Analysis of my FIRST LF Shot-guidance sought

[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!

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) 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.