# More images from the film lab (aka, the darkroom)



## 480sparky (Sep 28, 2015)

Having nothing else to do Sunday, I struck out early to try out a couple lenses I received Saturday for the Shen Hao 4x5.... a Camulet 210mm f/5.6 and a Nikkor 90mm f/8.

Here's what I've processed so far:

















Never did put the 90 to use... mostly used the 210mm!


----------



## daisyish (Sep 28, 2015)

Wow love that staircase shot. It is so sharp and clean.


----------



## timor (Sep 28, 2015)

Nice work ! Scans from prints or negatives ? Staircase seems a bit or over exposed or over developed. It looks to me, like the highlights are blocked a bit.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 28, 2015)

I'm still wrestling with getting the scans (from negs) to comply with my wishes.  They density of the negs looks correct, but the contrast of the scans is all across the histogram.  I haven't nailed down a method of bringing both the shadows up and the highlights down without losing one or the other.

It's just gonna take some time until I can characterize my film/developer/time/temp/scanner/software method.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

Scan twice, or three times and make HDR. 
Wet printing might be tricky. Too complicated for masking it will require not only low contrast but also soft developer. Sometimes negative, which look right is not right at all in printing. All depends on opacity of the highlights. What film was that ? And what developer ?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

Ilford Delta 100. DDX for 11:30 at 70F.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

T-grain. All developed together ?


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I'm still wrestling with getting the scans (from negs) to comply with my wishes.  They density of the negs looks correct, but the contrast of the scans is all across the histogram.  I haven't nailed down a method of bringing both the shadows up and the highlights down without losing one or the other.
> 
> It's just gonna take some time until I can characterize my film/developer/time/temp/scanner/software method.



You've got the CanoScan, right? Are you using the advanced settings? You can make adjustments, pick white/black point, adjust curves, adjust color and white balance, etc, before even scanning. I'm still deciding how much I want to do before the scan and how much after, but I do know you can do quite a lot of adjusting before the scan. I'm not at home now, but if you don't already know how to get to these controls and are interested, I can post some screen shots later.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2015)

My goal is usually to make the lowest-contrast scan I can, so I can bridge the highlight/shadow range and get detail in both areas, then adjust the image for contrast later, so the tone curve I apply in the scanning software is a very "soft" one. But agreed, these do seem to have blocked highlights in the stairs and the parking structure images. You will probably be able to figure something out.

Have you tried scanning as "color positive"? That works splendidly for me, and gives me deeper bit depth (but I have different scanner software) than my scanner's B&W settings.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

I've tried scanning as a color positive, but the scanner refuses to scan the entire negative.  I am on the Advanced settings, and choosing the eyedroppers to set white and black points works well for one, but not the other. I use the black eyedropper to set the black point, and the white gets _completely_ blown out.  I try to correct that by using the white eyedropper and I end up with a black or white image.  Not black _and_ white... black _*or*_ white.  Hardly any grays in between.  (I should write a book.... _One Shade of Gray)_

I'm not gonna mess with them any more until I can dunk some prints in the darkroom. My goal is to shoot for wet prints.  I'd rather invest my time in 'getting it right' there as opposed to adjusting my field & film-developing techniques aimed at digital scans.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I'm not gonna mess with them any more until I can dunk some prints in the darkroom. My goal is to shoot for wet prints.  I'd rather invest my time in 'getting it right' there as opposed to adjusting my field & film-developing techniques aimed at digital scans.


That's very good perspective, but even so negative might be exposed and developed for specific type of paper, or, one should have stacks of different papers as the contrast  they can deliver varies. Even with VC papers, from different manufacturers. RC papers do not even react to different developers as usually they have developing agents embedded in emulsion. (Part of bad opinion about them.) In general less contrasty negatives are easier to print, but they should be also easier to scan.
I am interested, how would be your wet printing of this negatives, especially the staircase.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

timor said:


> ......., but even so negative might be exposed and developed for specific type of paper..........



I understand that.  That's why I'm not too concerned with any scans until I characterize the entire process to produce a wet print I'm satisfied with.


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I've tried scanning as a color positive, but the scanner refuses to scan the entire negative.  I am on the Advanced settings, and choosing the eyedroppers to set white and black points works well for one, but not the other. I use the black eyedropper to set the black point, and the white gets _completely_ blown out.  I try to correct that by using the white eyedropper and I end up with a black or white image.  Not black _and_ white... black _*or*_ white.  Hardly any grays in between.  (I should write a book.... _One Shade of Gray)_
> 
> I'm not gonna mess with them any more until I can dunk some prints in the darkroom. My goal is to shoot for wet prints.  I'd rather invest my time in 'getting it right' there as opposed to adjusting my field & film-developing techniques aimed at digital scans.



Yeah, I've not had much luck with the eye droppers, but using the little arrow sliders on the graph works better - easier to fine tune the greys.

(Heh..._One Shade of Grey_...clever  )


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

Eydroppers or sliders... they do the same thing, one is just faster than the other.  The eyedroppers get me to black *or* white in less time than the sliders.  Same result, though.


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Eydroppers or sliders... they do the same thing, one is just faster than the other.  The eyedroppers get me to black *or* white in less time than the sliders.  Same result, though.



I had done this anyway because I was curious, but I am scanning film right now anyway so I figured it would be a good time to do a comparison.

Here is the straight scan of a shot:
 

When I try using the eye droppers, I end up with a fairly high-contrast image and either darks are too dark or the highlights are blown.

Here is the same image using the sliders on the graph to create lower contrast:


And just because it was mentioned, here it is a color scan with Fade Correction on Low:


Side by side:

  

In Corel, I applied the same basic steps and levels (the eye dropper and then the shadows/midtone/highlight adjustment tool to fine tune) for the first two, and I did nothing but greyscale the color scan in the case of the third image. Here are the results, side by side (same order):

  

Probably better to look at them larger to see the differences in the adjusted images.


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

Though the first two end up looking essentially the same, I found it easier to work with the lower contrast scan and had more flexibility in how much or little contrast I wanted. 

This, by the way, it not trying to prove anything one way or another. It's just data and experimentation, and since you're trying to figure out ways to scan, I thought it might be useful.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

Leonore, you are making promises for months now, that you will start wet printing. And ?


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

timor said:


> Leonore, you are making promises for months now, that you will start wet printing. And ?



Oh honey, I never promised I'd be starting soon! I just said I wanted to start _some_day  I can't right now. I don't have the time, the money for equipment, or the space at the moment. It's going to take me a while longer before I can even think about starting. The only thing I can do is the occasional direct positive and I haven't even done one of those in a very long time.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

limr said:


> .....I can't right now. I don't have the time, the money for equipment, ..........



So this means you don't even have the hardware?  I fancy I know where you can get a darkroom for free.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

limr said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Leonore, you are making promises for months now, that you will start wet printing. And ?
> ...


AAOOAA ?!?! I thought the same as Sparky.


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > .....I can't right now. I don't have the time, the money for equipment, ..........
> ...



Nope. No enlarger or lenses for me 

You both realize I'll probably be developing prints in Caffenol, right?


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2015)

limr said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


If that will be FB paper, why not !


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 29, 2015)

timor said:


> If that will be FB paper, why not !



I mean _hardware._.. enlarger, neg board, lens, trays, timer, safelight, etc.  The soup and paper is probably not included (considering with many free darkrooms that stuff is from the Nixon years).


----------



## limr (Sep 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > If that will be FB paper, why not !
> ...



He was just responding to my Caffenol comment


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2015)

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd..........

a wet print:


----------



## timor (Sep 30, 2015)

You did it ! 
Print in this photo looks so much better, than the scan ! The staircase structure has much more texture to it, the wall to, however there are still some very white places on it. Maybe just it is the wall, with white areas strongly reflecting the light. I think pulling the negative during development would tame a bit that reflectance. Sometimes such a mumbo-jumbo is needed. Maybe you should use colder developer, maybe one working very softly like D23.
Now, out of curiosity, is the print made on warm paper, or the brownish tint is created dy digital camera ?


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 1, 2015)

Tint is from fluorescent lighting.  My phone's flash is too blue.


----------



## timor (Oct 1, 2015)

But the real print would look good in sepia.


----------



## limr (Oct 1, 2015)

timor said:


> But the real print would look good in sepia.



And we're back to Caffenol!


----------

