ISO 1600 B&W pics came out crappy!

Axel · Nov 4, 2004

markc said:
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.

OK. Film used was Fuji Neopan Professional 1600

The rest I have no clue about. The only thing I can say is that my local photo shop had to send it to Fuji's lab to get it developed. Then, when they got it back from the lab, they printed them.

I should probably try to get the film developed and printed at another place with the other one I have here. The only thing is that it is more than embarrassing to have those pictures shown to other people...

At least that's how I feel.

How could I know how they are developed and what chemicals are used? Are there keywords that I should keep in mind?

Oh, one more thing. The prints/CD came out mirrored for some reason... Not that it matters much since I am experimenting, but it's annoying paying full price and get them like that...

Thanks

Trig · Nov 4, 2004

By the way, I really like that corridor shot, It works better in colour, has a matrix feel to it.

ksmattfish · Nov 4, 2004

You may be able to ask the lab to reduce the development time.

I also wonder why you are wanting to shoot 1600 and 3200 in the lighting situations in these pics. ISO 400 would be plenty fast, and if you are using something like Tri-X or HP5, probably a lot less fussy.

If you really do want to shoot the fast stuff, you're going to have to experiment a bit, and shoot 10 or 12 rolls trying different things, until you figure out what works for you. Working through a lab rather than doing it yourself is also going to be a pain.

I've been shooting Tri-X 400 35mm at ISO 1250 (1/3rd stop slower than 1600), and developing it in Diafine developer. I like the results; if I had to complain I'd say that possibly the negs are too low contrast, but that works well in my local labs, and I can deal with it myself in my darkroom. Diafine is a 2 bath developer, and is super easy and almost foolproof to use. Do a search for "tri-x" and "diafine" and you'll come up with all the info you need. Developing BW film at home is cheap and easy.

ksmattfish · Nov 4, 2004

Hey Motcon

Long time no see....

motcon · Nov 4, 2004

ksmattfish said:
Hey Motcon Long time no see....

hey hey Matt! indeed it has been a long time..

Axel · Nov 4, 2004

ksmattfish said:
You may be able to ask the lab to reduce the development time.

I also wonder why you are wanting to shoot 1600 and 3200 in the lighting situations in these pics. ISO 400 would be plenty fast, and if you are using something like Tri-X or HP5, probably a lot less fussy.

Thanks for the suggestions matt.

Well, the only reason that I did it was that I thought it would be better pictures but still that little rough grainy look. Apparently that is not the case and I'll have to try to shoot with 400 film instead, but I doubt it will have that grainy look which I like.
In what lighting situations would you want to use 1600 or 3200? I haven't really thought of the lighting situation, but more so the outcome of the pictures, which seem to be pretty bad in my case at least. THe films that I have in the freezer may stay there until 2007 so I have some time to improve my knowledge about photography... I would hope that'd be enough... What film did you use for the picture at your website (the one with the little girl that is to be clicked on in order to enter your site)? That is an awesome picture, although no roughness to it and definitely not grainy, but still very nice.
I am waiting for some ISO 100 B&W films too. I wanted to experiment with different types of film, since that seems to be the only way to know if it is for you or not.

ksmattfish · Nov 4, 2004

Axel said:
[What film did you use for the picture at your website (the one with the little girl that is to be clicked on in order to enter your site)?

That is Arista Pro 400, which according to most rumors is repackaged Ilford HP5. But it's also from 120 size (medium format) film, so the increased neg size reduces the amount it needs to be enlarged, therby reducing the grain. You might try out Ilford HP5 or Kodak Tri-X; in 35mm there will be more grain evident.

If you want more grain then it's fine to shoot the faster films in brighter situations, you're just going to have to try some different things, and see what works for you. There is no way to learn without shooting and making mistakes.

You may want to search for discussions about the films you are using on the internet. I think you'll find that many photogs feel that the actual speeds of these films are lower than the manufacturer claims. For instance, with Kodak Tmax 3200, if you look closely you'll notice that it's actually "3200p". That little "p" stands for "push", and Tmax 3200 is probably really more of an 800 or 1000 speed film.

I haven't shot the Fuji 1600 in years, but when I did I usually rated it at 800 or 1000. Shooting it at 800 and reducing development time by 20% or so should help reduce contrast.

Axel · Nov 4, 2004

ksmattfish said:
Axel said:

[What film did you use for the picture at your website (the one with the little girl that is to be clicked on in order to enter your site)?

Click to expand...

That is Arista Pro 400, which according to most rumors is repackaged Ilford HP5. But it's also from 120 size (medium format) film, so the increased neg size reduces the amount it needs to be enlarged, therby reducing the grain. You might try out Ilford HP5 or Kodak Tri-X; in 35mm there will be more grain evident.

If you want more grain then it's fine to shoot the faster films in brighter situations, you're just going to have to try some different things, and see what works for you. There is no way to learn without shooting and making mistakes.

You may want to search for discussions about the films you are using on the internet. I think you'll find that many photogs feel that the actual speeds of these films are lower than the manufacturer claims. For instance, with Kodak Tmax 3200, if you look closely you'll notice that it's actually "3200p". That little "p" stands for "push", and Tmax 3200 is probably really more of an 800 or 1000 speed film.

I haven't shot the Fuji 1600 in years, but when I did I usually rated it at 800 or 1000. Shooting it at 800 and reducing development time by 20% or so should help reduce contrast.