B&W Portrait Question and Exposure Diagnosis

[radioguy]

Hi Folks!

I'm new here and somewhat new to film photography. I used a bunch of cheap point and shoots as a kid, but now that my mom has retired from professional photography and switched to a digital P&S, I've inherited her Minolta XG-7 and X-700. I've shot five rolls of Ilford Delta-400 B&W with the XG-7 in aperture priority mode, after reading every black and white photography book in my local library. So far I've only developed and printed one roll through the local camera shop, and I had such a bad experience with them that my other four rolls remain undeveloped until I can get enough cash to send them off somewhere better. I've certainly got a lot to learn in terms of choosing subjects and composing. However, there are some prints that I think had potential to be really interesting shots, but they just lack oomph and I'm not quite sure why. My inclination is that they are underexposed and that my aperture setting was a bit too fast, as I was trying to get some interesting depth of field effects without really understanding what I was doing and used the fastest stop the camera's meter would let me get away with without having a shutter speed under 1/60. These were shot in a very shady park on a very sunny day around noon, using the XG-7 in aperture priority mode with a 28mm Albinar macro lens @ F/8 on Ilford Delta-400 film. I tried to keep shutter speed between 1/60 and 1/250. These were scanned in greyscale at 300DPI on an Epson Workforce 500, if that matters.




My other question is about shooting black and white portraits. I would like to take very close in head shots that capture a LOT of detail and texture in the face. The image I have in my mind are the close-ups of Abraham Lincoln where you can see every line and blemish in his face. Would using a very slow film like ISO-100/200 and long exposure combined with front-on window lighting achieve this sort of result? I know I can only try and experiment but before shooting a bunch of film and paying for processing I'd like to know I'm at least in the ballpark =)

 

[vintagesnaps]

For what looks like a sunny day outdoors I would typically be using 100 speed film (the 400 ISO would probably be too light sensitive). The midday sun often isn't particularly the best time of day as the light is pretty harsh, and it looks like a couple of the shots have some sort of glare.

Did you use f8 for all the photos? I might want to use a larger aperture for photos like your close up shots of the plant, but for something off a little more in the distance I'd more likely use a smaller aperture. But it depends on what the meter indicates.

I usually like to stay at 1/125 or faster on sunny days; I can manage with 1/60 if need be especially in somewhat lower light but I find that a little harder to do handheld. Maybe it would help to do a test roll where you can vary your camera settings taking a few pictures each of the same subject/scene, jot down notes, and compare to help you figure out what works best.

Sharon

 

[Vautrin]

The scanning actually does matter a lot.

Specifically:

1) Different softwares will have different image quality. Software like Vuescan (what I use) will typically have better image quality then the software that comes with your scanner
2) The file type you save to will have an effect. Something like DNG or TIF will have more info you can use in post-processing
3) The files (just looking quickly) don't look like high quality scans. Higher resolution scans will give you more to work with
4) I find a little post processing necessary after scanning. Typically levels, exposure, and contrast all need some tweaking after scanning...

Eyeballing your photos I think that (esp if you're scanning negatives) you need to do a little digital clean up...

 

[bsinmich]

Bracketing, especially the one looking up through the trees, is one way to make sure you get a correct exposure. A picture at what reads proper exposure and one a stop over and one a stop under. Using the same photo as an example you will have a problem getting an accurate reading. You have bright areas and dark side by side and that confuses the metering.

 

[Vautrin]

film has MUCH more dynamic range than digital

you can shoot film that is so dark you cant see through it, and still get a good picture in the darkroom. you can shoot film so light its clear to the naked eye, and still get a picture in the darkroom

the ops problem is not bracketing its how hes processing his photos

 

[Ysarex]

film has MUCH more dynamic range than digital

you can shoot film that is so dark you cant see through it, and still get a good picture in the darkroom. you can shoot film so light its clear to the naked eye, and still get a picture in the darkroom

the ops problem is not bracketing its how hes processing his photos

Film has less dynamic range than digital. We've been through this before many many times here at TPF. A raw file from a digital camera equipped with a 14 bit AD converter delivers more usable dynamic range than any film. Film versus digital dynamic range wasn't brought up and didn't need to be. The OP is shooting film and shouldn't have to worry about how it compares to digital.

Radioguy, the scanner does matter, it matters a lot. The Epson Workforce 500 is in the range of low to poor quality. The suggestion to consider a slower speed film outdoors has merit, but above all else right now you need access to good quality scans from your negatives. The EP WF-500 just won't get you there.

Joe

 

[vintagesnaps]

I usually use the higher res setting instead of 300 dpi on my printer/scanner; it gives me a better quality/sharper looking image. I've also had film scanned. But I find it depends on the quality of the original image how good it looks once it's scanned and then printed.

Sharon

 

[Vautrin]

film has MUCH more dynamic range than digital

you can shoot film that is so dark you cant see through it, and still get a good picture in the darkroom. you can shoot film so light its clear to the naked eye, and still get a picture in the darkroom

the ops problem is not bracketing its how hes processing his photos

Film has less dynamic range than digital. We've been through this before many many times here at TPF. A raw file from a digital camera equipped with a 14 bit AD converter delivers more usable dynamic range than any film. Film versus digital dynamic range wasn't brought up and didn't need to be. The OP is shooting film and shouldn't have to worry about how it compares to digital.

My point regarding dynamic range (and the reason I bring it up), is the OPs photos do not look like if they're bracketed they'll be the correct exposure. The exposures look about right -- as if he has an in camera light meter.

Even if he does bracket, you're going to have difficulty stitching it into an HDR, or any modern way to extend dynamic range.

With regards to whether or not film has superior dynamic range, if you simply measure the difference in stops between lightest and darkest point in the image, or the number of colors you get in an image, you may indeed find digital to have a higher "dynamic range"

However, blown out highlights in film will have recoverable picture (the film just gets darker in brighter light). The same cannot be said about digital, and having shot both film and digital for years, I can tell you prior to some very modern dslrs (d700) I never felt digital could match film, and still do not for a low end camera. And the d700 does indeed give a 14 bit raw file.

 

[Ysarex]

film has MUCH more dynamic range than digital

you can shoot film that is so dark you cant see through it, and still get a good picture in the darkroom. you can shoot film so light its clear to the naked eye, and still get a picture in the darkroom

the ops problem is not bracketing its how hes processing his photos

Film has less dynamic range than digital. We've been through this before many many times here at TPF. A raw file from a digital camera equipped with a 14 bit AD converter delivers more usable dynamic range than any film. Film versus digital dynamic range wasn't brought up and didn't need to be. The OP is shooting film and shouldn't have to worry about how it compares to digital.

My point regarding dynamic range (and the reason I bring it up), is the OPs photos do not look like if they're bracketed they'll be the correct exposure. The exposures look about right -- as if he has an in camera light meter.

Even if he does bracket, you're going to have difficulty stitching it into an HDR, or any modern way to extend dynamic range.

With regards to whether or not film has superior dynamic range, if you simply measure the difference in stops between lightest and darkest point in the image, or the number of colors you get in an image, you may indeed find digital to have a higher "dynamic range"

However, blown out highlights in film will have recoverable picture (the film just gets darker in brighter light). The same cannot be said about digital, and having shot both film and digital for years, I can tell you prior to some very modern dslrs (d700) I never felt digital could match film, and still do not for a low end camera. And the d700 does indeed give a 14 bit raw file.

I have a 38 year professional history with film. Film has a response curve -- it just gets darker until it shoulders out and then it no longer provides useful data. Digital likewise has limits on both ends where there is no longer useful data. Prior to modern digital cameras, digital couldn't match film, that is correct. Low end digital cameras are of course still limited, but this isn't the past, this is now. You made your statement present tense. If you want to say; film had MUCH more dynamic range than digital, you'll get no argument from me. Digital technology has continued to advance and your original assertion is no longer correct.

Joe

 

[smithdan]

I'm not familiar with the later auto featured film cameras, have auntie's Konica, same vintage as your XG7 but have never used it. Weakest link in your posts is the scanner. Ignoring that, the light on that particular day was difficult and hard for your camera's abilities to read. Also, good developing can be hard to find.

I don't know if your Minolta has a manual feature, some were designed to work mostly on auto.
I can get much more accurate exposure choices using a separate light meter. For this particular day, taking incident readings in the sunlit areas and in the shadows then using settings in between would get you closer.


Developing your own film is almost a necessity, especially now. Not hard and adds to the experience, like tying your own flies.


Epson V 500 is not very expensive, and although there are better ones out there it works fine at an amature level.

 

[radioguy]

Hi Everyone!

First off thanks to everyone for the useful info. I should mention now that it's well after the fact that these scans were actually taken from 4x6 prints. I have precisely zero developing equipment so these were developed and printed at a local camera shop. These scans are pretty terrible I'll be the first to say, but it seems like they were good enough to get the basic idea across. My camera does have fully manual mode, but since it does have the TTL light meter I decided it was better to use the auto mode than try to guess at it. So here's my takeaway from this thread:

- Get a (spot?) light meter.
- Bracket iffy exposures.
- Use higher quality scans / scanner (anyone have an opinion on good negative scanners in the sub-$100 range?).
- Develop my own film (developing kit arrives Friday!).
- Folks will argue digital vs. analog anywhere.

As a side note, I do own a digital point and shoot for taking everyday photos, but I will never, ever buy a DSLR. The reason being that the investment required to shoot digital easily runs into the thousands of dollars once the price of camera + lenses + media + computer + software, as well as time and money spent maintaining and learning all this stuff is all factored in, vs. the $200 outlay for my two Minoltas, four lenses, and developing kit. The benefits of digital in terms of convenience and processing are minimal given the extreme cost difference. Sure you could spend thousands on film gear but I'm talking strictly minimum "get started" costs. For *slightly* better image quality, *slightly* faster processing time, and *slightly* better post-processing capabilities, thousands more dollars doesn't make sense to me, especially when 5 years from now all that stuff will be obsolete and incompatible, whereas a camera just over half a decade older than me still takes perfectly good pictures. Just my humble opinion though!

 

[Ysarex]

Hi Everyone!

First off thanks to everyone for the useful info. I should mention now that it's well after the fact that these scans were actually taken from 4x6 prints. I have precisely zero developing equipment so these were developed and printed at a local camera shop. These scans are pretty terrible I'll be the first to say, but it seems like they were good enough to get the basic idea across. My camera does have fully manual mode, but since it does have the TTL light meter I decided it was better to use the auto mode than try to guess at it. So here's my takeaway from this thread:

- Get a (spot?) light meter.

You should be able to use and adapt to the existing internal meter in your camera.

- Bracket iffy exposures.

Unless you're sure, it's always a safe hedge.

- Use higher quality scans / scanner (anyone have an opinion on good negative scanners in the sub-$100 range?).

No such option exists for under $100.00. This is where film costs as much or more than digital. Further down you mention time spent; I'm still scanning film from 25 years ago and I'll die before I finish. You need to scan 35mm film at a res. of at least 2400 dpi with a DMAX range of as much as 3.5. Cheap flatbed scanners with film adapters do a poor job. You can look for a used scanner but you should still expect to pay over $100.00, unless you can find a way to adapt an old SCSI device to a modern computer. If you're shopping new you might look at something like a Pacific Image MemorEase on the low end, but that's pretty low end. What you really want is something like this used: Excellent Condition Nikon Coolscan V Ed 35mm Film Scanner w Nikon Slide Adapter | eBay

- Develop my own film (developing kit arrives Friday!).

Have fun. Please dispose of any hazardous waste appropriately.

- Folks will argue digital vs. analog anywhere.

I don't argue, I know.

As a side note, I do own a digital point and shoot for taking everyday photos, but I will never, ever buy a DSLR. The reason being that the investment required to shoot digital easily runs into the thousands of dollars once the price of camera + lenses + media + computer + software, as well as time and money spent maintaining and learning all this stuff is all factored in, vs. the $200 outlay for my two Minoltas, four lenses, and developing kit. The benefits of digital in terms of convenience and processing are minimal given the extreme cost difference. Sure you could spend thousands on film gear but I'm talking strictly minimum "get started" costs. For *slightly* better image quality, *slightly* faster processing time, and *slightly* better post-processing capabilities, thousands more dollars doesn't make sense to me, especially when 5 years from now all that stuff will be obsolete and incompatible, whereas a camera just over half a decade older than me still takes perfectly good pictures. Just my humble opinion though!

The digital camera I use most often costs $349.00 and equals if not surpasses your old film cameras for IQ. I didn't spend thousands and you're on track to quickly spend more. You're already down $200.00. By the time you get a decent scanner and your processing kit we're even. We both need a computer and software and then you have to keep paying for film and chemicals. Every time I click the shutter now it's free.

Good luck,
Joe

 

[Vautrin]

why do you want to scan the images?

it may be fine for your uses just to print (i find that fun as well)

joe is right... while film can be fun and a great learning tool, its not cheaper than digital unless youre shooting medium format

 

[bsinmich]

If you are going to develop your own film you should get into making your own prints. That is where you can do what YOU want to the final print. Cropping, dodging, burnning in, are all some of the things you don't get from the local services. All of those negatives could make great prints. Watch E-Bay for some great bargains on enlargers and other equipment. Craigs list is also a good source. For $10 I got 2 large boxes of darkroom equip that would have cost me a lot, just because he got out of the darkroom work and went digital. I got 6 dial thermometers, Patterson tank & reels, Unicolor tank and reels, 150 sheets of Ilford paper like I use, 3 safelights, and about 20 rolls of Tmax 35mm plus a lot of misc. equipment.

 

[radioguy]

I would love to make my own prints but unfortunately I don't have sufficient space for it in my apartment. There is a public darkroom here in town but it costs $100 to take their class, and then $30/mo after that for access, so I figure $130 on a negative scanner will be sufficient to at least see the shots, and if there are any I really want printed I can do so the old fashioned way.