Analysis of my FIRST LF Shot-guidance sought

[psychoanalyst]

Hello All,

I am Avi from Atlanta, GA. I want to share my very first LF shot using my Speed Graphic and 135mm Optar lens and hoping with your advice I can get better.

Here is the uncropped shot:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6024/5952444770_3735438cd6.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952444770/)
2400dpi_rot=right_bits=auto_single_fading_sharp_color=WB_ilford_jpegqualmax_resized (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952444770/) by Avishek Aiyar (http://www.flickr.com/people/smiling_buddha/), on Flickr

Details:

135mm Optar set at f8 (I have written the exposure down but my notebook is in my old house). Focused using the GG and not the rangefinder.
Metering: using a Sekonic incident light meter and checked with a Nikon D300 as well.
Film: Ilford HP5+, but I exposed it at ISO 640
Developed at home using Diafine 2 part developer according to the suggested protocol.
Fixed with Kodak fixer and then washed in Photoflo and dried.

Scan details:

Epson Perfection 2450 set at 2400 dpi. Scanned using Vuescan and the 4x5 holder that came with the scanner.

I scanned at max JPEG quality and then set it to level 8 in Photoshop in order to be able to upload it to Flickr. The original file was about 55MB, but after saving in PS, it is now about 9 MB.

I applied the "Restore fading" and the "sharpen" filters.

Here is a 2000 pixel x 2000 pixel crop of the above picture.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5952445192_4544130fc0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952445192/)
2400dpi_rot=right_bits=auto_single_fading_sharp_color=WB_ilford_jpegqualmax_2000pixel_100%crop (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952445192/) by Avishek Aiyar (http://www.flickr.com/people/smiling_buddha/), on Flickr

The questions I had are as follows:

1. One of my friends strongly feels that the negative is not very sharp. I am not sure I completely understand that, especially in the absence of a reference.

Are there ways I can improve the quality of the shot? Am I doing justice to the 4x5 medium or is the shot a complete insult?!

2. The above shots are AFTER applying the filters. Without applying it looks way overexposed as below:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5952555188_0a8ecdd581.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952555188/)
2400dpi_rot=right_bits=auto_single_nofading_nosharp_color=WB_ilford_jpeg=8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952555188/) by Avishek Aiyar (http://www.flickr.com/people/smiling_buddha/), on Flickr

But I cannot understand something: since I am converting the negative to a digital copy, how do I know what information my negative originally contains and what artifacts the scanner is adding to it? Did I actually overexpose it?

I would really appreciate ANY input from you guys. I have no precedent to the above, so forgive me if there are some blatant mistakes with both presenting the pictures as well as technical issues.

I hope to master this format over time.

Thanks.

Avi

[Vaughn]

Unfortunately, no images...

[psychoanalyst]

Unfortunately, no images...

Vaughn....fixed that.

Thanks.

Avi

[Ken Lee]

You might find this short article helpful: Scanning Tips (with EPSON Scan software) (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php)

You might find this one helpful too: Testing Black and White Film (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php)

[atlcruiser]

Great first shot.....mine really sucked...most still do.

PMed you

[psychoanalyst]

You might find this short article helpful: Scanning Tips (with EPSON Scan software) (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php)

You might find this one helpful too: Testing Black and White Film (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php)

Ken,

Thanks for the excellent links!

Unfortunately the Epson does not provide (to the best of my knowledge) a 64 Bit version compatible with Windows 7. I am restricted to Vuescan.

I am trying to figure out if I can clone your procedure in Vuescan.

But here is the preview:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6141/5952725144_3d42935689.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952725144/)
Preview (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/5952725144/) by Avishek Aiyar (http://www.flickr.com/people/smiling_buddha/), on Flickr

Photoshop histogram clearly shows overexposed.

Avi

[Ken Lee]

Your test includes many variables, but you have only one image: nothing to compare, nothing to learn from.

Your subject has a rather long brightness range: there are dark objects in deep shade, and light objects in sunshine. There are only a few middle tones. Is the negative under-exposed ? under-developed ? It's hard to tell from this image. It's also hard to take another photo of the same subject for comparison purposes.

I recommend that you find a better and repeatable test subject, and use a more "standard" developer. Diafine (along with Divided Pyrocat and other divided developers) is unusual: changes in development time have little effect on contrast.

With a standard developer, you can shoot your film at a standard film speed.

[Nathan Potter]

I suspect that the image was well exposed and well developed. But since the neg was scanned one cannot deduce much about negative resolution. If you actually scanned at 2500dpi then your maximum resolution referenced to the scanner is around 50 lp/mm and probably less. Place the image on a light table and examine it with a strong loupe. Place a human hair in the field of view of the loupe and compare its diameter to the detail in the negative. The diameter of the hair will be from about 3 mil to 4 mil (75 to 100 microns, 10 to 13 lines per mm.). That's only 5 to 7 line pairs per mm. so would be pretty poor for a good LF lens. Your detail ought to be perhaps five to ten times better than the hair in areas of critically sharp focus. You probably need at least a 10X loupe to really see decent detail in a critically sharp negative.

As Ken says the scene was of very high contrast and ordinarily one would choose a two part developer like Diafine but that two part bath should be calibrated fairly carefully. Sort of looks like you did a pretty good job for a shot in the dark.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[jp]

As you can read the text cast into the seat with good clarity, it seems sharp. Thin DOF and how gradually that fades out of focus would contribute to many areas not being sharp. You'd need f22 or smaller to get most of the photo in focus. If you scan the negative upside down, it may end up not being as sharp too.

The image isn't streaked with light leaks or double exposed, so it's a great start. Once you are comfortable with the equipment and what it will do, you can think more about artistic/aesthetic choices.

Scanning adds lots of complexity and options. Since you're new to both, there's lots of variables yet to nail down. I'd suggest either having someone do a nice analog print and having someone else who does lots of epson scanning do a good epson scan.

It looks like the highlights in the scan positive in the lower left have good detail in the negative scan you show. In which case, it would indicate that you didn't scan the full right range of lights and darks. Also don't use effects filters to scan. They don't make the scan any more real; just take it further from an honest digital copy of the negative. You're welcome to use some filters after the curves and resizing and everything. Something like a little bit of unsharp or some colorize to "tone" is about all I do. The second scan (negative), the scale is deceiving the auto exposure because it's picking up the edges of the film (black as imaged). Setting the scale of brightness manually is the most foolproof way. I use epson's software.

Once you get scans the way you want, you can go back again, remembering how your lens renders various backgrounds at certain apertures and make some killer environmental portraits or whatever ever your photo interests are, building on what you're learning from this. I wouldn't enter the photo in a contest, but it's a productive start and technically good.

[psychoanalyst]

With a standard developer, you can shoot your film at a standard film speed.

Ken,

Is D-76 a standard developer?

Avi

[psychoanalyst]

JP and Nate,

Thanks a lot for that advice. That will come in very handy when I take the camera out again.

The biggest mistake I made was I rushed myself the very first time and I shot 6 sheets straight in 2-3 hrs!

I am going to take it slowly from here on.

Avi

[Ken Lee]

"Is D-76 a standard developer?"

D-76 is perhaps the most "standard" developer. It gives a little of this, and a little of that, so to speak: moderate grain, moderate tonal scale, moderate developing time, moderate shelf-life, etc. Ilford DD-11 is another similar standard. A dilution of 1:1 will save a few pennies and give a longer development time, so that you can better experiment.

Once you start asking about developers here, you will get a flood of anecdotal recommendations, usually with no sample photos to support the endorsement. This forum is littered with such postings. :) Keep in mind that it's the film+developer combination - not just the film or developer - which is important. Also keep in mind that most modern films are excellent and will deliver the goods in 99% of shooting situations: the differences are often exaggerated. This is especially true with Large Format, where fine grain, high acutance, and other issues of concern to roll-film shooters, are irrelevant except when making giant prints.

With standard developers, most people shoot B&W films at either the recommended speed, or give 1 extra stop of exposure to improve shadow detail. They develop their film for close to the recommended times also - making minor adjustments to accommodate their water, thermometer, method of agitation, etc. Those minor adjustments (like choice of film/developer combination) help get the very best out of the medium.

[Ken Lee]

"I am trying to figure out if I can clone your procedure in Vuescan."

The basic idea is that you want to scan the entire luminance range of the negative: no clipping at the high or low ends of the tonal scale. Adjust the lower end to render the blank film edge at 0% luminosity.

As shown in the scanning article, it's helpful to target a negative whose contrast range occupies around 2/3 of the scanner's range. This ensures no clipping (loss of detail) and allows around 15% or 1.5 Zones at either end of the scale.

It's analogous to making a "normal negative" which prints nicely on Number 2 paper in the darkroom, and which allows us to adjust the contrast by a change of paper, or contrast filter when using variable contrast paper.

While it is possible to "rescue" images that are wrongly exposed and developed, we are looking for the beauty inherent in the medium - that's why we use Large Format in the first place. Getting the best exposure and development helps tremendously. Be sure to scan in a 16-bit color space to avoid digital artifacts: clipping, banding, etc.

[Bill_1856]

I see noththing wrong with it technically.
Diafine is an excellent developer -- pay no attention to those who dis it, as they have probably never used it themselves. (In fact, it may just be the best possible choice for scenes like this with bright sunlit areas and deep shadows.)
You will have to find your own ISO speed for your own film, shutter, etc. Since Diafine inherently compensates for contrast, just keep raising your ISO until you get it right. (You don't have to worry about time, temperature, and reasonable agitation.)
The "standard" is to produce a negative which you can read a newspaper through.
Judge "sharpness" by looking at the NEGATIVE through a hign-magnification loop, not at the print.

[atlcruiser]

I would suggest picking a developer/film combo and sticking with it for a while. D76 would be my first choice and that is what was suggessted to me.

D76 and shanghai will give you a very cheap way to shoot a lot of frames :)

What has helped me was to eliminate the variables as much as posisble; that and taking a LOT of pictures :)

[Ken Lee]

Since Diafine inherently compensates for contrast, just keep raising your ISO until you get it right. (You don't have to worry about time, temperature, and reasonable agitation.)

There's nothing wrong with Diafine, but we need to be clear to a beginner about what it means to get it right: high values ? shadows ? midtones ? This is especially true for someone using an incident meter.

[Robert Hughes]

D-76 is a standard developer. Just about every photo studio and school program in the civilized world has used it at one time or other.

[Kirk Fry]

But HC-110 works better (more even development) and is easier to use, dilution b, one shot.

[psychoanalyst]

All,

Thank you so much for the detailed analysis. I will try and understand everything (I am not fully up to speed with the technicalities) and apply that the next I go out for a shoot and scan.

Avi

[Brian C. Miller]

1. One of my friends strongly feels that the negative is not very sharp. I am not sure I completely understand that, especially in the absence of a reference.

Are there ways I can improve the quality of the shot? Am I doing justice to the 4x5 medium or is the shot a complete insult?!

The only insult is to not use the camera! :D

Without a reference, you won't know what "sharp" is. This simply means that you need to make a series of exposures, at different f/stops, and look at the negatives with a 22x loupe. I use a Graphlex Super Graphic with 135mm Optar, and the Optar is a very good lens. Since I can read the printing on the bench's arm rest and the grass looks OK, I'm guessing that it's quite acceptable. Since you used the lens at nearly wide open, the actual depth of field will be a bit shallow.

Sharpness on a negative can be influenced by a number of factors. The first thing to do is figure out if the negative is good enough for you. When I bought my Super Graphic, the images weren't sharp. They would look sharp on the glass, but not on the film. The reason was because the ground glass had been replaced, and wasn't in the proper position where it should have been. So I bought replacement glass, and then measured and shimmed it into the correct position. The ground glass and the film have to be within a certain tolerance, otherwise the image will never be in focus. There's threads discussing this in detail.


2. The above shots are AFTER applying the filters. Without applying it looks way overexposed as below:

But I cannot understand something: since I am converting the negative to a digital copy, how do I know what information my negative originally contains and what artifacts the scanner is adding to it? Did I actually overexpose it?

You'll have to run some tests with a grey scale (link (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Darkroom-Exposure-Guides-Meters/ci/738/N/4288586560)) and different development times to figure out what your scanner likes.

If/when you start printing with paper, then exposure and development becomes more critical. But there's lots of ways to get a good print.

[Ken Lee]

"I am trying to figure out if I can clone your procedure in Vuescan."

I have updated my article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php): it now covers VueScan as well as EPSON software.

[psychoanalyst]

Ken,

Many thanks for this!

I should have some time this weekend to work on my scanner using your instructions. I will update you accordingly.

Avi

[psychoanalyst]

Dear all,

Here is the whole set after development and scanning using Vuescan.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/sets/72157627253683759/

Comments are of course very welcome and appreciated.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Avi