B&W Tone Problem

[aytactogay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, 

This is my very first post in this forum and I'd like to ask about an issue that I'm facing on three different tones from my Kodak Tri-X film. 

I re-started shooting analogue after many years and have been shooting with the Leica M6 TTL for the last year. I develop and scan the films myself. I would like to tell you about a problem I had.

The 3 photos I added came out of the same film.

• Film: Kodak Tri-X
• Developer: Ilford ID-11 (Stock)
• Scanner: Epson V850 Pro (Epson Scan 2 Software)

What do you think is the reason for these 3 different B&W tones from the same film? Is it an exposure, development or scanning issue?

PS: I did not edit these frames after scanning, they are all in raw format.

Cheers.

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!

[hansvons]

Welcome to the forum @aytactogay.

• The second image looks fine. It has good contrast. The software recognized that and adjusted the black frame outside the image to proper black.
• The third image is underexposed, probably by two stops. The black frame outside the image is grey.
• The first image is also underexposed. In RGB terms, the window frames should be above 200, but they are way below that mark. However, the flat light dulls the contrast. But this can be fixed in the editing process.

How can that be solved? Underexposure isn't a massive problem with Tri-X, as it can be pushed by two stops. But I wouldn't go that route first. I'd shoot the next roll with the idea in mind that film loves light. The more, the merrier (up to a certain point). 

 

[hansvons]

The file below shows a scan of Tri-X that is pushed by one stop in Xtol (ID-11 is also fine) and exposed at ISO400, bringing out the grain a bit more and adding a tad more contrast (I like that, others beg to differ). The image has a wide dynamic range. Thus, the interior is a bit underexposed (I didn't close the shadows to show the issue), and the outside is strongly overexposed. If I had given it more light, the interior would be less grainy.

Tri-X is no magical film stock. It's as grainy as any other ISO 400 stock but has a more even tonality than, e.g., Kentmere 400, HP5, etc., which tend to show a higher red sensitivity that, in turn, makes skin tones a bit flatter. 

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!

[aytactogay]

Dear @hansvons, 

Thank you very much for your detailed answer and advice. With the habit of digital technology that I have been using for a long time, I did not care much about the interventions in the film. I tend to accept the exposure value given by the M6 as it is and I don't interfere with the stops unless I have to. Of course, as you said, each film and developer has a different character. I will take your valuable advice into consideration for the next roll.

Cheers. 

[hansvons]

31 minutes ago, aytactogay said:

 I tend to accept the exposure value given by the M6 as it is and I don't interfere with the stops unless I have to.

That's what I do as well. However, the M6 light meter meters the reflected light and defaults that to 18% grey, roughly matching mildly sun-tanned Caucasian skin. If that light comes from a green lawn, chances are high that you'll get the correct exposure because a regular lawn is in the 18% grey ballpark. A sun-lit street, however, is often way lighter than 18% grey and will be underexposed by more than one stop. This effect is infamously prominent when shooting in a snowy landscape or having a white sky prominent in the picture.

Your first picture shows house walls. Are these meant to be white or off-white? If so, the light meter puts them at 18% grey, which is not much different from what you see in your images. As film negative hates underexposure but can deal with overexposure to an astonishing large extent, it's best practice to open up the aperture by a stop or more when in doubt. Or do what cinematographers usually do and rate the film a bit slower than the box speed in the first place. For example, the camera's light meter could be set to an EI (exposure index) of 200 instead of the regular ISO of 400. 

Edited June 3, 2024 by hansvons

[Aryel]

Welcome to the forum!

You will also get better and more consistent results by taking control of the inversion process and editing. In black and white it is very simple actually and will allow you to get a consistent look. If you are not comfortable with this, maybe try to set as many things as possible to 0 when scanning to start with...

 

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, aytactogay said:

Dear @hansvons, 

Thank you very much for your detailed answer and advice. With the habit of digital technology that I have been using for a long time, I did not care much about the interventions in the film. I tend to accept the exposure value given by the M6 as it is and I don't interfere with the stops unless I have to. Of course, as you said, each film and developer has a different character. I will take your valuable advice into consideration for the next roll.

Cheers. 

Both the under exposed images can be transformed into a 'normal' contrast range by pressing the 'Auto Contrast' button in Lightroom or Photoshop. Exposures in the camera and the scans of the negatives do not always work in harmony even though Epson Scan usually does a good job if left to itself. But everything can be improved with a little post processing and doing the jobs of adjusting brightness and contrast that any photographer would do in the darkroom or sitting at a PC.

[aytactogay]

Dear @250swb thank you for your reply. Of course, I try to take advantage of the capabilities of both PS and LR in the post-processing process. I wanted to start this discussion by wondering if this difference is also in the “exposure” stage at the very beginning of the shooting. I agree with you about Epson Scan. I keep things going without much involvement in the scanning process. Maybe I can make small edits for each frame at the scanning stage or use different scanning programs (Vuescan etc.). 

[250swb]

49 minutes ago, aytactogay said:

 Maybe I can make small edits for each frame at the scanning stage or use different scanning programs (Vuescan etc.). 

There is more control in using Vuescan, but whichever system you use the best scans from a dedicated film scanner should be intentionally flat with no clipping at either end of the tonal range. In fact they should look more like your first image. Scanning software doesn't have the refinement of LR or PS and once you've clipped a highlight or shadow there's no coming back other than to scan the negative all over again. So the idea is to treat your scan as something like a RAW file in that it contains as much information as possible and then you just 'rearrange' this information in LR to make the final properly rendered image. You can then refer back to your flat scan if you want to try different renderings of the image later.

[johnwolf]

On 6/3/2024 at 5:09 AM, aytactogay said:

...I tend to accept the exposure value given by the M6 as it is.... 

IMO, that statement is the source of your problem. The M6 meters about 13% of the image area in the center of the frame. So accepting its recommendation works only when tonality of the metered area falls roughly within the industry-standard 18% gray tonal range.

In your first image the tonal value in that area is quite a bit lighter, and in the second darker, than 18% gray. The M6 assumes you're feeding it 18% gray values and exposes accordingly. Are you familiar with the 18% gray concept and how meters determine exposure?

A meter is a pretty dumb, narrow-minded device. We need to feed it the right values for it to work well. Or, we compensate for its limitations.  

John 

Edited June 10, 2024 by johnwolf