[dthatcher]

Hey all,

I recently got back into shooting film and have only recently started shooting black and white again. Most of my photos have turned out fine, a few minor mis-exposures here and there as well as discovering how difficult shooting bright snowy scenes are. But this first roll of Tri-X that I shot looks terrible. I just have a local lab do my developing and scanning as I don't have the time or the space to set up a home dark room. But initially my thought was that this was terribly overexposed, however most of the roll the lab didn't even bother scanning due to how underexposed it was. So what did I do wrong? The sun was out, yet the sky just turned white.

The photo was shot with a K1000, Kodak Tri-X shot at 400 using the internal light meter. A Tiffen Yellow filter was used and it was a completely clear day.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[AquaDome]

How experienced is your local lab at developing black & white film? How's the light-meter battery in your K1000? Can you show a photo of the negative instead of the scan?

[BigDave]

The Yellow filter brought up the contrast is my assertation on it. This also may have fooled the meter some. Also, I would not say it was over exposed because if it was, the underside of the branches would have had better detail. another option was it was mis- or over processed, leading to a very contrasty negative, which is what you had.

You may want to consider doing your own B&W development. All you need is a changing bag, a developing tank, a measuring cup (2 cup version is best) two one gallon or quart (liter) bottles for chemistries (Developer and Fixer, use water as the stop bath) and a sink with running water. For clearing water spots, use PhotoFlo, one cap per 16oz of water. Enlarging needs a darkroom. Developing film, not so much stuff.
PS- A nice dial thermometer is also a good idea

Regards,

[SpecialK]

The Yellow filter brought up the contrast is my assertation on it. This also may have fooled the meter some. Also, I would not say it was over exposed because if it was, the underside of the branches would have had better detail.

My thoughts as well.

[bm75]

Too much contrast or wrong development (depending on the concentration of the chemicals, a slight more time in the development bath could have coused it). My 2 cents. Also: the left side of the frame (the high tree) seems washed out (overexposed).

Otherwise a development setted to enlighten the shadows in a non-optimal exposured film, thus burning the highlights.

[Ranchu]

Looks like direct sun, that will give you the contrast.

[CarlH]

can you remember the shutter speed and f stop you used? compare it to the "sunny 16" rule to give you a rough idea how close the exposure was.

[k5astro]

I used to shoot Tri-X - develop and print too. The latest version apparently has finer grain. Looks like so in your image. Nice because I used to find it a bit grainy. But the combination of clear day, Tri-X film and yellow filter - and even subject of trees against sky - all say "high contrast". I think you got pretty much what you might expect. Looks good.

[TonyW]

Under exposed overdeveloped. Is it possible that your lab is using a print developer rather than a general film developer?

I agree with BIgDave, consider investing in a developing kit and take control of this part of the process, it really does not take too long to have a film processed and be hanging to dry. Get a decent thermometer and also consider a water bath to maintain temperature if your processing conditions vary throughout the year - a washing up bow may be all you need

[Bromberger]

I think the picture is awesome the way it is :-)

[Parallax]

It's possible the lab didn't treat it as B&W but just ran it through the color negative chemicals.
I don't know what effect that would have but as there is (or was, 30 years ago) B&W film made to be developed by C-41 chemistry there must be some ill effect on standard film.

[TonyW]

It's possible the lab didn't treat it as B&W but just ran it through the color negative chemicals.
I don't know what effect that would have but as there is (or was, 30 years ago) B&W film made to be developed by C-41 chemistry there must be some ill effect on standard film.

If it had been run through the C41 process there would be no image left just clear film base as the silver would all be dissolved out in the bleach process.

The chromogenic film of yesteryear was actually pretty much colour film without the colour component. So the latent image developed as normal turning silver halides to silver same as any film B&W or colour, but as with colour the next part of the process bleached the silver away only leaving the colour dyes that form the image

[Parallax]

Thanks for that. I had no idea what the difference was.

[dthatcher]

Thanks everyone for help! The sun was a bit lower in the sky by the time I shot this so I don't expect it was from that. The two things that make the most sense to me are a combination of underexposing and over-development or just too much contrast in the photo. However I'm still kind of curious how the sky turned out white, shouldn't it still have turned out as a darker grey?


In the future I do want to develop my own black and white film, but at least for now I'm sticking to lab development. No space and not enough time currently.

[Eyewanders]

Agree about the filter, but that's quite an EV spread there - the unlit underside of dark brown and dark green branches, and daylight sky.
Was the sky what you were exposing for? Because as was guess, the labs often assume things that may not be correct - e.g. it would make perfect sense to expose for the foliage here also.

Do you have a loupe and a good light source at home? Look at the negatives you got back under a loupe to try and get and idea if there is detail where you think there should be. If there is, it can just be rescanned.