|
|
|
Carlheinz Bayer
{K:14220} 12/1/2004
|
...forgot to mention that one. IMHO this image needs some contrast, (except you want this effect) and if you use PS to pump up the contrast you will get even more grain. Not sure how familiar you are with filters, but with B&W I wouldn't leave the house without yellow and red filter to increase the contrast.
C.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlheinz Bayer
{K:14220} 11/30/2004
|
Hey Jim,
I followed your discussion and can tell you Chris is right in every of his points. The image is slightly underexposed and "high speed" films tend to develop grain. It make a lot of sense to pick a handfull of films, stick to them and get a feeling for them. If you trust your lab and the whole roll is like that, I would think about rating at a different speed.
I also agree on the spot metering. If you know how to use it, it's the most powerful exposure tool.
To get rid of the grain on this image you could use Neat image or create another layer lower the contrast and add a bit blur.
The lab has a huge impact on grain. To do home processing is the way to go. BTW, 'll start the same in a a few weeks since my pro-$-lab screwed up a few films recently.
C.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
{K:14949} 11/29/2004
|
Jim feel free to email at cllaurit@comcast.net
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
{K:14949} 11/29/2004
|
The secret of B&W photography is exposing for the shadows and developing (or print) for the highlights. If you expose for the shadows and use that exposure you should get a better negative. If you go the 320 route when you drop the film off at the lab don?t tell then you rated it at 320 and let them process it at iso 400. This will give the film more exposure and make a easier negative to scan and print.
|
|
|
|
Jim Gamble
{K:12164} 11/29/2004
|
Chris, let me see if I understand you correctly on this. I could spot meter off a dark area, such as the dark doorway, and use that as my expossure for the whole shot?
Or rate the HP5 at 320, or 300 ISO, and have the lab process as such?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
{K:14949} 11/29/2004
|
The side of the barn could have been brighter which would have fooled the meter into reducing the exposure causing the underexposure. The sky also being bright would cause the meter to be fooled. You can always spot meter off a shadowy area and expose for that. Something else you can try is if you?re having the lab develop your film rate HP5 at 320 or even 300 which would allow the shadow detail to come through. This forces the film to be slightly over exposed but B&W film has the latitude to handle this.
Another thing you might want to try is using Vuescan for your scanning software. You can download it at www.hamrick.com. This is very basic looking software that can extract every bit of detail out of the scan.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Gamble
{K:12164} 11/29/2004
|
Chris, thanks for your comment.
The scanner I'm using is an Epson 3170 Photo, the software is whatever came with the scanner.
As I stated in my about, I use aperture priority for my expossure, so how does it come out underexpossed?
I know the camera's meter,try's to meter everything to a mid-tone, so could this be the problem?
The day I shot this, it was a sunny day, about 4 in the afternoon.
Anything you could suggest would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Del Metheny
{K:25617} 11/29/2004
|
These old barns "mostly for tobacco" are scattered all over your part of Md. I love them and in the past have posted some. I think the building is old and weathered, a little grain just adds to the 0ld look.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
{K:14949} 11/29/2004
|
Jim,
This image came out grainy because it's underexposed slightly and the scanner picked up the grain and enhanced it. Matej is correct that B&W is very easy to do at home with about $15 worth of chemicals.
What scanner did you use? What scanning software? I shoot HP5 as well and if it is underexposed you will see a lot of grain in the sky. Also large patches of shy show up grainy when scanned. If you were to print this using an enlarger the grain would disappear.
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
{K:24381} 11/29/2004
|
What exactly do you need help with?
If it's the grain, do not despair just yet. Scanners have a way of making films look grainier than they really are, or even converting the grain (which is basically good) to noise (which is basically evil :-) ), so I wouldn't want to say "That's unacceptably grainy!" without seeing a nice traditional wet print. The scanner seems to have also introduced some purple and yellow lines into the sky, so I wouldn't trust it to reproduce grain correctly either.
Anyway, you can control grain by choosing a film that is appropriate for what you are trying to achieve (admittedly HP5 tends to be grainier than, say, Pan F+), selecting a particular developer (btw developing films is quite easy, no reason to rely on commercial labs unless you know one that's REALLY, REALLY GOOD), and whether you decide to push or pull the film, or expose & develop it according to its nominal ISO rating.
If you are asking for critique of the photo as such, I'd say it's all too gray (once again may be the scanner & software's fault) and could have benefited from a contrast filter (or completely different lighting). Contentwise, I do not find it very exciting, but that's very subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorothy Di Liddo
{K:13787} 11/29/2004
|
I guess you tried the despeckle option in Photo Shop. A slower speed film might help. I do like the photo, and think the grain adds to it. you could have entered this in the grainy photo for effect project, and pretended that you wanted it this way. :) Dottie
|
|
|
|
Sue O'S
{K:12878} 11/29/2004
|
I agree with Bea for questioning why you think there's something wrong with the outcome, but I certainly understand the quest to figure out why it didn't come out the way you expected.
Chris Lauritzen is a big B&W fan and has a great deal of experience. Perhaps ask him to take a look?
|
|
|
|
|
Bea Friedli
{K:10189} 11/29/2004
|
what's the problem Jim ? I love this..just tilt it a tad to the right and it's perfect..leave it alone ! 
|
|
0 
