Lack of contrast, depth, and clarity when shooting with Tri-X 400 35mm film

[okmarzo]

TLR- Is this lack of blacks, contrast, depth, and muddy haziness a typical result when you expose between the highlights and shadows (sky and foreground)? This was developed and scanned by a photo lab. It's probably my fault because I exposed more towards the highlights of the sky resulting muddy silhouette.

I just received my shots and notice the lack on contrast and depth. A lot of the shots are muddy and unclear as well. I'm fairly new to shooting with film and because I'm used to shooting digital, I was naturally afraid of overexposing the highlights. So I exposed more towards the highlights (the skies in this case).

I made the mistake finding a balanced exposure between the the sky and shadows. I'm going to reshoot test shots and this time underexpose within the shadows 0, +1, and +2. So this time, I hope I get the correct depth and contrast.

Is this typical a result when you overexpose for b/w film (tri-x 400)? Would I lack this much contrast when overexposing that it would lack darks as well as the muddy results? Is it possible my photo lab I go to made a mistake? I've sent 2 color rolls to them and they were overall fine. However, again, with this b/w roll, I did expose more for the highlights and then the shadows (sky and foreground).

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

I think you're under-exposing. Film has more tolerance for over-exposure than does digital.

I think you should try a different lab too or - at the very least - scan your own negatives.

When printing B&W from film we could use different 'grades' of paper to increase or reduce contrast too. B&W photography has always been as much about the darkroom as the camera. Now we substitute Lightroom for the darkroom, but without post processing you miss a lot of the potential.

 

[okmarzo]

I think you're under-exposing. Film has more tolerance for over-exposure than does digital.

I think you should try a different lab too or - at the very least - scan your own negatives.

When printing B&W from film we could use different 'grades' of paper to increase or reduce contrast too. B&W photography has always been as much about the darkroom as the camera. Now we substitute Lightroom for the darkroom, but without post processing you miss a lot of the potential.

Here is an image with a decent exposure. Overall a fairly well balanced shot. So I feel like this photo lab should be alright but I'm going to shoot test shots this weekend. I will focus on exposing for the shadows more this time. If majority of them turn out like this again then I will send it to a different photo lab.

 

[Klaus dk]

The usual wisdom in the film days was that when you shoot negative film, expose for the shadows, when positive, expose for the highlights.

Film does not clip highlights like digital.

 

[Tom Axford]

The usual wisdom in the film days was that when you shoot negative film, expose for the shadows, when positive, expose for the highlights.

Film does not clip highlights like digital.

What Klaus said bears repeating and remembering!

If you (the OP) want us to be able to give a more useful critique of your shots, you need to supply the actual exposure details (shutter speed, aperture) and development details (standard development or pushed or pulled to effectively change the ISO rating).

Negative film used at its ISO speed rating has only a little latitude for underexposure (perhaps 2 stops), but huge latitude for overexposure (5 stops or more). Personally, I used to routinely overexpose by one stop (e.g. by setting my exposure meter to ISO 50 when using ISO 100 b&w negative film).

The other point worth mentioning is that the contrast in the digital images you posted depends on the contrast set in the scanner that digitises your film. It bears no relationship to the contrast you might get if you made a print from the film.

 

[okmarzo]

Negative film used at its ISO speed rating has only a little latitude for underexposure (perhaps 2 stops), but huge latitude for overexposure (5 stops or more). Personally, I used to routinely overexpose by one stop (e.g. by setting my exposure meter to ISO 50 when using ISO 100 b&w negative film).

The other point worth mentioning is that the contrast in the digital images you posted depends on the contrast set in the scanner that digitises your film. It bears no relationship to the contrast you might get if you made a print from the film.

Thank you. I believe when I was exposing generally for the sky, it underexposed the shadows a lot. I’m going to expose 0, +1, +2 on the shadows this weekend.

 

[Tom Axford]

This was developed and scanned by a photo lab.

You should really be looking at the negatives themselves to judge how good they are. The scanning by the photo lab may be considerably less than perfect.

I suggest you do some experiments for yourself to see the effects of under and over exposure (it will cost you a bit in film and processing, but that is just a fact of life for film photography).

Take a sequence of shots of the same scene from 3 stops under exposed to 5 stops overexposed, varying by one stop each time. Have a look at the negatives you get (preferably with a good magnifying glass). This will give you a good idea of which exposures work best for negative b&w film and whether it is better to under expose a bit or over expose a bit.

 

[D Cox]

You can improve things a bit by raising the shadows, correcting the black point, and lowering the highlights.





But basically this negative is underexposed.

35mm Tri-X was always a difficult film to get first class results from, although fine for grainy news photographs. You may find an ISO 125 film easier to use, or perhaps one of the B&W films that give a dye image, such as Ilford XP2.

 

[yardcoyote]

As my own first teacher taught me, bracket, bracket, bracket.

 

[hotdog321]

Both the exposure and processing is off on these images. The standard is to "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights" but considerably more care must be exercised when shooting the image.

Exposing for the highlights caused the shadows to drop off into a muddy mess. There is no magic with film--it is a not-so-simple chemical process that must be followed rigorously to work.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Negative film used at its ISO speed rating has only a little latitude for underexposure (perhaps 2 stops), but huge latitude for overexposure (5 stops or more).

Thank you. I believe when I was exposing generally for the sky, it underexposed the shadows a lot. I’m going to expose 0, +1, +2 on the shadows this weekend.

If you ever get into slide film, then you expose for the highlights, but not with negative film, where you make sure that you expose for the shadows.

 

[mamallama]

TLR- Is this lack of blacks, contrast, depth, and muddy haziness a typical result when you expose between the highlights and shadows (sky and foreground)? This was developed and scanned by a photo lab. It's probably my fault because I exposed more towards the highlights of the sky resulting muddy silhouette.

I just received my shots and notice the lack on contrast and depth. A lot of the shots are muddy and unclear as well. I'm fairly new to shooting with film and because I'm used to shooting digital, I was naturally afraid of overexposing the highlights. So I exposed more towards the highlights (the skies in this case).

I made the mistake finding a balanced exposure between the the sky and shadows. I'm going to reshoot test shots and this time underexpose within the shadows 0, +1, and +2. So this time, I hope I get the correct depth and contrast.

Is this typical a result when you overexpose for b/w film (tri-x 400)? Would I lack this much contrast when overexposing that it would lack darks as well as the muddy results? Is it possible my photo lab I go to made a mistake? I've sent 2 color rolls to them and they were overall fine. However, again, with this b/w roll, I did expose more for the highlights and then the shadows (sky and foreground).

If your film was developed by a photo lab you need to expose it according to the instruction sheet that came with the film. They developed it assuming that you did. You cannot fuss around and experiment as you can with digital because once you develop it you are stuck with the negative you got. And if you take it over the hill, you cannot bring it back.

 

[okmarzo]

If your film was developed by a photo lab you need to expose it according to the instruction sheet that came with the film. They developed it assuming that you did. You cannot fuss around and experiment as you can with digital because once you develop it you are stuck with the negative you got. And if you take it over the hill, you cannot bring it back.

I apologize what do you mean by instruction sheet? Are you referring to shooting it in ISO 400?

 

[mamallama]

If your film was developed by a photo lab you need to expose it according to the instruction sheet that came with the film. They developed it assuming that you did. You cannot fuss around and experiment as you can with digital because once you develop it you are stuck with the negative you got. And if you take it over the hill, you cannot bring it back.

I apologize what do you mean by instruction sheet? Are you referring to shooting it in ISO 400?

Kodak used to include a data sheet for exposing and developing with each roll of film. Also they used to publish a data guide with instructions for exposing and developing all of the films and developers they sold that included information for push processing. I used to have their B/W data guide but now only have the Kodak Color Data Guide in the box with the stuff from my old darkroom. The Data Guides were expandable to add new data sheets for when new films were introduced.

Here is the Data Sheet for Kodak Tri-X.

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/kodak_tech/f4017_TriX.pdf

 

[FrancoD]

There could have been a mistake in developing and or printing.Take a look at the negs. See if the numbers on the negs edge are as clear as in this photo, also compare the density of these negs with yours. These negs are both well exposed and correctly developed :

 

[FrancoD]

BTW, you can get something better out of a couple of them but not by much.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

TLR- Is this lack of blacks, contrast, depth, and muddy haziness a typical result when you expose between the highlights and shadows (sky and foreground)? This was developed and scanned by a photo lab. It's probably my fault because I exposed more towards the highlights of the sky resulting muddy silhouette.

I just received my shots and notice the lack on contrast and depth. A lot of the shots are muddy and unclear as well. I'm fairly new to shooting with film and because I'm used to shooting digital, I was naturally afraid of overexposing the highlights. So I exposed more towards the highlights (the skies in this case).

BIG MISTAKE ... Film is the exact opposite of digital.

Note that negative film can actually be "over" exposed up to 5-stops, and thus "film" mantra is to "Expose For The SHADOWS -- and Develop for the Highlights".

I made the mistake finding a balanced exposure between the the sky and shadows. I'm going to reshoot test shots and this time underexpose within the shadows 0, +1, and +2. So this time, I hope I get the correct depth and contrast.

You may need even +3 for a couple of these shots.

Is this typical a result when you overexpose for b/w film (tri-x 400)? Would I lack this much contrast when overexposing that it would lack darks as well as the muddy results? Is it possible my photo lab I go to made a mistake?

YES ... unless it is a custom "B&W" lab, processing can be very inadequate. And scanning my not help.

I've sent 2 color rolls to them and they were overall fine. However, again, with this b/w roll, I did expose more for the highlights and then the shadows (sky and foreground).

Do the OPPOSITE, expose for SHADOWS. (don't worry about the highlights)

 

[okmarzo]

I've read everybody's comments so we'll just wait and see with the new roll I just shot for now. I went to the same locations but this time exposing for the shadows and bracketing 0, +1, +2, +3.

I'm pretty sure I nailed the shots this morning and we'll see how my photo lab develops & scans them this time around. If they're still having issue then I'll develop & scan them somewhere else. If they still don't turn out well then I might send them to thedarkroom.com.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I've read everybody's comments so we'll just wait and see with the new roll I just shot for now. I went to the same locations but this time exposing for the shadows and bracketing 0, +1, +2, +3.

I'm pretty sure I nailed the shots this morning and we'll see how my photo lab develops & scans them this time around. If they're still having issue then I'll develop & scan them somewhere else. If they still don't turn out well then I might send them to thedarkroom.com.

Why don't you consider "developing" your B&W film yourself, not hard nor expensive.

You only need a "tank", and (really-really) dark room, (or changing bag), to load the tank.

Two (cheap) chemicals needed, (ala D-76 or equivalent), and Fixer, (smells like vinegar).

Temperature is not critical, can be "room" temperature/range -- (but you do need a thermometer, and developing "time" is simply/easily adjusted for different temperatures).

Your negatives can then be scanned, and digitally processed.

And IF you want to even print your negatives, enlargers/lenses are now DIRT CHEAP on eBay.

Your (print-paper) developer could be DEKTOL, (w/ same FIXER you use for film).

 

[PhotoTeach2]

There could have been a mistake in developing and or printing.Take a look at the negs. See if the numbers on the negs edge are as clear as in this photo, also compare the density of these negs with yours. These negs are both well exposed and correctly developed :

EXCELLENT POINT ...

The "lettering" is EXPOSED on the film and thus should be DARK/BLACK if "fully/properly" developed.