ISO 1600 B&W pics came out crappy!

[Axel]

I just wonder if it's normal that the pictures taken with an ISO 1600 B&W come out with extreme contrasts... The black is very black and the white is very white...

Also, I thought they were good for dark pictures, but the ones I have taken in the dark came out like crap! All black! Is it that hard to take good pictures with an ISO 1600? I took a roll of ISO 100 the other day and they came out extremely nice. And for some reason I was able to use faster shutter speed too, than with the 1600, which surprised me a lot...

Any thoughts on these comments?

 

[ksmattfish]

Contrast is affected by the film type, but also exposure, development, printing, and paper choice.

Low light photography is tricky. I would expect that you will have to practice to get it right on a regular basis.

ISO 1600 is 4 stops faster than ISO 100. In the same lighting conditions you should be able to significantly faster shutter speeds (like from 1/125th at ISO 100 to 1/2000th at ISO 1600), or open the lens up 4 f/stops, or a combination of the two.

Keep trying.

 

[Axel]

Thank you very much!

I would appreciate if somebody could tell me something about the pictures here:







These are both taken at the same spot. Why does the B&W come out so extremely dark in comparison with the color one? THe color picture is an ISO 400 I think.




Here the blacks are very black and the whites very white... I don't like that and don't know if that is typical for ISO 1600 or if it is my fault. AFAIK I adjusted speed and exposure according to the camera's meter and it still comes out this way! The foreground (the car) is acceptable, but the farther away, the more irritating contrast become.




Another example of the same problem as the previous picture...




And the last one which is worth showing.
The rest are basically either pitch black (I can't even recognize what they are!!!) or simply to embarrassing to show...

Well I changed my mind...

This one too...




However, the contrasts are so very hard. I llike them smoother... Is that due to the film speed? It should be said that Fuji themselves developed the film, but they were printed at the local photo shop.

Sorry. I had to edit the post since the Geocities site was crappy. This should be better at least...

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Try putting a green filter when you shoot that corridor.

I don't they're THAT bad. I like quite a lot of them

 

[motcon]

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.


crud.

 

[Axel]

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.


crud.

Should work fine now though...

 

[motcon]

well, without being able to see them, i understand your concern and Matt has the words of wisdom for you.

"Contrast is affected by the film type, but also exposure, development, printing, and paper choice."


development choices and printing methodology are critical, especially in high speed situations. since you don't have control over these keep shooting, but try different metering techniques.

 

[ferny]

I'm new to photography and have never used 1600 or B&W film so this is just me throwing out ideas for the people who know what they're talking about to elaborate on if correct, or dismiss if wrong. It looks like the metering is the problem. It looks to me like the shutter has been open too long, to give you the white areas, but not long enough, to give you the black areas. You can really see that on the corridor photo where the lights are over exposed. It looks like you were shooting things which had very bright and very dark areas at the same time. As a result, the camera has metered to give you the middle ground. This would mean that the dark areas are a little under-exposed and the very light areas slightly over-exposed. But everything in-between should be fine.
When you took the photos outside, was it a bright day? If so, the same thing would be happening.


Just what came to mind when I saw them. I could very easily be talking out of my arse. :mrgreen: And I think they're good. Even if it isn't what you wanted.


What would a green filter do DocFrankenstein? As I said, I've never shot B&W.

 

[Axel]

It was a rather cloudy and grey day... Apart from that, even if it was a bright day, I should be able to tkae picture with a fast shutter speed, which in turn should make them very clear... Just my thoughts...

 

[motcon]

ahhhh, i can see them now.

welcome to shooting at 1600 with lab processing and printing - these are not at all off for that process.

it does appear, however; that some were shot in bright daylight, more than likely late morning to early afternoon as shadows are small, if even evident. 1600 is high contrast film to start. add to it a bright afternoon and, yeah, you'll get contrast from...you know where.

i actually quite like the b&w shot of the hall; i like the textures and patterns. looking at the walls there are most certainly some middle zones captured. your blacks/almost blacks and whites/almost whites have been pushed to all black or all white which is typical for high speed film. if you don't have access to be able to process and print for yourself, the hall shot is near what you can expect from the film in given conditions.

 

[motcon]

It was a rather cloudy and grey day... Apart from that, even if it was a bright day, I should be able to tkae picture with a fast shutter speed, which in turn should make them very clear... Just my thoughts...

i do see some shadows cast and some reflections, so the sun must've been out for some of the shots.

the characteristics of high speed film are grain and contrast, which can be controlled if you develop it yourself.

 

[Axel]

IOW, it doesn't get better that it is? That's disappointing... Especially since I have another 1600 to develop plus one more film in the freezer AND an additional Kodak 3200!!! If this is going to be the result, I seriously have to think about it before shooting more of those... And I don't have the equipment to develop and print myself. Don't have the ability to get a darkroom either... So, I'm pretty sold here!

 

[motcon]

unless you want the contrast and grain for artistic effect, don't use the film where there is adequate light. you could've easily used 400 or even 200 in most of the shots that you posted. keep the high speed for low light situations or artistic effects.

also, if you don't have a good neg, you are s.o.l. you don't need a darkroom to develop your film and you can buy the equipment for about what it costs to have two rolls of b&w film developed by a lab. all u need is water, a couple of chemicals, a tank, a thermometer, about 20 minutes, and a healthy wrist.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

What would a green filter do DocFrankenstein? As I said, I've never shot B&W.

You pretty much answered your own question. I was assuming... from the picture that the corridor walls and tiles were green.

I agree with this 100%

It looks to me like the shutter has been open too long, to give you the white areas, but not long enough, to give you the black areas. You can really see that on the corridor photo where the lights are over exposed. It looks like you were shooting things which had very bright and very dark areas at the same time. As a result, the camera has metered to give you the middle ground. This would mean that the dark areas are a little under-exposed and the very light areas slightly over-exposed. But everything in-between should be fine.

So, his problem lies in too great of dynamic range in that scene.

The (assumed) green walls reflect green light into the camera. The lamps, not technically, but for the purpose of argument emit white light... all spectrum basically.

Now, if we put a green filter, then the light from the walls will be passed through completely. But from the lamps, only a fraction of the spectrum (green) will come through.

But the BW film just records the total amount of photons hitting the sensor. Therefore, with the green filter the contrast of the scene will be significantly lowered allowing it to expose properly.

Makes sense?

Now, I haven't seen the original building. This would only work if the walls are actually green.

 

[markc]

What film is it? But just as important: What chemicals were used to develop it? How long was the film left in the developer? What paper was used and how was it developed? These will have a really big impact.