What is wrong with this photo?

[traveler_101]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fomapan 100 developed in R09 1:50 @ 9 min 20C. What gives? Is it simply overexposed? A lot of these shots taken in direct sunlight with this film/developer seem washed out. Any comments greatly appreciated.

 

[dave_d]

The negatives are probably over developed but it would be better to judge the actual negative than a scan. You can try reducing your development time about 20% and see how that works.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gsgary]

You developed for about the right time, maybe overexposed, this is Foma 400 a film i really like

 

[traveler_101]

You developed for about the right time, maybe overexposed . . .

 

Thanks. I am bit confused since I have also read since I posted this, that R09 should be diluted 1:40 and development should be only 6-7 minutes. The overexposure could be a result of rating the film @ 80 which I read was a good idea, but then I think one must cut development time. Maybe 6 minutes instead 9 at a stronger concentration of the developer, 40:1 instead of 50:1 amounts to the 20-25% cut in development time Dave recommended.

 

this is Foma 400 a film i really like

 

 

I have wondered about Fomapan 400 but have found very little discussion of it. Looks good. What did you develop it in?

[dave_d]

I based my judgement as if the scan was an accurate representation of the negative. Since there is not a lot of shadow detail I would say the exposure is about the recommended or 1/3 stop under. Your development will control the contrast and since the highlights are bright I am assuming you over developed giving you a high contrast negative.

[250swb]

It is clear it isn't over exposed or 'high contrast' because you have clouds in the sky that are not blown out. And you have plenty of shadow detail. If it is a scanned negative I think the scan looks good, it is what a scan should look like, slightly flat. But, you need to adjust the levels in Lightroom or Photoshop to give it some punch with darker shadows and a darker more contrasty mid tone area in the grass and trees. I opened the image in Photoshop and it took ten seconds to make it look OK. I think perhaps you are trying to achieve a final finished image with your scanner, when you should be using some editing software. If it is a darkroom print you need a grade of paper higher and longer under the enlarger, or longer in the dev.

 

Steve

Edited November 21, 2012 by 250swb

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Judging by the grain and the settings (3200ppi), it is probably a scan so I would increase scan exposure time. By the way, judging by the grain the film seems over-developed.

 

Mildly adjusted:

Edited November 23, 2012 by pico

[Paul Reading]

Looks like the photo wold have been better if an orange filter had been used,

[traveler_101]

Looks like the photo wold have been better if an orange filter had been used,

 

Right, I agree and could have done so, i.e. I have an orange filter for the CV 35/2.5 classic that took this photograph. But then you have to factor in the filter, right? What is that one stop for an orange filter?

[250swb]

Orange is usually two stops.

 

Steve

[Broadside]

Doesn't look like anything a little burning & dodging or it's digital equivalent couldn't easily fix. Mainly just needs to be "printed" a bit darker.

[traveler_101]

Doesn't look like anything a little burning & dodging or it's digital equivalent couldn't easily fix. Mainly just needs to be "printed" a bit darker.

 

Yeah I tend not to manipulate images electronically. If I were to print this (which of course I would not do because I don't think it's a particular interesting photograph--but that aside) . . . if I were to print it would it make a good print? Or would I need to compensate? I ask this because I am just wondering whether there is a substantial difference between the requirements for a good negative for printing versus scanning? At this point it is more a theoretical question, but I am headed to setting up a darkroom--or at least that's my dream.

 

The relevant point is that perhaps this roll of film, I used Fomapan 100, would make good print while it doesn't make particularly good scan? The other rolls of film on the trip were Tri-X--same camera and lenses, same stark lighting conditions--and they produced superb scans.

 

But then the real issue could just be poor developing on my part in the case of the Fomapan (over-developed), as many have noted, exacerbated, perhaps, by the effect of different developers on films exposed in those lighting conditions: Rodinal in this case, D-76d in the case of the Tri-X. ???? So many variables . . .

[250swb]

If you are scanning a film you shouldn't really be aiming to have a finished product at the end of the scan. If you set the scanner to give you a slightly flat scan, where all the tones are present from shadow detail to highlight detail, you have an ideal subject to post process with Photoshop, Lightroom, or Elements. These programmes will then give you far more control over the tonality of you image and simply replace traditional darkroom practice in the choice of paper grade and developer etc.

 

As Pico has shown there is nothing much wrong with the subject negative, it will come out good. And while there is an ideal density range for each type of film and developer combination you shouldn't judge one make of film against another just by the way they look to the naked eye. Different films do different things, some are more contrasty, some less, some have finer grain, some more grain, and it is the skill of the photographer to choose the right film for the right situation.

 

Steve

[Kugelfest]

I scan as tiff raw and then use color perfect for the conversion. Then some slight curves and levels in ps. As mentioned before aim for a "flat" file when scanning.

[david strachan]

Just a quick dodge and burn in a new layer. Always necessary with all B&W images IMHO.

cheers Dave S

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[gsgary]

Thanks. I am bit confused since I have also read since I posted this, that R09 should be diluted 1:40 and development should be only 6-7 minutes. The overexposure could be a result of rating the film @ 80 which I read was a good idea, but then I think one must cut development time. Maybe 6 minutes instead 9 at a stronger concentration of the developer, 40:1 instead of 50:1 amounts to the 20-25% cut in development time Dave recommended.

 

 

 

I have wondered about Fomapan 400 but have found very little discussion of it. Looks good. What did you develop it in?

 

 

R09 Rodinal, but gave it 30 seconds more than on massive dev chart

[fotohuis]

If you look on the developing curve fittings on FP400 you can see that the real E.I. in a regular type developer D76/ID11 is hardly iso 250.

The same for FP200, E.I. 125-160.

 

When you're going to develop in Rodinal/R09 o.s. you will loose in general with this para-amino Phenol developer 1/3F stop on all films.

 

So for N=0 on FP 100 you have to expose on E.I. 80.

For FP 200 E.I. 125 and for FP 400 E.I. 200.

 

When you have a high contrast light situation you can over-expose the film +2/3F-1F stop and cut the developing time around 15%, also depending which agitation method you're using. (N-1).

 

When you have a low contrast light situation you can under-expose the film - 2/3F-1F stop and extend the developing time around 15%. (N+1).

 

Rodinal/R09 o.s. is a high acutance type developer and is working in the surface of any film, hence sharp negatives but more grain, which is also depending how much agitation you're doing with Rodinal. You can compensate the grain by doing less agitation but then you also have to compensate for the less density by a longer developing time.

 

Here an example in 35mm Leica with the FP 200 film, N+1 E.I. 160 and extended dev. time. Rodinal type / R09.

 

 

Because Rodinal/R09 is emphasizing the grain it is in 35mm in fact suitable for the slow- and medium type speed films (iso 25-200). With FP 400 it will give already pretty much grain.

 

Back to the original picture. High contrast light situation: N-1 so expose the FP 100 on E.I. 50-64 and cut the developing time for 15%. In a regular 1+50 Rodinal/R09 o.s. dilution the developer is already working a bit semi-compensating.

 

The combination FP100 and Rodinal/R09 o.s. 1+50 is pretty good so with a little bit experience you can have very good negatives.

The optimum temperature range for using Rodinal/R09 o.s. is between 18C-20C. Above 22C Rodinal/R09 o.s. will generate much more grain. Below 17-18C you will get long developing times which is not always practical.

[Guest dennisVpat]

Fomapan 100 developed in R09 1:50 @ 9 min 20C. What gives? Is it simply overexposed? A lot of these shots taken in direct sunlight with this film/developer seem washed out. Any comments greatly appreciated.

 

 

doesn't look wrong.

 

anytime the whole roll is overexposed by a stop or two do 7 mins