On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Scott ...
Hi. > > Well, you asked, so here goes: > > First, it's great to see someone else moving into the darkroom and > exploring the possibilities of B&W photography. Good for you. Thanks. I've been looking forward to it for quite some time now. I don't quite have a darkroom, but a daylight tank and a changing bag. Hence, the scanner. > > The lack of detail in your wife's hair, the blouse, and the shadow under > her wrist, probably the result of an under exposed negative, really detract > fron any potential this photo may have. Of course, there may have also > been a error in development time or the way you set the scanner. IAC, the > result is quite poor. I had a few rolls of Tri-X which I failed to label. So I just picked one and developed it according to the directions on the chemical data sheets for Tri-X exposed at 400ASA.. I was very careful to make sure all the chemicals were the same temperature - in this case 69F. After seeing the exposures on this roll, I went through my notes and discovered that this roll had been exposed at 320ASA. So I've underexposed and overdeveloped, which, according to several responses to my photo, could be the cause of my problems. The scanner is brand spanking new. I turned it on and started scanning negs at 1200 dpi. I also used the scanner driver's unsharp mask and adjusted the settings for monochromatic negatives. I'm sure there is plenty of room for tweaking, but it's a new toy and I just had to try it out. :) > > There was probably no need for a yellow filter, although with proper > exposure and development it may have added something to the skin tones > depending on your wife's coloration and the color temp of the light. The yellow filter is something relatively new for me, as well. After looking through a red filter, I decided that yellow is dark enough for my tastes. I almost bought a range finder just so I wouldn't see yellow all the time. I'm still experimenting with it. > > The image doesn't look particularly sharp, but that's nit, in and of > itself, a negative, especially if you wanted that extra bit of softness, > which can be nice in some portraits and pics of this sort. . My concern is > why it looks the way it does, and if it's something you did intentionally? > It's been mentioned many times, in many venues, that scanning a 35mm neg > on a flatbed scanner will generally produce poor results, and, according to > some reviews I've read when looking for a flatbed scanner, the Canon model > you're using has had problems producing well focused scans. I used a Super-Tak 135/3.5 screw mount lens for this photograph wide open. I suppose that could contribute to the lack of sharpness. I've read several reports about scanning film on a flatbed. Most agree that it's an inferior method of aquiring images from a negative. I would like to have a dedicated film scanned, but I need to be able to scan 120 negs. Those are a bit too pricey for me right now. I chose this one because it's "good enough" and it comes with a 120 carrier. I hope to replace it some day with an enlarger. > > The obvious grain on the wall seems way too much for contemporary TX, > especially on so small a reproduction. Perhaps you're a little out of > practice with your developing technique - too much or too vigorous > agitation, perhaps, or maybe not paying enough attention to the temp of the > developer, stop, fix, and rinse. I'm definitely out of practice. It's been over a decade since I processed any film. > > The contrast of the image seems strong, regardless of the deep black in the > hair and shadows. This could be a result of over development, too high a > development temp (maybe the thermometer is off?) which is, essentially, the > same thing, or to frequent and strong an agitation cycle. > > Perhaps you can take a moment and let us know the time/temp/agitation cycle > that you used. 9 minutes 30 seconds in d-76 1:1, 69F, agitation for first 30 seconds, agitation for 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. Agitation was done by revolving the tank once along the vertical axis and then inverting it. > > Shel Thanks, Shel. I appreciate the comments. > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
