Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-06-2017, 12:58 PM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Hellp me understand scans from Tri-x

Hello,

I started photography again using the film camera my father taught me how to take a shot manually. I am using a Pentax MX with a 50mm f1.4.

I shot two rolls of Tri-x 400 for the first time to see how it feels. One roll was shot at ISO 400 the other was pushed to 1600.

First picture with issue showing white marks at the height of the hands

Second picture with issue showing where the tree is vertically white marks and a white shade.

I would like to point that these marks appear in another 4 -5 pictures among 72.

The third picture is a scanned picture with no issues, at ISO 400.

Question A

Are these marks an issue of the person developing and scanning the film ?

Question B

The following link has a picture using Tri-x

P10 copie | m_p13 | Flickr

I think that it does not have the same amount of grain as mine. Mine is totally untouched. Is it an issue of post process ?

Thank you for your feedback. I am just trying to understand how clean is the clean look of Tri-x, especially since I mainly shot Ilford HP5 since now. I dont know if its the development and scan process or post process issues that make my pictures differ from the ones I see online.

Attached Images
     
11-06-2017, 01:45 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
The white marks you see on the first two images could be dust/dirt handling artefacts on the film prior to development or may be dust/dirt on the film or scanner bed. The latter easier to handle just gently clean the film and scanner system.

If you have scanned all at the same time and only found these marks on a few images then it looks like it is effectively locked into the film and remedial work will be needed in post

The wide white band down the tree trunk gives the impression of a pressure mark prior to development - does the negative exhibit this as a dark mark?

First two also give an impression of underexposure and overdevelopment and should be investigated further

I would suggest that until you get used to the film and establish a proper film speed (it may only be realistically 1/2 the box rating) and consistent development regime that you just limit your testing to that and leave pushing for the moment.

Do not worry too much at this time about how grain appears. Scanning process can effect this and artefacts can be introduced depending on your scanner and how you scan including sharpening.
11-06-2017, 02:04 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Boston,MA
Posts: 258
overdeveloped, IMO
11-06-2017, 02:07 PM   #4
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,123
The vertical white streak looks to me like a light leak. The white spots are probably dust. It is quite possible to have dust settle onto some frames and not others in the course of scanning a roll.

It is difficult to know more unless you can explain the scanner and post-processing you used.

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
I would suggest that until you get used to the film and establish a proper film speed (it may only be realistically 1/2 the box rating)
I'm not understanding this comment, unless you think the film is expired.

11-06-2017, 02:25 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by Kupepe Quote
I shot two rolls of Tri-x 400 for the first time to see how it feels. One roll was shot at ISO 400 the other was pushed to 1600.

Are these marks an issue of the person developing and scanning the film ?

I think that it does not have the same amount of grain as mine. Mine is totally untouched. Is it an issue of post process ?
On the second picture, that is clearly a light leak. Do you see a corresponding gray area on the negative? The leak could be from the camera back or it couldʻve occurred when you transferred your film from the cassette to the developing tank. As process of elimination, on your next roll, after loading the film, put some opaque tape around all the areas around the camera back where light could leak in.

Push processing to EI1600 is going to increase contrast and grain, but you should not have it that extreme with 400 ISO. It could be many causes, but is mostly related to the film development. If the developer is too hot or too cold, concentration too high, etc. It is unlikely a scanning issue unless you went crazy with over sharpening. Tell us the details of the developer type, temperature, dilution, developing time, your agitation method and frequency, etc.

If youʻre familiar with Ilford, Tri-X should look fairly similar (grain, tonal response, dynamic range) to HP5+ or Kentmere 400.
11-06-2017, 02:30 PM   #6
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Original Poster
It is not me that develops the film. I have it developed ...

Maybe i will try some other developer ... i mean store

---------- Post added 11-06-17 at 09:31 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
On the second picture, that is clearly a light leak. Do you see a corresponding gray area on the negative? The leak could be from the camera back or it couldʻve occurred when you transferred your film from the cassette to the developing tank. As process of elimination, on your next roll, after loading the film, put some opaque tape around all the areas around the camera back where light could leak in.

Push processing to EI1600 is going to increase contrast and grain, but you should not have it that extreme with 400 ISO. It could be many causes, but is mostly related to the film development. If the developer is too hot or too cold, concentration too high, etc. It is unlikely a scanning issue unless you went crazy with over sharpening. Tell us the details of the developer type, temperature, dilution, developing time, your agitation method and frequency, etc.

If youʻre familiar with Ilford, Tri-X should look fairly similar (grain, tonal response, dynamic range) to HP5+ or Kentmere 400.
It is not me that develops the film. I have it developed ...

Maybe i will try some other developer ... i mean store
11-06-2017, 02:36 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 420
I would suspect improper handling of wet film (first picture), and improper handling and loading into a tank (second picture) - did you see similar (or even identical) mark in other frame?
The grain is huge, but this is something to be expected with ISO 400 film and enforced development. BTW: did you use expired film? The exposure seems to be rather correct - some highlights are blown out, but some shadows are rather dark grey instead of actual black, so it looks the exposure was slightly shifted to shadows. Third picture seems to be different: exposure is right in the middle and there is much more contrast - how did you expose and process it? I echo TonyW: leave pushing for a moment, and try regular exposure with a roll of fresh film.


Last edited by pentageek; 11-06-2017 at 03:03 PM. Reason: mistake: lights instead of shadows.
11-06-2017, 03:02 PM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pentageek Quote
I would suspect improper handling of wet film (first picture), and improper handling and loading into a tank (second picture) - did you see similar (or even identical) mark in other frame?
The grain is huge, but this is something to be expected with ISO 400 film and enforced development. BTW: did you use expired film? The exposure seems to be rather correct - some highlights are blown out, but some shadows are rather dark grey instead of actual black, so it looks the exposure was slightly shifted to lights. Third picture seems to be different: exposure is right in the middle and there is much more contrast - how did you expose and process it? I echo TonyW: leave pushing for a moment, and try regular exposure with a roll of fresh film.
Thank you for your reply.

I expose with the built in lightmeter of the MX.

I dont usually push ... just tried to see what it gives.

Nothing like that one any other frame. The film is not expired ...

So in your opinion I should change whoever develops the film
11-06-2017, 03:38 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
You are probably under exposing your film there is scant detail showing in the dark tones as evidence of this.

It is unusual to be able to expose Tri X to its rated ISO of 400. Every sheet or roll of TX I have used the ISO fell around 1/2 of rating I.e. 200 ISO this looks to be the case here. The one stop increase would help enormously in improving shadow detail.

The film probably overdeveloped due to blocked highlights there may be detail there but it will need masking and burning in - using curves or levels. If you cannot see any detail in highlights this another indicator to over development
11-06-2017, 03:38 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by Kupepe Quote
It is not me that develops the film. I have it developed ...

Maybe i will try some other developer ... i mean store
Yes, I would have low confidence in the lab that did this work....especially the dust.

If you donʻt want or can DIY, Iʻd highly recommend Ilford XP2+ Super. Itʻs suggested ISO is 400, but you it has such a large exposure latitude that you can shoot it between 200-1600 ISO on the same roll.

It is also designed to be processed in color neg chemistry, and therefore, usually machine processed which will be more consistent than an unknown lab tech. It also scans beautifully.
11-06-2017, 03:39 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,161
I haven't shot film in a long long time. But when I did I pushed ilford and tri-x to up to 3200 and the grain was not as harsh as what you have there...
12-27-2017, 11:50 AM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Original Poster
Hello again

I switched film shop developer .. I think it is nicer result. Still I think that it's not comparable with the bw prints iconic photos I see online. A bit more harsh.

I totally love the SMC 50mm F1.4 ...

TRI X at ISO 400

Comments on grain/exposure development welcomed.
12-27-2017, 12:10 PM   #13
Pentaxian
murrelet's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 506
QuoteOriginally posted by Kupepe Quote
Hello again

I switched film shop developer .. I think it is nicer result. Still I think that it's not comparable with the bw prints iconic photos I see online. A bit more harsh.

I totally love the SMC 50mm F1.4 ...

TRI X at ISO 400

Comments on grain/exposure development welcomed.
Glad you are getting better results. Someone with better knowledge can correct me, but I believe scanners cannot utilize digital ICE for dust removal on BW negatives. And if digital ICE is turned on (as one would do for color negatives), the scans come out worse. I suspect the technician at the first lab you used might have left the scanner on its default setting with digital ICE on.
12-27-2017, 01:25 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 420
QuoteOriginally posted by Kupepe Quote
I think that it's not comparable with the bw prints iconic photos
You set the bar high These scans look definitely better than first batch.
12-27-2017, 03:10 PM   #15
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pentageek Quote
You set the bar high These scans look definitely better than first batch.
But what makes the bar high ? From a technical point of view ...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, developer, film, films, grain, ilford, issue, issues, kodak, lab, leak, light, marks, mine, photo, photography, picture, post, process, results, shot, store, tmax, tri-x
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"We cannot force someone to “understand” something they do not want to understand" jeffkrol General Talk 1 06-25-2012 07:16 AM
pro-lab scans better than drugstore scans? drumhead Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 27 09-07-2011 03:21 PM
Black & White More Tri-X scans ve2vfd Post Your Photos! 0 12-23-2009 09:15 PM
Misc B&W - Scans of Tri-X ve2vfd Post Your Photos! 7 12-23-2009 04:32 AM
Hellp from the mountains jerart Welcomes and Introductions 3 01-25-2009 02:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top