Foggy Images

[Raffay]

Hello,

I am new to LF and have been trying it our for some time now. I understand that getting a decent print out is not as easy as todays digital camera, but I am faced with this unusual results where the images come out quite foggy in the end. Where I live film is almost dead, so I have to get my stock from UK or the US. I am using Ilford FP 4 plus 125 and HP5 Plus 400. Initially, I used Ilford chemicals but when they went out of stock I started using chemicals from a local store. Now I am using D-23. I recently took two pictures, one of my brothers dog, and one of myself. At the moment I don't have a scanner or an enlarger so at the moment I have this crazy processing flow (which I would skip to keep the message short). Out of the the 30 or so pictures I took only this dog picture has some out not foggy, but my self portrait is again foggy. I have no clue what I am doing wrong, and would appreciate any help. There was a little variation in the development process, I try to describe the below:

Developed in FR Tank Single negative

1. Dog picture (which I think has better tones)
a. Soaked in water for 1 minute
b. Developed in D-23 at 22 deg C for 9 minutes, agitation every minute
c. Stop bath with white vinegar just washed it ones
d. Fixed with plain hypo for 5 minutes normal agitation every minute
e. Washed with plain water

2. Self portrait (foggy as usual)
a. Soaked in water for 1 minute
b. Developed in D-23 at 22 deg C for 9 minutes, constant agitation for the first minute then every minute
c. No stop bath, only washed with water
d. Fixed with plain hypo normal agitation every minute but this time for 9 minutes
e. Washed with plain water

Any support would be appreciated...

Cheers
Raffay

Here are both the pics for your ref:

Fotos this German Shepard

85848

My Self-portrait :

85849

[Brian C. Miller]

Welcome to the forum, Rafay!

D-23 isn't the problem.

First, you should use a normal stop bath, or give it a couple of washes in water before the fixer and adjust your development time. White vinegar isn't as chemically pure as actual stop bath. Also, just use about five minutes (or twice the clearing time) for fixing.

Second, the problem with your self-portrait photo is that you seem to have a light leak happening somewhere. The bottom part of the image seems to indicate that your darkroom is not completely dark, so there's exposure either during loading or processing. If there was a leak during camera exposure, then that would be far more pronounced.

I'm guessing that you are using a digital camera as a copy camera. No problem, it works, so that's good enough. You need to get either Photoshop Elements or The GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) and adjust the contrast.

[Raffay]

Thank you Brian, light leak in the darkroom may be true. Next time I will use a changing bag. I have this Kodak development guide, and the process it describes is as under:

1. Developer 9 mins - I will use D-23
2. Stop bath - 30 sec constant agitation - I am not getting citric acid is there an alternate?
3. Fixer - Any simple formula I am using hypo - crystals 50 grams per litre
4. Rinse - 30 secs in running water
5. Hypo clearing agent - 1 to 2 mins - this says to use hypo here after fixing and I am using hypo for fixing?
6. Wash
7. Wetting agent - I am using none - don't get anything where I live :(
8. Dry

Any thoughts?

Cheers
Raffay.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, am I posting in the right forum, as I only got one reply, yours :)

[Brian Ellis]

You're showing prints, it would be better to see the negatives if you can post them. The prints look exactly like prints look when the paper is way out of date or has been fogged by a safe-light or possibly light leaks from the enlarger or elsewhere in the darkroom or even from the seller (i.e. the prints show no bright whites, no rich blacks, just an overall grayness). Is your darkroom dark? Have you done a safelight test? When and where did you get the paper?

To check for light leaks from the enlarger (I assume these aren't contact prints, you don't say how the prints were made) and other places in your darkroom, turn out all the lights including the safe-light, turn on the enlarger but put the cap on the lens. Stay in the darkroom for ten minutes. Then start looking up, down, all around the enlarger. Especially look up at the lens from the baseboard, i.e. see what the paper "sees." You'll almost certainly see light leaking from a variety of places. That may or may not be causing the problem but it's a good idea IMHO to tape up or otherwise cover places where light is leaking from the enlarger. Also look around the darkroom, under the door and around windows if any is a good place to start. Cover those leaks if there are any.

If you don't know how to do a proper safe-light test ask here. But don't just put a coin on the paper for a while with the safe-light on and then develop the paper, which is what people who don't know any better sometimes suggest. When testing the safe-light you want to take the light that strikes the paper when printing into account as well as the ambient light from the safe-light.

All of this may or may not help with your problem. But even if it doesn't, it represents good darkroom practice IMHO, is easy to do, and certainly won't hurt anything.

[Raffay]

Hi Brian, I don't have an enlarger, and 4x5 scanners are also not available here, I have asked my computer shop to source me an Epson V700 but that will take time. Are there any other scanners that would do the job, HP/ Canon are the most commonly available here but I have not seen one that does 4x5 there are some models that do 35mm. I used to go to this shop, they have a Canon that has a 4x5 loading try but the results were the same...foggy.

So, as there is no facility at the moment, I am using my iPad as a light box and then taking pictures of the negs from my smart phone using negative effect, so two negs make a positive :) I know this must be the worst way one can do it, but I am sure that if the negs are not foggy then the result would at least have the right tones, if not the best quality. I will try and post some negs here as well for your review. So I am only developing and not using any enlarger or paper. There may be light leaks in my darkroom so I am trying to fix them, and will test again.

My Setup - I guess the worst one can imagine :)

Negative over an iPad

85876

Self-portrait negative

Ignore the checkered pattern I think it is the protective plastic on the iPad :)

85877

Fotos the German Shepard negative

Ignore the left side, I resumed development after six months and forgot that the tank was 1.5 litres and only put 1 litre of dev

85878

I really appreciate your support.

Cheers
Raffay

[Ari]

If you are certain that your light leaks are under control, then it may be that your film is getting scanned on its way into Pakistan, and this may be causing the fog.

[Raffay]

Hi, well thats a problem, do you know of any solution as I think it is impossible these days to bypass anything from the scanner. is it possible for you to show me a sample, like well developed negative for me to see how it looks like.

cheers
Raffay

[C. D. Keth]

85907
Hi, well thats a problem, do you know of any solution as I think it is impossible these days to bypass anything from the scanner. is it possible for you to show me a sample, like well developed negative for me to see how it looks like.

cheers
Raffay

Your negatives do look on the low contrast side and the rebate area around the edge shows more density than I would expect. Here's a negative of mine that prints well. It is also photographed against a laptop screen so the process is similar to what you're doing.

[Raffay]

Hi, this time I made sure that the dark room is actually dark, let me know what you think.

Negative:

86023

Positive:
Tweaked a little, contrast, as it was again lacking contrast, and some sepia effect. Also I think that is is a little over exposed.

86024

Cheers
Raffay.

[Light Guru]

If you are certain that your light leaks are under control, then it may be that your film is getting scanned on its way into Pakistan, and this may be causing the fog.

Test the film by taking a unexposed sheet and developing it. If it comes out completely clear then you know the film has not been fogged.

[Raffay]

@ Light Guru God bless you...I did the development of a non-exposed neg and it came out all foggy. And here I was investing in tripods and scanners :( Now I have to find a way to get film into Pakistan without getting fogged....what a nightmare!!!

Cheers
Raffay.

[Brian Ellis]

Hi, this time I made sure that the dark room is actually dark, let me know what you think.

Negative:

86023

Looking at the negative and your print, I don't think the film is the problem, the negative looks like it should show a bright white sky
Positive:
Tweaked a little, contrast, as it was again lacking contrast, and some sepia effect. Also I think that is is a little over exposed.

86024

Cheers
Raffay.

I should mention that diagnosing problems, especially by internet exchanges, has never been my strong point. But FWIW, your negative looks fine to me, with that negative and proper printing it looks like the print should "sparkle" more than it does, e.g. the sky should be a bright white and some of the leaves or blossoms on the tree should be brighter than they are.

If there's a problem with the materials my guess is still the paper being fogged. I'm unclear on exactly how you're making these prints but it could be that the equipment just isn't up to the task or that as you suggest the exposure might just have been too long. However, if someone else comes along with a different idea and they sound like they're better at diagnosing problems than I am they probably are.

The negative has a purple color cast on my monitor, that's usually caused by insufficient or outdated fix. You often can re-fix in fresh fixer and remove the cast if it bothers you (it always bothered me).

[ic-racer]

Try a slow ISO 25 film. Less likely to be damaged by x-rays on the way to you.

[Raffay]

@ Brian, below is the picture of the neg I developed without exposing, have a look:

86075

To me it looks foggy and dirty??? And I am not printing, I am taking a picture by putting the neg on a light box. I know the quality is affected but a clear neg should come out clear, right?

@ ic-racer I have checked online but I could not find a store selling ISO 25 they either sell 100/125 or 400. How do you people get your film, I understand you might be getting it from your local store but what if someone does have to mail order it across states or people travel for photography...how does it work? does it mean that I have to give up LF altogether...

Thank you anyway

Cheers

Raffay

[Ari]

Yes, your film is definitely fogged; I hope that you got a bad batch, and not that all film coming into Pakistan will be similarly fogged.
I get most of my film shipped, mostly from US/Canada, occasionally from China/HK, and I've never had this problem.
So, I do hope this was a one-time occurrence.

[Raffay]

Thank you Ari, for your comforting comments. When you say you get your film shipped in, you mean directly from the shops via courier like DHL USPS etc. with no special instructions. People are saying that fils get fogged if they pass through a scanner.

Also, I would appreciate if you could provide the names of the vendors you order from it will be a great help.

Cheers

Raffay

[Louis Pacilla]

Hi Raffay

Welcome my friend.

Here are a few excellent sources for film that will ship world wide. here ya go B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ , Freestyle Photographic supplies http://www.freestylephoto.biz/, Glazers Cameras http://www.glazerscamera.com/store/film-darkroom/film?p=2 and Badgers Graphics https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=253.

There are plenty of others that give good service world wide. You may want to check on different forms of shipping and check to see if any can offer hand checks for sensitivity reasons.

Hope this helps you in your quest.

[Ari]

Thank you Ari, for your comforting comments. When you say you get your film shipped in, you mean directly from the shops via courier like DHL USPS etc. with no special instructions. People are saying that fils get fogged if they pass through a scanner.

Also, I would appreciate if you could provide the names of the vendors you order from it will be a great help.

Cheers

Raffay

Louis sent you a good list of suppliers, and I've had good luck in the past from eBay vendors selling Shanghai film.
No, there were no special instructions, and all went well. The film was always shipped by regular mail services, not FedEx, DHL or the like.
The Chinese film boxes were even opened on two occasions, luckily they didn't open the film packets.
But I see that you already purchased film from the UK and USA, so perhaps your film will get scanned regardless; I hope it was just one bad batch.
It might be a good idea to have the seller indicate what is in the box and add a warning label; that may help.
Let us know how this progresses.

[Brian C. Miller]

Can the shipper be instructed to place the film in an x-ray resistant bag? I'm sure that a store like Glazer's Camera (http://www.glazerscamera.com) would do it if you asked. Of course you'd have to purchase an x-ray protection bag each time, but it sure beats having fogged film.

[Ari]

I thought of that too, but that wouldn't stop Customs officials from opening the box.
Maybe it's standard procedure at Pakistani Customs to open these kinds of shipments.
Perhaps some inquiry into their standard operating procedure would help prevent such occurrences.
Just a guess on my part.

[Brian C. Miller]

Before Germany was reunited, families in West Germany would send parcels to family members in East Germany. The box would be packed with a typewritten inventory of what was in the box, and the inventory list would have the following note for the inspection officials: "A copy of this list has been sent through mail to the recipient." If that wasn't done, then packages would arrive minus a few items, and with a retyped list.

Perhaps a note could be included with the package: "The box of photographic film contains a light-sensitive material. If the box is opened in normal room light then the film inside is ruined. If the film is subjected to X-rays, then the film is ruined. If the box must be opened or X-rayed to be cleared entry into the country, please refuse the package and return it to the sender."

[Cor]

Hello Raffay,

While I agree the most likely cause is fogging by a custom scanner, I still think it is worthwhile to re-fix your negatives with fresh hypo (I suppose it is a good habit to use fresh hypo fix every time, and use relative longer fixing times: 5- 10 minutes. It is not the rapid fix (ammoinium based) fixer we mostly use over here. There seems to be quite some brown stain on most of your negatives. I must applaud your heroic efforts to do LF Photography with so little resources at hand !

Best,

Cor
@ Brian, below is the picture of the neg I developed without exposing, have a look:

86075

To me it looks foggy and dirty??? And I am not printing, I am taking a picture by putting the neg on a light box. I know the quality is affected but a clear neg should come out clear, right?

@ ic-racer I have checked online but I could not find a store selling ISO 25 they either sell 100/125 or 400. How do you people get your film, I understand you might be getting it from your local store but what if someone does have to mail order it across states or people travel for photography...how does it work? does it mean that I have to give up LF altogether...

Thank you anyway

Cheers

Raffay

[Jim Noel]

Welcome to the forum, Rafay!

D-23 isn't the problem.

First, you should use a normal stop bath, or give it a couple of washes in water before the fixer and adjust your development time. White vinegar isn't as chemically pure as actual stop bath. Also, just use about five minutes (or twice the clearing time) for fixing.

Second, the problem with your self-portrait photo is that you seem to have a light leak happening somewhere. The bottom part of the image seems to indicate that your darkroom is not completely dark, so there's exposure either during loading or processing. If there was a leak during camera exposure, then that would be far more pronounced.

I'm guessing that you are using a digital camera as a copy camera. No problem, it works, so that's good enough. You need to get either Photoshop Elements or The GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) and adjust the contrast.

There is no problem with using vinegar. Most modern workers use no stop bath other than two 15-30 second water rinses.
There are several possibilities for the light leaks:
1. The camera, but this doesn't appear to be the most likely.
2. The developing tank
3. General light in the area where film is loaded or unloaded.
The darkroom itself may not be dark. Check by sitting in total darkness for 15 minutes. During this time, have a sheet of film laying in the sink or on the counter with half of it covered. When developed it will let you know if this is the source.

[Raffay]

Hello Cor,

When you say re-fix my negatives, do you mean the ones already developed? I am not sure if my efforts are heroic but it is very tough as you said without resources and with tons of people around who think I have some sort of a disorder when I am trying to shoot this film when people have moved on to digital. But I think this is so much fun, and as I am not doing it professionally it gives me the leverage to try out anything, and I think there is nothing more exciting to be waiting to see how the negs turned out, and of course meeting nice people like yourself.

Cheers
Raffay

[B.S.Kumar]

Raffay,

If film is getting fogged at customs, there's very little you can do about it, except to ask if someone would be kind enough to hand carry it into Pakistan and hope for the best. But there is still a way for you to shoot LF. Why not use X-Ray film? I'm sure it is easily available in Pakistan. There are threads on the forum showing a variety of examples, the chemicals are the same as used for regular film, and shooting and developing techniques are also discussed on the forum. The only issue you may face is with respect to cutting down the film. Black curtains over the windows and under the door at night should take care of that problem.

Good luck!

Kumar

[polyglot]

That's not fogging, that's improper fixing. Your fixer is dead and/or you're not fixing for long enough or your agitation scheme isn't working. Try putting that sheet of film back into fresh Rapid Fixer (ammonium thiosulfate, not sodium thiosulfate) for about 5 minutes and see if it comes out clear. If that can be cleared, then you can (should!) do the same to your other already-processed films, and the fogging effect should go away.


@ Brian, below is the picture of the neg I developed without exposing, have a look:

86075

To me it looks foggy and dirty??? And I am not printing, I am taking a picture by putting the neg on a light box. I know the quality is affected but a clear neg should come out clear, right?

@ ic-racer I have checked online but I could not find a store selling ISO 25 they either sell 100/125 or 400. How do you people get your film, I understand you might be getting it from your local store but what if someone does have to mail order it across states or people travel for photography...how does it work? does it mean that I have to give up LF altogether...

Thank you anyway

Cheers

Raffay

[Raffay]

That's not fogging, that's improper fixing. Your fixer is dead and/or you're not fixing for long enough or your agitation scheme isn't working. Try putting that sheet of film back into fresh Rapid Fixer (ammonium thiosulfate, not sodium thiosulfate) for about 5 minutes and see if it comes out clear. If that can be cleared, then you can (should!) do the same to your other already-processed films, and the fogging effect should go away.

Hello, thank you for your comment, and I will try and see if what you are saying works or not. The only problem I see is that I only get one chemical here in Pakistan for fixing and that is hypo, see picture below. Let me know if what you are saying will work with the chemical I have or not.

86627

Cheers
Raffay

[Raffay]

@ polyglot: I am using that hypo with a ratio of 50g/L, and since my FR Tank is 1.5 litres I am making 2 litres with 100g and then using 1.5. Thought I should let you know and find out whether I am using the correct ratios or not, and I fix for 5 or sometimes 10 mins...

[mdm]

I also use plain hypo to fix my negatives, you should be useing about 240g/liter and 60g/liter sodium sulfite. The sulfite keeps it fresh for longer so you can reuse it. Plain old hypo should work but dont reuse it too much. I think the rule of thumb is you take a sacrificial sheet and fix it, you can do that in the light, double the time it takes to clear to get your fixing time. I have a cup thats the right size to make 1l fixer, and add 4 table spoons sodium sulfite. Its ok to develop and fix without a stop bath, specially if you are not reusing your fixer. If you are not making Ansel Adams masterpiece images its probably fine to develop, fix and then wash in water, try and use bottled water for the final wash and maybe add a tiny drop of johnsons baby shampoo to help it dry without marks if you like. Sodium Sulfite is hypo clear so you can use some in one of your earlier washes. Sodium sulfite is used in food industries and you may be able to get some from a supplier to food processing factories.

[Raffay]

So what you are saying is that I should refix the sheets I have already developed with these new ratios in daylight and see after how many minutes it gets clear, if it does at all, and then double that time to be my new fixing time for future, right?

[mdm]

No, that would be a fresh sheet you are using to get your fix time, exposed to light is ok but it does not have to be developed first, or a scrap of film lying about somewhere. Maybe traditionally the leader of a 35mm film would be used, if you were developing 35mm film. If you try refixing some of your negatives and the fog goes away, you know the problem was with the fixer. If it does not go away then maybe it is fog. There are whole threads on DIY fixer on apug somewhere, probably here too, google is your friend.

[algarzai]

i have never seen an x-ray fogged negatives but i think it makes sense to expect that the negative will have even fogging across it.

my negatives turn out great. I buy film without special instructions online and they ship them to me in Saudi Arabia and i know for sure that they get scanned.

I thought it would be a problem and read about it online. i came across research that says that a lot of passes are needed to produce an effect. one of my friends buys his film online from USA and ships it back to USA for development. He has never had problems other than light leaks from opening the boxes but not from x-ray.

I also buy kodak and ilford powder chemical ID-11 or D-76 and kodak fixer (not rapid). they all come in nice powder which helps keep the shipping cost low but still more expensive than the checmical.

ilford and kodak dealers in Saudi are not helpful but Fuji guys are. they bring E6 chemicals for me with almost no profit margin. In return i am the first owner of x pro 1 in Saudi :)

[polyglot]

You can use the sodium hypo, but the fixing time will be longer. I can't speak to the dilution or time required as I've only used rapid fixer but I think you need to go for at least 10 minutes. However, the "double the clearing time" (http://brodie-tyrrell.org/wiki/index.php?FixerCapacity) rule-of-thumb should still be valid for determining how long you need to fix for.

Once you've figured out how long to fix for, definitely go back and re-fix (and re-wash) all the sheets you've previously processed. They are not archival while incompletely fixed because the remaining silver salts will gradually turn into silver over time and your images will become truly fogged, which is irreversible. You want to get them fixed properly as soon as possible.

[Raffay]

Hello

I re-fixed two negatives and there is improvement see below:

Before

86782


After

86783

I used the new ratio i.e 240g/l for 30 mins, I am not sure why is it taking so long. But I still feel that there is fog.

Cheers
Raffay

[Raffay]

After fixing for 30 mins in fresh fixer

86784

Compare this to the picture I posted earlier although that I had cropped. My jacket is dark navy blue, but I guess it came out black.

Please ignore the scan quality as I am without scanner right now, so this was scanned with my phone camera with the neg on top of the iPad and I guess the lines are from the protective screen of iPad.

Cheers
Raffay

[mdm]

Try developing some new photos, After a few minutes in the fixer you can turn the lights on and look, or open the tank and look. I usually fix Ilford film for 5 minutes with continuous agitation and its fine even in oldish fixer mixed at the same dilution as you. Even if there is a little fog it should still make nice photos, witness jcoldslabs (Jonathan's) photos on ancient expired film and even Michael A Smith using Super XXX film that must have been around for quite some time. You dont need a scanner to make web quailty images, lots of people photograph negatives on a lightbox with a digital camera, even a very inexpensive one or an iphone.

[polyglot]

Raffay: looks like definite improvement in the blank sheet. Harder to tell with the other as you've inverted it. Perhaps post an uninverted image of the sheet taped to a window with white sky background - the patterns you see are probably the iPad's LCD grid.


Try developing some new photos, After a few minutes in the fixer you can turn the lights on and look, or open the tank and look. I usually fix Ilford film for 5 minutes with continuous agitation

Yes but that'd be Rapid Fixer (ammonium thiosulfate) instead of sodium thiosulfate, which takes a lot longer.

I too use Rapid, and fix traditional films for about 4-5 minutes, TMAX for 8. I would still be very surprised if you can't get rapid fixer in any form at all, even in Pakistan.

[Raffay]

Negative:

86802

[polyglot]

Looks like you have it properly fixed now, which is a really good start. At this point, the lighter (denser on the neg) area could be a light leak or flare in the camera. It doesn't look like X-Ray fogging to me; that's usually either uniform (no problem, just print through it) or stripey/spotty (very distinctive geometric patterns, unusable results).

[Cor]

Hi Raffay.

It seems that you are slowly getting there, bare in mind that badly fixed negatives can build up density when exposed to light. The unfixed silver-halide crystals can under exposure of light slowly convert to silver atoms. These cannot be fixed out any more. This conversion (there is a name for it, it's also used in various alt. photo processes) takes time and relative huge amounts of light (see those long exposure pin hole images on silver gelatine paper: the image is there without developing, but not stable)

Good luck,

Cor

Ps but what I mean to say: if you see some weird pattern after re-fixing: it can be explained by exposure of previous insufficient fixed parts.

[Raffay]

Thanks Cor, it's because of helpful ppl like yourself that I am making progress, thank you.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Try another batch of film, or film from a different shipment.
I got a bad batch of Efke once. Fogging was the issue.

[Tim Meisburger]

I don't know if it is still relevant, but want to point out that if you are asking people t hand carry film for you from the US and UK, and they are bringing it in their checked luggage, it will be ruined. The must bring it in the carry-on, or it will go through the high intensity luggage scanners, which are not film safe. It will be cheaper for you to order shanghai film from ebay, or if you are lucking you can find a way to have it shipped direct from China.

[Raffay]

Thank you Tim, I will keep that in mind. One of the member is kind enough to send me some film, lets see how that turns out and then I will order the next batch from shanghai film, I have already spoken to them, but I am not sure how they will protect while sending, as they will send it through normal post. Lets see, I think only experience will teach the right way. Thanks anyway for your valuable input and yes it will always be relevant.

Cheers
Raffay

[Tim Meisburger]

They will just mail it to you. I did it for four years and never had a problem, so unless its a different system in PK it should be okay.

Best, Tim

[tenderobject]

i put my films on check in luggage last time i carry my film from manila to iran and it looks like it was all fogged! too bad! :(

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/sets/72157631808862268/

now i have to buy films again. i had 150+ sheets on my freezer and i expect it to be the same as these images i have on flickr.

good luck with you raffay. i understand it's hard to do LF or film photography in our place but don't give up! :)

[Raffay]

Hello All

Its been a long time that I wrote on this topic. Actually, I was waiting for the new film to arrive, here is the first shot. The light meter showed a reading of 2 on the bright side of the face of my wife, aperture I choose was f11 at that the reading was I/11 sec so that was zone v to bring it to VII I increased the exposure by 1/4 sec (as my wife's skin in very white).

This is TMAX 400, developed in D-23 (non-diluted) for 8 mins with fifteen sec agitation every minute. Five minutes fixing, 45 sec agitation every minute, then left the film in the fixer for 20 minutes. Scanned with Epson 4990.

Please comment, critic as I want to learn. A few problems that I detected:

1. My son should be facing the window for consistency and same shadowing
2. Focus is not perfect
3. I have cut my daughters hand
4. Contrast is not very exciting

Please please critic on exposure, development and fog, as I had problems with film/ fixing before - this one seems fine to me.

Regards
Raffay

88525

88526

[Terry Christian]

Raffay, your photograph of your family is beautiful!
You should compose with more of your family in the image and less of the wall above them. And yes, you might want to change to a higher f-stop to give more depth of field, so that everyone's eyes are in focus. Other than that, I would not change a thing! :)

[polyglot]

Looks like you have it working. I'd use a little fill from a reflector on the right or rotate the whole group to face the window more directly, but that's a purely personal stylistic decision.

Five minutes fixing is a good time with TMAX in fresh rapid fixer, but you probably want more like 8 minutes for TMAX as a matter of habit, especially once your fixer reaches its capacity. Leaving your film in (rapid) fixer for 20 minutes will cause some bleaching and loss of detail in the shadows. It's probably the right time for non-rapid fixer, though you should keep agitating.

[Raffay]

Raffay, your photograph of your family is beautiful!
You should compose with more of your family in the image and less of the wall above them. And yes, you might want to change to a higher f-stop to give more depth of field, so that everyone's eyes are in focus. Other than that, I would not change a thing! :)

@ Terry: Thank you for your feedback, this image is with a 127mm lens and it is very difficult to fill the frame with the subjects. I have to move to the minimum focusing distance in order to archive something close to it and that effects depth of field, I guess. Is it ok to move back and then later while processing crop the image, until I get a decent portrait lens like at least 210 or ideally 240.

Cheers
Raffay

[Raffay]

Looks like you have it working. I'd use a little fill from a reflector on the right or rotate the whole group to face the window more directly, but that's a purely personal stylistic decision.

Five minutes fixing is a good time with TMAX in fresh rapid fixer, but you probably want more like 8 minutes for TMAX as a matter of habit, especially once your fixer reaches its capacity. Leaving your film in (rapid) fixer for 20 minutes will cause some bleaching and loss of detail in the shadows. It's probably the right time for non-rapid fixer, though you should keep agitating.

Do you think the contrast is ok?

[polyglot]

Hard to tell from the little uninverted image. Looks like you could maybe develop it a little more but I wouldn't worry about it - all that matters is whether you can get the print or scan that you want from the negative. Are you happy with the level of shadow detail and contrast in the image?

[Raffay]

Hard to tell from the little uninverted image. Looks like you could maybe develop it a little more but I wouldn't worry about it - all that matters is whether you can get the print or scan that you want from the negative. Are you happy with the level of shadow detail and contrast in the image?

I guess the dark hair should have a little more detail, but I guess that is maybe because I left the negative in the fixer for too long - as pointed out.

[Raffay]

Raffay, your photograph of your family is beautiful!
You should compose with more of your family in the image and less of the wall above them. And yes, you might want to change to a higher f-stop to give more depth of field, so that everyone's eyes are in focus. Other than that, I would not change a thing! :)

I used f11, what would you recommend?

[Raffay]

This is the best picture I ever took using large format, I don't know what I did but the results I think are amazing. A lot of people are liking it and actually I am getting a few requests from people I know to take their portraits 😄

The best part is that I don't know what I did right here. I used f11 and 1/8, this is a crop the actual image was bigger as I am only using 127mm. This is the first picture that I think does not only have IV, V, and VI zones and an overall all boring grey look to it. This has III and VII as well so I guess it looks pleasing to the eye. The picture of my family, I posted before, still has the only grey look to it.

Any expert opinion would be really helpful. So that I can get consistent results, I placed them in front of the window and just metered the face and shot.

A picture of my two nieces

88653

[Ari]

Raffay, very good photo; as to fogging, I'm glad you solved that issue.

Regarding the previous photo of your family, I'd like to know what are those two lighter areas in each upper corner.

The photo above is wonderful, keep it up.

[Raffay]

This is a crop, I will have to check the original image to see what the white corners are, thank you for your positive feedback.