need help, please

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the first 2 rolls are back from the shop. the results couldn't be worse. i really

messed up but don't know how or where. the first is a sample with tmax 400 and

2nd is tmax 100. no exposure manipulations. pointed to gray and what the meter said

i obeyed.

 

what have i done wrong? and any suggestions are gratefully awaited.

 

tmax 400:

 

tmax 100:

 

Thank you folks.

[cocker]

What did the "shop" do by way of processing? - develop -Scan - print etc. They are very grainy - much more than I would expect with that film and a bit of work can punch the flatness of them up. There quite a lot of "crud" on them as well. I suspect its poor processing rather than your metering that's to blame.

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!

[fursan]

Thanks Keith for taking the time to view and respond. The shop just developed it.

I scanned it at another shop. what is ' crud ' ?. Such grain ?

 

Regards.

 

What did the "shop" do by way of processing? - develop -Scan - print etc. They are very grainy - much more than I would expect with that film and a bit of work can punch the flatness of them up. There quite a lot of "crud" on them as well. I suspect its poor processing rather than your metering that's to blame.

[pemayeux]

I agree, looks like shoddy processing. I would try some Ilford XP2 Chromogenic exposed at asa 200 and see how your metering looks. That film would be easier to have processed.

[rubenkok]

It IS poor processing. Old devolper is used. I once have had the same problem.

 

Use a b&w film for C-41 processing like Paul is mentioning.

Kodak Professional BW400CN Film or Ilford XP2 Super

to check your metering. Processing is far more constant.

Excellent film material and even better to scan.

 

Ruben

[fursan]

Thanks for looking Paul. have to get xp2 from dubai. not available here and neither is

bw400cn.

 

Thanks.

 

I agree, looks like shoddy processing. I would try some Ilford XP2 Chromogenic exposed at asa 200 and see how your metering looks. That film would be easier to have processed.

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ruben, thanks for your advice. the films you mention are not available here. I shall

order them from dubai.

 

i shall have a talk with the shop owner tomorrow. at least he should know.

 

Regards.

 

It IS poor processing. Old devolper is used. I once have had the same problem.

 

Use a b&w film for C-41 processing like Paul is mentioning.

Kodak Professional BW400CN Film or Ilford XP2 Super

to check your metering. Processing is far more constant.

Excellent film material and even better to scan.

 

Ruben

[stunsworth]

The photographs you've posted are all relatively light in terms of exposure. Is it possible that you used the in camera setting for the metering and they are underexposed?

 

After saying that, the grain is far worse than I would expect from T-Max 100/400. Were the scans made by the lab? Dis they have ICE - or the equivalent - switched on?

 

Do you know what developer was used?

[xjr]

Were these films fixed properly ?

Some years back I had something similar if not quite the same, sent results to ilford and the answer was wrong fixation ! re-checking my own labelled fixer bottles I realise that the solution was 1:9 as opposed to 1:4 required.Just re-fix them...it would not do any harm I suppose.

[rubenkok]

I tried to correct them in LightRoom, not much improvement

Ruben

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!

[abrewer]

What did the "shop" do by way of processing? - develop -Scan - print etc. They are very grainy - much more than I would expect with that film and a bit of work can punch the flatness of them up. There quite a lot of "crud" on them as well. I suspect its poor processing rather than your metering that's to blame.

 

Agree with Keith.

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of graininess, more than normal; but I'm not too concerned about your initial exposure, as it looks pretty reasonable from here.

 

Recall that scanning flattens the dynamic range somewhat and you need to bring some "punch" back with Photoshop (or Lightroom, or whatever). If you don't know how to use "Levels" to do that give a shout and I'll walk you through it here.

 

Keep shooting!

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[fursan]

Steve thanks. but don't understand...if pics are light in terms of exposure, have i not

over exposed. yes i used the camera in meter setting.

 

I do not know what developer the shop used.

 

 

The photographs you've posted are all relatively light in terms of exposure. Is it possible that you used the in camera setting for the metering and they are underexposed?

 

After saying that, the grain is far worse than I would expect from T-Max 100/400. Were the scans made by the lab? Dis they have ICE - or the equivalent - switched on?

 

Do you know what developer was used?

[fursan]

Sorry Angelos, do not know what chemicals the shop used. i shall try another

shop the next time and see.

 

Regards.

 

Were these films fixed properly ?

Some years back I had something similar if not quite the same, sent results to ilford and the answer was wrong fixation ! re-checking my own labelled fixer bottles I realise that the solution was 1:9 as opposed to 1:4 required.Just re-fix them...it would not do any harm I suppose.

[fursan]

Appreciate your help Ruben.

 

 

I tried to correct them in LightRoom, not much improvement

Ruben

[fursan]

Allan, thanks a bunch. I am pretty proficient with ps. i am just worried that

i might be doing something terribly wrong with the metering or exposure.

 

Best.

 

Agree with Keith.

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of graininess, more than normal; but I'm not too concerned about your initial exposure, as it looks pretty reasonable from here.

 

Recall that scanning flattens the dynamic range somewhat and you need to bring some "punch" back with Photoshop (or Lightroom, or whatever). If you don't know how to use "Levels" to do that give a shout and I'll walk you through it here.

 

Keep shooting!

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[rubenkok]

Fahim,

Could you find/buy the film material ?

Do you have better results already ?

I'm just curious

All the best,

Ruben

[fursan]

Ruben, i was unable to find the film or the material you suggested. am in canada now

and am taking a lot of different films to try back home.

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Fahim,

Could you find/buy the film material ?

Do you have better results already ?

I'm just curious

All the best,

Ruben

[thomasw_]

Hi Fursan,

 

I think that you would benefit hugely from developing your own negatives. Perhaps instead of wet printing, you could scan them with a decent scanner like an Epson V700 for the purposes of sharing your images on the Web. Developing B+W film is quite straightforward; you just need a changing bag, a developing tank, thermometer, developer, stop bath and fixer. Most of the mixing containers can be purchased at "dollar" stores for very little. It is quite fun and you get the control over the developing and scanning.

 

Regards, Thomas

 

 

[rob_x2004]

Just out of interest, what are you using Thomas?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[boilerdoc]

Looks like they were processed in Rodinal! You have to visually look at the negatives to assess the density to know if they are properly exposed and processed. I'd not trust anyone to do my silver halide films but the chromogenics (T400B&W or XP2 Super) the labs can handle very well. They are color negative film after all.

Steve