[D4rknezz]

Picture 1 : Scanned straight out of negative.



Picture 2: treated with curves from photoshop



Picture 3: Resized to reflect actual person's width.




Hello, so i've shot my first film roll....and need some help diagnosing some things.

1. Why does the original scans from negatives look sooo...flat? Is dodging and burning always required? Its either everything's overexposed a tad, or everything's under exposed a tad...but there is no 3D quality to it - except the dof. Compare picture 1 and 2, after a curve adjustment in photoshop.
2. Film has more dynamic range than digital. However, without doing the darkroom process myself - it seems like I wont be getting this advantage film has over digital. The camera place scanned the picture at lower resolution, and in jpeg. Basically, the huge range of dynamic range was left behind with the negative - since this is akin to taking an iphone photo of a davinci masterpiece. Is there no other way around this other than printing myself?
3. Unrelated to film, but i thought I should ask this to the more experienced members. I always like the effect of wideangle lenses in distorting people and making them taller (as in glamour shots). However, every single seminars/workshop I attended have stressed the use of tele lenses to compress and making people slimmer. I see the effect of compression to the background, but I dont think tele lenses really help with the subject itself. No matter - because I dont use a prime when shooting, i am generally unaware of what focal length i was using to get the effect i wanted.
However, with the film camera yesterday - i shot prime. This was my 125 voigtlander at work. Picture 3 shows the actual body proportion of the model. Actually, i think she is even thinner than that. What gives? I knew that historically my results never were similar to the workshop speaker's conviction of tele lens performance - but i was never bothered until now.
4. What does the brand of film (I was using ilford bw) do to the picture?
5. Can anyone identify the 3 semi circle blotches on the picture? it probably showed up in one other shot of the whole roll..i think. But as i havent done curves adjustment to each other...i can't tell for sure.

Thanks for the help!

[Chuckie]

Happy film shooting

1) Not sure
2) Check what scanner your developing shop is using. I always tell mine I want at least a 15MB TIFF. I am saving up for my own scanner. The scanner they use may also have a low DR. It looks like they also didn't clean the neg properly before scanning it. I would take it back and ask them to clean and scan again.
3) It depends how you like your models and how your models like to be portrayed.
4) The brand and type of film will have recommendations on what developing chemicals and conditions to use. If you use the wrong chemicals, temperatures and times, your negs will not be developed properly. Developing B&W is not that difficult. You might want to try that and then scan. It's a lot less equipment to get.
5) Those look like water drops that were left on the neg while it was drying.

[titrisol]

1) It depends on the development and exposure

2) If you are using a lab to develop your film choose one film, and then sacrifice a few frames by exposing at box speed and +/- 1/2, 1, 1-1/2 stops
then have the film developed and adjust your ASA accordingly... this is your effective film speed

3)

4) There is a myth that brand X or Y is flatter but it depends on development, that is why I recommend the process in (2)
Stick with 2 types of film, one of ASA400 and one of ASA 100 or 125

5) Those marks are water marks, caused by drying without good agents or too quickly

[stevebrot]

Resized to reflect actual person's width.

[D4rknezz]

Thanks guys

Sounds like I need to get a new developer. Leaving water marks...and scanning at low res to boot! .

Haha...and about the width of the person..., you guys make me feel I am the only one!
Just last week i resized a few pictures because the actual client was very skinny - and she came off larger in picture.....on a telephoto, at the 200 end .

[pavpen]

1. Why does the original scans from negatives look sooo...flat? Is dodging and burning always required? Its either everything's overexposed a tad, or everything's under exposed a tad...but there is no 3D quality to it - except the dof. Compare picture 1 and 2, after a curve adjustment in photoshop.

I have a chance to talk to guy from local camera shop about processing b&w films (i bought a bad ME Super fixed it and will try to have some a film fun) and he mentioned that Ilford b&w professional films may be developed in C-41 process, i think that this may erase some of the benefits of the dedicated b&w processing. C-41 may save the time for the cost of processing quality.

Cheers.

[D4rknezz]

I have a chance to talk to guy from local camera shop about processing b&w films (i bought a bad ME Super fixed it and will try to have some a film fun) and he mentioned that Ilford b&w professional films may be developed in C-41 process, i think that this may erase some of the benefits of the dedicated b&w processing. C-41 may save the time for the cost of processing quality.

Cheers.

Thanks..i have decided not to go back to this developer.
I wonder whether this usage of wrong chemical affected by second batch of pictures...posting them in a new thread now.