now lost, this print looks underexposed, as does the negative,. there is no detail in the shadows.

at least on my monitor it is also very dark, so perhaps that is the scanning, but scanning should not effect the negative as to hide details.
 
Ann, the only loss of detail I see in the neg is the line of people. According the the neg, the building should have come up near white in the print.

The print is also dark on my monitor, btw, and here's where one of us is thinking backwards. The longer the exposure, the darker the print.
 
i know about the length of exposure. i have been doing darkroom printing for 60 years.

there is also a loss of detail in separation of each floor, but if this is what the shooter wanted then that is their decision.

this is a good example of why it is so difficult to assest images on line and in a computer. too many variables come into play, especially negatives.
 
i know about the length of exposure. i have been doing darkroom printing for 60 years.

there is also a loss of detail in separation of each floor, but if this is what the shooter wanted then that is their decision.

this is a good example of why it is so difficult to assest images on line and in a computer. too many variables come into play, especially negatives.
I inverted both of his 35mm negs in photoshop, and although no.16 came up looking normal, no.17 did look underexposed. I'm guessing his camera metered off the white building, throwing it off a stop or so.
 
interesting i would never have thought about using ps to view some one else's work either as a postive or a negative, altho , i view all my digal files as an inverted image, meaning negative.

i was only looking at number 17 and only on the thread which it was posted.

is it common practive to copy images from a thread and "play" with them with an editing program?
 
Helen B said:
By the way Chris' method of fixing for 30 seconds longer than the clearing time is less than both Kodak and Ilford recommend - and I also think that it is a bad recommendation.

See, there she goes again. And my film comes out fine. Read the whole text before jumping on as usual. 'Film clears after 2:30. I tack on 30 seconds to total but 5 minutes would not be . . .' Those who do not suffer from knee jerk reactions to what I write would maybe take away, fix for double clearing time and then add 30 sec. to be safe. I am now the 'Helen criticizes what I say' police. New mission in life.
 
My apologies Chris. I mistakenly interpreted your statement "I have found that the film clears after 2:30. I still tack on an extra 30 seconds, but given that, five minutes isn't totally without the realm of possibility." to mean that you fixed for 30 seconds more than the clearing time (ie 3 minutes) and so a fixing time of 5 minutes (as mentioned by Garbz) was not excessive. There's no mention in your original post about doubling the clearing time.

It's a shame that you can't discuss things in a civil manner, without getting personal.

Best,
Helen
 
Early I am using Trix not Tmax.

Also it may have been metered off the building. Still much darker than the standard grey though. And probably 4 stops overall darker than the photos my camera has given every other time I photograph a white building that is directly lit by the sun.

Also that's not a print. It's a scan. Print exposing times have nothing to do with it.

Btw no good comparing frame 16 to frame 17, unless this film was in-fact ISO100 we just came out of a tunnel with very bland back lighting and my camera was set to over expose 2 stops. For the record those negatives didn't come out either. Frame 16 was a mistake which I reshot anyway on the holga.

By the way I rewashed the negatives for 10 min and it worked a treat. Obviously it didn't fix the density issue, but it definitely solved the purple tinge problem. Both films look nearly identical.

film.jpg
 
Also that's not a print. It's a scan. Print exposing times have nothing to do with it.
There's some confusion here. I was referring to the print made from the neg. Although the neg was underexposed, you should have been able to come up with a much more usable print. (or positive made from the neg)

PS I'm glad you found the reason for the purplish negs. As I remember, the last few rolls I did had 'em.
 
No no no. The confusion is still here. I just started developing. I have not yet got to making prints. That "print" of the casino building is just straight negative to my scanner. I was just showing what the final scan came out to be.

What I was saying is I find it hard to believe that the photo itself is under exposed. The entire roll came out like this (even a portrait of an undead guy in the shade, which everyone would expect to be exactly middle grey), the camera was set correctly, and I've verified that the light metre is working. I may have left my developing times too short producing an under dense (what's the opposite of dense?) negative.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top