BobPS
Established
Hi guys,
Here's another "how do you" question from me.
I look at the B&W pictures in the gallery and also samples of B&W pictures taken with certain lenses which often posted in the forum. My B&W pictures do not look anywhere near like those pictures:bang:
I'm not talking about composition or exposure or technical stuffs, but I'm talking about the tonality or color (I don't know what the right term is) of the B&w pictures. My B&W pictures are, well, just black and white, while some of the pictures I see here taken by some talented members are not just black and white. There are shades of blacks and whites... I don't know what the term is or how to describe it, I hope you guys follow me
I'm new to B&W photography. I have only shot several rolls of B&W films and had them developed at the local lab, one of a few local labs that still process B&W films. I'm really not satisfy with my B&W images, they're just craps, that's why after several rolls I decided to stick with color films. The other reason is I find it's difficult to take pictures in B&W.
But then, I also don't want to give up, so yesterday I bought 10 rolls of Kodak TMax and decided to learn to shoot B&W.
The question I have to you guys are these: those B&W pictures in the gallery or in the threads, how do you post process them? Do you develop them yourself? scan them yourself? Do you PP it with photoshop or lightroom?
Thanks,
Bob
Here's another "how do you" question from me.
I look at the B&W pictures in the gallery and also samples of B&W pictures taken with certain lenses which often posted in the forum. My B&W pictures do not look anywhere near like those pictures:bang:
I'm not talking about composition or exposure or technical stuffs, but I'm talking about the tonality or color (I don't know what the right term is) of the B&w pictures. My B&W pictures are, well, just black and white, while some of the pictures I see here taken by some talented members are not just black and white. There are shades of blacks and whites... I don't know what the term is or how to describe it, I hope you guys follow me
I'm new to B&W photography. I have only shot several rolls of B&W films and had them developed at the local lab, one of a few local labs that still process B&W films. I'm really not satisfy with my B&W images, they're just craps, that's why after several rolls I decided to stick with color films. The other reason is I find it's difficult to take pictures in B&W.
But then, I also don't want to give up, so yesterday I bought 10 rolls of Kodak TMax and decided to learn to shoot B&W.
The question I have to you guys are these: those B&W pictures in the gallery or in the threads, how do you post process them? Do you develop them yourself? scan them yourself? Do you PP it with photoshop or lightroom?
Thanks,
Bob
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Film selection is important for me ... no amount of messing around with Tri-x in post is going to make it look like Neopan and vice versa. Adox films have the most beautiful mid tones I think I've seen when you get it right ... but shoot it for the wrong subject material and it just doesn't work.
Personally I don't and have never particularly liked the look of Tmax.
It's a jungle out there!
edit ... I meant to add a comment about post processing. I have photoshop and lightroom on my PC but 99.9% of the time I use ACDSee Pro ... it's basic but fairly powerful and it's very easy to learn every function it offers! Photoshop is a monster that I'll never tame and I find Lightroom clunky to use!
Personally I don't and have never particularly liked the look of Tmax.
It's a jungle out there!
edit ... I meant to add a comment about post processing. I have photoshop and lightroom on my PC but 99.9% of the time I use ACDSee Pro ... it's basic but fairly powerful and it's very easy to learn every function it offers! Photoshop is a monster that I'll never tame and I find Lightroom clunky to use!
Last edited:
f16sunshine
Moderator
I think your lab may be the biggest obstacle. What you are describing seems to be that your images are too high in contrast lacking tones in between black and white. A lab that is not skillful will have a tendency to overdevelop films from my experience. This will cause your negatives to be overly contrasty and ruin those mid tones. If you are not into trying home development. Try one of the B+W C41 Dye films. This way at least the film will be developed at it's rated ISO rather than "Pushed" by over development. Well....that's one theory anyway.
Ducky
Well-known
I think you will find post processing is needed in most cases unless the person (usually the photographer) doing the processing has found the perfect film/developer/process for his/her style of shooting. I always have to adjust something on my bw shots. I use Picassa quite a bit or Photoshot Elements first edition.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Wet print. Better still, process the film at home tt. It's not hard. See: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how process 35-120.html
This is probably not what you want to hear but it's the quickest way to good tonality.
And as Keith says, each film has its look. The advice to 'buy one film and stick with it' is fundamentally flawed if the film you buy and try to stick with isn't the one you like. Try as many films as you can. I prefer HP5-Plus at 400; like Tri-X almost equally much; and although current T-Max is a lot better than it was, I still prefer the other two. But I just plain don't like Neopan 400. THIS IS TOTALLY PERSONAL and someone else might say exactly the opposite.
Cheers,
R.
This is probably not what you want to hear but it's the quickest way to good tonality.
And as Keith says, each film has its look. The advice to 'buy one film and stick with it' is fundamentally flawed if the film you buy and try to stick with isn't the one you like. Try as many films as you can. I prefer HP5-Plus at 400; like Tri-X almost equally much; and although current T-Max is a lot better than it was, I still prefer the other two. But I just plain don't like Neopan 400. THIS IS TOTALLY PERSONAL and someone else might say exactly the opposite.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Traditional wet printing should give you what you're seeking. Enlargers, lenses, and the rest of what you need can be had for very little money these days on the used market. There's a bit of a learning curve. You won't get fantastic prints on the first try. But that beats the frustration of putting all that time and effort heading down a wrong way street.
"Traditional" films like HP4 and Tri-X make it easier to get those tones you seek. Delta and T-Max were invented mostly because they use less silver than the traditional fims, back in the 1980's when we had a silver "crisis" and silver prices were soaring. Now there's plenty of silver on the market and film prices, corrected for inflation, are about 2/3 of what they were before the "crisis". Tri-X today is a bargain and traditional enlarging paper is often cheaper than quality ink jet paper.
Pick one film and one developer and master it. Don't make the mistake of trying everything on the market. I think that most of us would agree that a good starting point is Tri-X film, D-76 developer diluted 1:1, Ilford Multi-grade paper, and Dektol paper developer. Go buy a "brick" (20 rolls) of Tri-X so you'll be less likely to give in to the temptation of shooting something else right away. Buy a 250 sheet box of 8x10 paper for the same reason. You'll get there!
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
"Traditional" films like HP4 and Tri-X make it easier to get those tones you seek. Delta and T-Max were invented mostly because they use less silver than the traditional fims, back in the 1980's when we had a silver "crisis" and silver prices were soaring. Now there's plenty of silver on the market and film prices, corrected for inflation, are about 2/3 of what they were before the "crisis". Tri-X today is a bargain and traditional enlarging paper is often cheaper than quality ink jet paper.
Pick one film and one developer and master it. Don't make the mistake of trying everything on the market. I think that most of us would agree that a good starting point is Tri-X film, D-76 developer diluted 1:1, Ilford Multi-grade paper, and Dektol paper developer. Go buy a "brick" (20 rolls) of Tri-X so you'll be less likely to give in to the temptation of shooting something else right away. Buy a 250 sheet box of 8x10 paper for the same reason. You'll get there!
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Al,
No, monodisperse emulsions such as Delta and T-Max were not designed to save silver, they were designed for finer grain and more sharpness, which they deliver. The research costs of those films far outweighed any savings in silver.
And I know that yours is the popular view; that very few people are likely to dislike Tri-X; and that D76 and Dektol are excellent developers. Even so I'd suggest trying as many films as possible to begin with, in a liquid developer such as DD-X for extra convenience -- when you hit one that's 'magic' you know about it, even with one roll -- and THEN buy a brick of the 'magic' film. I'd likewise recommend liquid concentrates for paper dev, probably Ilford Multigrade Warmtone developer (ideal, unsurprisingly, for Ilford Multigrade Warmtone paper).
Cheers,
roger
ZeissFan
Mentor
Keith and Al make good points, regarding film selection and wet printing. There's a difference in what you'll see when viewing a photo on screen or as an inkjet and viewing a print from an enlarger.
Using an enlarger also forces you to be very careful about handling negatives. You can spot a print, but the cleaner your negative is from the start, the less work you will need to do later.
I think that almost any scanned negative will need some adjustments, as well as the typical cleanup work of removing dust spots.
Yes, developing your own b/w film is a great thing to do. Even after some 30+ years, I still get a kick out of seeing my finished negatives come out of the can.
Using an enlarger also forces you to be very careful about handling negatives. You can spot a print, but the cleaner your negative is from the start, the less work you will need to do later.
I think that almost any scanned negative will need some adjustments, as well as the typical cleanup work of removing dust spots.
Yes, developing your own b/w film is a great thing to do. Even after some 30+ years, I still get a kick out of seeing my finished negatives come out of the can.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I see you're in Jakarta, so finding a good lab, darkroom supplies and even having space for a darkroom might be difficult.
I would recommend getting the basic components and chemicals to develop your own films. That way you have the ability to do tests, try different things and make a choice. I generally use FP4+ and HP5+ as they are readily available here in Oz, but Kodak make similar emulsions. I'd start on those first and get some experience before trying too many others. Fuji Neopan can be good but it can also be tricky if you're not right on top of it. The others are more forgiving.
After you have the negs - what to do? Well, I do have a darkroom, and a flatbed scanner, but I also quite often get the local lab to scan the uncut length of film and put the scans on a CD. then I can use Photoshop Elements to do the post edit and either print them myself at home or even get the lab to print them from the digital files. I generally do this when I have a lot of film to process and haven't time to do single scans or set up the darkroom (laundry).
As for finding it difficult to take B&W, yes, it is a bit more challenging to take good images than in colour. It's more to do with shapes, textures and lighting than expecting colour to save the image from mediocrity. But persevere and you'll get great satisfation when it starts to come together. There are lots of good books available (current photographic magazines are usually just churning our DSLR info for the masses and aren't much help). Roger Hicks and Frances have a good and informative website with lots of free info to download - I'd suggest spending some time browsing through their resources at an early date and if you want more info mail Roger direct. He's a guru to many of us and has a vast experience in film, especially B&W. Good luck!
I would recommend getting the basic components and chemicals to develop your own films. That way you have the ability to do tests, try different things and make a choice. I generally use FP4+ and HP5+ as they are readily available here in Oz, but Kodak make similar emulsions. I'd start on those first and get some experience before trying too many others. Fuji Neopan can be good but it can also be tricky if you're not right on top of it. The others are more forgiving.
After you have the negs - what to do? Well, I do have a darkroom, and a flatbed scanner, but I also quite often get the local lab to scan the uncut length of film and put the scans on a CD. then I can use Photoshop Elements to do the post edit and either print them myself at home or even get the lab to print them from the digital files. I generally do this when I have a lot of film to process and haven't time to do single scans or set up the darkroom (laundry).
As for finding it difficult to take B&W, yes, it is a bit more challenging to take good images than in colour. It's more to do with shapes, textures and lighting than expecting colour to save the image from mediocrity. But persevere and you'll get great satisfation when it starts to come together. There are lots of good books available (current photographic magazines are usually just churning our DSLR info for the masses and aren't much help). Roger Hicks and Frances have a good and informative website with lots of free info to download - I'd suggest spending some time browsing through their resources at an early date and if you want more info mail Roger direct. He's a guru to many of us and has a vast experience in film, especially B&W. Good luck!
mfogiel
Mentor
The critical element in the chain is the enlarging/scanning. If you cannot have a darkroom, you will have to scan, and at this point you should get the best film scanner you can afford. The optimum in the amateur rank (beyond this we are talking about Imacon or drum scans) is Nikon CS 9000, but several film 35mm scanners are good as well. Then you will need a good scanner software - I use Vuescan, as it gives me a lot of control over the image, and controls the B&W grain well. Then, we have to face the film choice - I would start with XP2 developed at a lab (expose at EI 200 and develop normally). As soon as you get proficient with the scanning and image adjustment for contrast, curves, etc in Photoshop, you should try silver based films and develop yourself. I suggest to start with Tri X (or Arista Premium 400, which is the same thing for less money) and D76 1+1. Then you can see if you can beat this combination with something else.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I pretty much do the same thing. The only other suggestion I can offer is to watch the amount of sharpening you give the image. Some of the images I see in the RFF gallery are over-sharpened to the point of looking "brittle." I have no doubt that if you could somehow drop one of these over-sharpened pics they would break into a thousand pieces.
Jim B.
wgerrard
Mentor
As you can see, Bob, opinions vary on the value of a newbie sticking with one film for some time, or trying a variety of films until one clicks. As a newbie, I can see value in either approach. Learning how to control the process to your tastes depends on changing one factor and seeing what happens. For example, I wouldn't change development time, agitation time, and film in an effort to reduce contrast. I'd change only one factor. And that single factor might be film.
The only thing that counts is your satisfaction. No one is keeping score.
The only thing that counts is your satisfaction. No one is keeping score.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Also, don't forget the impact of the developer. I hate HP5 in Rodinal, but like it in Aculux. I like Adox CHS 25, 50 and 100 inRodinal (the 100 gets a bit grainy for some things) and Pan F in Rodinal, but not really perceptol (though I think with more exposure I'll get there). As Roger says, it's all personal. I happen to liek Tmax 100 too in Tmax developer.
If you scan, you need to get a decent scann(er) - lab scans always seem to oush the contrast on 35mm and ruin either colour or monochrome pictures - and then for monochrome my usual routine would be convert to B&W, levels to set white and black, curves for overall contrast, dodge and burn layers and a toning layer. I might include a (subtle) overlay layer or local contrast layer sometimes too.
One day I may buy another enlarger as my last one disappeared a number of years ago.
Mike
If you scan, you need to get a decent scann(er) - lab scans always seem to oush the contrast on 35mm and ruin either colour or monochrome pictures - and then for monochrome my usual routine would be convert to B&W, levels to set white and black, curves for overall contrast, dodge and burn layers and a toning layer. I might include a (subtle) overlay layer or local contrast layer sometimes too.
One day I may buy another enlarger as my last one disappeared a number of years ago.
Mike
bogelgelbo
RF student
Bob, I live in Jakarta and Bandung too and I haven't yet found any lab that process BW film that I like. My suggestion is to try develop on your own. You can get all the necessary stuff in Capa Store, Pasar Baru, Jakarta. I try this route a few months ago experimenting with the cheap stuff (Lucky SHD 100 & micro MF developer) and never looked back. Developing my own BW process is the most fun part of photography for me.
But pleasa note that being in Indonesia you must be a little "creative" though because well known developing chemicals and films are hard to find.
But pleasa note that being in Indonesia you must be a little "creative" though because well known developing chemicals and films are hard to find.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
I completely agree about changing only one factor. More concentration, more time, higher temperature and increased agitation all feed through into increased contrast. Reduced concentration, less time, lower temperature and reduced agitation all feed through into reduced contrast. The danger in changing two variables therefore lies in (say) increasing time and decreasing agitation so that the two cancel one another out to a greater or lesser degree.
Which is why I don't think that changing the film or the developer is a good way to go about it, if you're already more or less happy with the tonality other than the contrast. There is not really any such thing as a contrasty film, at least among normal camera films. There are films that are more or less sensitive to increased or decreased development, but ANY normal film can be made contrastier or less contrasty in ANY normal developer via a change in the developer concentration, time, temperature or agitation.
My own route, provided the results aren't downright horrible (to my eye, obviously) is to increase or decrease developent time, leaving concentration, temperature and agitation unchanged. If I still can't get tonality I like, and I have to use the film in question (e.g. for a paid test) then I'll start trying other concentrations or developers.
Note also that developer choice (and to a much lesser extent agitation) affects true film speed, so an ISO 400 film might be ISO 650 or more in (say) Ilford DD-X and 200 or less in some of the more faddish fine-grain developers, especially if combined with stand or semi-stand development.
Cheers,
Roger
BobPS
Established
Thank you very much gentlemen for all your advice.
It looks like developing and scanning the film are the things that I have to do myself.
Bogelgelbo, thanks very much. I went to capa a couple of months ago but back then I haven't had the urge to do B&W photography so I didn't ask them. I'll visit them tomorrow.
Thanks,
bob
It looks like developing and scanning the film are the things that I have to do myself.
Bogelgelbo, thanks very much. I went to capa a couple of months ago but back then I haven't had the urge to do B&W photography so I didn't ask them. I'll visit them tomorrow.
Thanks,
bob
wgerrard
Mentor
Thanks, Roger. I should have said something like "in an effort to change something" rather than "in an effort to reduce contrast". It's my newbie-ness showing. I was trying to illustrate the "change just one thing" axiom.
kuzano
Mentor
Amazing! Does no one use filters any more?
Amazing! Does no one use filters any more?
My B/W photography changed course many years ago, when I learned how to use color filters to affect the outcome of the image. Of course now, you can post process and add filter effects in your editing.
But understanding the additive and subtractive effects of color filters on black and white film capture is a huge leap forward in achieving the "look" you are seeing in B/W photos in many galleries. If you don't work with filters, or post process filter effects in B/W images, you're foregoing huge amounts of image control.
I take it from all the responses to this post that filters are no longer resident in most camera bags... but come on folks? Surely some of you are still post processing filter effects into your images????
I took the New York Institute of Photography in the 60's by mail order. Two of the area's it really advanced me was in understanding metering, and using filters on the front of my lenses.
I urge you to at least look into that aspect of B/W photography.
A couple of good contemporary books which include information on filters are:
Advanced Digital Black & White Photography which is a Lark series book, Author John Beardsworth.
Digital black and white photography, also by John Beardsworth.
Of course these are digital and spend a lot of time on post processing. However, they both have a reasonable amount of information devoted to using actual color filters.
Amazing! Does no one use filters any more?
My B/W photography changed course many years ago, when I learned how to use color filters to affect the outcome of the image. Of course now, you can post process and add filter effects in your editing.
But understanding the additive and subtractive effects of color filters on black and white film capture is a huge leap forward in achieving the "look" you are seeing in B/W photos in many galleries. If you don't work with filters, or post process filter effects in B/W images, you're foregoing huge amounts of image control.
I take it from all the responses to this post that filters are no longer resident in most camera bags... but come on folks? Surely some of you are still post processing filter effects into your images????
I took the New York Institute of Photography in the 60's by mail order. Two of the area's it really advanced me was in understanding metering, and using filters on the front of my lenses.
I urge you to at least look into that aspect of B/W photography.
A couple of good contemporary books which include information on filters are:
Advanced Digital Black & White Photography which is a Lark series book, Author John Beardsworth.
Digital black and white photography, also by John Beardsworth.
Of course these are digital and spend a lot of time on post processing. However, they both have a reasonable amount of information devoted to using actual color filters.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
An excellent point. Even a mild yellow filter (1.5x, 2x) can transform many films. After that it's more 'effects', but hey, that's often what you need...
Cheers,
R.
kuzano
Mentor
Examples of filter effects...
Examples of filter effects...
Now, I admit I did this with my monochrome setting in my Olympus e420, and the filters are chosen In-Camera. But this gives some idea of changes created by using various colored filters on film. The principles are the same.
The filters chosen are neutral, red, and yellow. I also did one on green, and you can see a pronounced difference in how the trees appear due to the impact of the green filter on the green trees.
When I use real filters on film, I usually find the red filter to be more pronounced than these pictures.
Examples of filter effects...
Now, I admit I did this with my monochrome setting in my Olympus e420, and the filters are chosen In-Camera. But this gives some idea of changes created by using various colored filters on film. The principles are the same.
The filters chosen are neutral, red, and yellow. I also did one on green, and you can see a pronounced difference in how the trees appear due to the impact of the green filter on the green trees.
When I use real filters on film, I usually find the red filter to be more pronounced than these pictures.