david878 Posted July 18, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Everyone, I was just wondering if some of the more experienced members here would be able to give me some tips on using Tmax 400 and B+W film in general. I recently got my first roll of B+W film developed and printed, and the results were not particularly pleasant. It appears the majority of the pictures were under exposed, See attached, Yet, i'm quite certain I went by the M6 Meter, to the "dot" Please note I did rate the film at ISO800 , anticipating poor lighting at the restaurant. So the questions is, should I be exposing for the Dark areas or reading the meter off my hand, or some other method? This centre weight thing is a bit funny, when the frame is filled with extremes of light tones. For the picture I used a M6 TTL with elmarit 90 2.8 and Zeiss 50 f/2. PS: Is $37 to dev and printing the normal price for B+W? I felt like I got ripped off some how? How does other members do prints? If at home is it any cheaper when factoring paper and chemicals and stuff? At $37 + $11 for the film = $48 a pop, it might be cheaper to buy a MM. Thanks in Advance, Dave. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183883-tips-for-using-tmax-400-and-b-w-in-general/?do=findComment&comment=2065446'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Hi david878, Take a look here Tips for using Tmax 400 and B + W in general.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted July 18, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 18, 2012 The obvious question would be 'did you tell the lab you uprated the film to 800 ISO?' It looks to me a little like underexposure and under development. But two things are apparent from having a closer look at your picture in Photoshop, one is that there is a lot more detail hidden in the shadows, and two, more alarmingly, there is a massive amount of dust or contamination on the neg. Not what I would call a good result from a pro lab. As for costs of processing it is much, much, much cheaper after the initial purchase of a daylight tank, some chemicals and thermometer etc. Add a cheap (but good) Plustek scanner to the kit and you would pretty soon start to see a cost benefit, although it may just encourage you to shoot more film. For prints you can simply email your file to a print shop. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 18, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 18, 2012 Yes, did you inform the lab that you had pushed one stop? If you do your own post-processing you'll quite easily be able to recover a stop in photoshop, though not in the darkest areas. But the image will look lighter. 37$ for developing and printing sounds much but it varies a lot between labs. Personally I only have rolls developed and scan myself. Developing a roll of b/w is between 4-5€ here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 18, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 18, 2012 Ilford Lab charge £10.99 ($18) for dev and print to 6x4inch from silver B&W film here. Their service is very good indeed. http://www.ilfordlab.com/images/ORDER%20FORM%20FILM%20D+P.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted July 18, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 18, 2012 Ciao David, BW photography is true photography. A must are Ansel Adams' books about photography. Three books about the camera, The negative and The print. This will help a lot. If I were you, I would start with cromogenic BW. You get consistent results because these negativs are developed with automated C41 process like color negatives These films have very fine grain despite being 400 because use die technology. Classic negatives are a second step and worth to be' used if you develope yourself. If you do not, it does not make sense. One tip: different films differ for grain, but also for "color rendition" Even if BW, different films render the same color in different greys A good example are T-Max 100 and Ilford FP4 125 If you shoot a cucasian face, on T-Max you get a dark grey, on FP4 you get a light grey. The difference is huge. Which to choose? No general rules. You have to try and to choose the one you like. This is what I love of BW: the lack of colors unleashes creativity (I'm daltonic :-) ) Ciao Franco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david878 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted July 20, 2012 Thanks for all the comments. Just to clarify ,I did tell the lab it was rated at ISO 800. Regarding the poor scratches and scans , the picture was scanned by my home scanner , ie . It was a scanned printed photo, the scratches were probably dust. In considering the cost i agree with the replys here, in that I think setting up home development may be cheaper. I will do this . With regards to the exposure metre, should I be exposing for highlights or dark bits, when a scene presents with extremes of both? Thanks Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted July 20, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for all the comments. Just to clarify ,I did tell the lab it was rated at ISO 800. Regarding the poor scratches and scans , the picture was scanned by my home scanner , ie . It was a scanned printed photo, the scratches were probably dust. In considering the cost i agree with the replys here, in that I think setting up home development may be cheaper. I will do this . With regards to the exposure metre, should I be exposing for highlights or dark bits, when a scene presents with extremes of both? Thanks Dave. Hi Dave, Developing your own films is IMO the best way to learn to understand the film. I use Tmax developer for Tmax films and it served me well. ( In fact I alway use Tmax, but that's a different story ) . With regards to the exposure metre, I would advise you to use a grey-card or the inside of your hand, to measure the light. Think before you shoot, which part of you photo is important to be seen and measure the light in that spot. But read the books of Ansel Adams. They will be a great help. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183883-tips-for-using-tmax-400-and-b-w-in-general/?do=findComment&comment=2067088'>More sharing options...
xalo Posted July 20, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 20, 2012 So the questions is, should I be exposing for the Dark areas or reading the meter off my hand, or some other method? This centre weight thing is a bit funny, when the frame is filled with extremes of light tones. For the picture I used a M6 TTL with elmarit 90 2.8 and Zeiss 50 f/2. Hi Dave, The decision on what to meter and which meter reading to follow (or not) depends on many variables (subject, lights, film and type - e.g. neg. vs. slide, development), but as said before, rule of thumb is to expose for what you find most important in the picture (here perhaps the faces?). It also depends on your picture style (the often quoted jukebox by Robert Frank is an example for exposing not by the book). Anyway, I never considerd the film Ms' meter as "centre-weighted", rather as a larger spot meter, although by figures it would not seem so (e.g. in the M6 TTL's manual - about 23% of the frame's surface is metered). You may know this already, but changing focal lengths induces changing the size of the metered area in relation to the finder, whereas the relative size of the metered area within the given frame in the finder remains the same. So you need to make sure that what you want to read as "18%-grey-equivalent" falls into the metered circle within the frame. If much of the white shirt was within this measured circle, the meter's red dot indicated that the pic would be exposed to reproduce the white shirt as 18% grey - and all the rest accordingly darker. In such cases you could either voluntarily compensate/"overexpose" (e.g. leaving only the right arrow on), or meter a different, darker area (or grey card etc.). Cheers, Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted July 20, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 20, 2012 With regards to the exposure metre, should I be exposing for highlights or dark bits, when a scene presents with extremes of both? . Read Ansel Adams' books and learn zone system You will understand in full how to expose to get The best out of your negatives Franco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 20, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 20, 2012 Expose For the shadows and develop for the highlights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler_101 Posted July 20, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 20, 2012 Expose For the shadows and develop for the highlights. Seen this before: what does it actually mean? I apologize for being slow. Underexpose and overdevelop? Edit: overexpose and under-develop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted July 20, 2012 Share #12 Posted July 20, 2012 Actually the other way around, to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights means to over-expose and under-develop. One will stay on the safe side then. Adding more exposure will add more details to the darker part of the image. This will add more details to the shadows without overblowing the highlights in the shorter development. When developing longer, the dense areas (bright at the scene) become even denser without adding more details to the least dense areas (dark at the scene or shadows). The price is easily explained - when I ask for a push or pull development in my lab, it costs me 10 Euros, just for development, since the film will be handled manually and separately. Developing one's own films gives one the full freedom to control all parameters. This is one of the points, which really fascinates me with black and white films, the almost unlimited possibilities to change the tonality by choosing film, exposure, development and colour filtering and to choose the texture and grain by chooosing the film. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler_101 Posted July 21, 2012 Share #13 Posted July 21, 2012 Developing one's own films gives one the full freedom to control all parameters. This is one of the points, which really fascinates me with black and white films, the almost unlimited possibilities to change the tonality by choosing film, exposure, development and colour filtering and to choose the texture and grain by chooosing the film. Stefan Thanks again. Yes, absolutely agree about processing: I have started developing my own stuff and I think that is essential to the whole enterprise giving greater creative possibilities. Otherwise, I will simply go back to shooting .jpegs in digital. Hope the OP will see this as well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted July 21, 2012 Share #14 Posted July 21, 2012 Pushing a film is just not a regular way for a film exposure. It's an emmergency step used in the press photography in the past. The film curve will be very steep and you have a lack of details in the shadows. The contrast will be high too. So start with a regular exposure and indeed expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. A good combination is Tmax 400 E.I. 200-400 and HC-110 dilution B. But there are so many other possibilities. Making your own film development is easy and cheap too: For above 135-36 film less then Eur. 1,- DIY. When you want doing it by the lab: Indeed try chromogenic B&W films, XP2 super for example, E.I. 200-250 and then in a regular C41 development. With these suggestions you will improve your result over 100%, I am sure about it. Best regards, Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david878 Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted July 22, 2012 Ciao David,BW photography is true photography. A must are Ansel Adams' books about photography. Three books about the camera, The negative and The print. This will help a lot. Ciao Franco Again I am amazed at the wealth of knowledge present in this forum. Thank you. I have tried search for some books by Ansel Adams' books, I seem to be running into a lot of coffee table books, none on actual theory or method. Any Recommendations? I did see this one "The Making of 40 Photographs" is this the book? Thanks Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david878 Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted July 22, 2012 Thanks again. Yes, absolutely agree about processing: I have started developing my own stuff and I think that is essential to the whole enterprise giving greater creative possibilities. Otherwise, I will simply go back to shooting .jpegs in digital. Hope the OP will see this as well! Yes I do see this. I actually just brought all apparatuses. All I need to do is go shoot a roll and wait for the stuff arrive. By the way, can any one recommend a developer that is more newbie friendly? I will be using Tmax 400. Thanks Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 22, 2012 Share #17 Posted July 22, 2012 Again I am amazed at the wealth of knowledge present in this forum. Thank you. I have tried search for some books by Ansel Adams' books, I seem to be running into a lot of coffee table books, none on actual theory or method. Any Recommendations? I did see this one "The Making of 40 Photographs" is this the book? Thanks Dave. You need to find his book "The Negative" Amazon.com: The Negative (Ansel Adams Photography, Book 2) (9780821221860): Ansel Adams, Robert Baker: Books Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 22, 2012 Share #18 Posted July 22, 2012 By the way, can any one recommend a developer that is more newbie friendly? I will be using Tmax 400. Kodak sell special developer for TMax films, but their HC110 is an excellent economical all rounder. I rarely use anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david878 Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #19 Posted July 22, 2012 Hi Dave, Anyway, I never considerd the film Ms' meter as "centre-weighted", rather as a larger spot meter, although by figures it would not seem so (e.g. in the M6 TTL's manual - about 23% of the frame's surface is metered). You may know this already, but changing focal lengths induces changing the size of the metered area in relation to the finder, whereas the relative size of the metered area within the given frame in the finder remains the same. So you need to make sure that what you want to read as "18%-grey-equivalent" falls into the metered circle within the frame. If much of the white shirt was within this measured circle, the meter's red dot indicated that the pic would be exposed to reproduce the white shirt as 18% grey - and all the rest accordingly darker. In such cases you could either voluntarily compensate/"overexpose" (e.g. leaving only the right arrow on), or meter a different, darker area (or grey card etc.). Cheers, Alexander Alex, great tips there. Thanks. Just if I could clarify your point, regarding the metered area, does that mean, at 90 mm, the finder is measuring 23% of the 90mm white finder window? at opposed to the whole viewable finder? Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 22, 2012 Share #20 Posted July 22, 2012 does that mean, at 90 mm, the finder is measuring 23% of the 90mm white finder window? at opposed to the whole viewable finder? M6TTL manual, p24 onwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.