advertisement


Shopin' list for B&W processing

We must be talking at cross purposes here:

highlights = white
shadows = black

overexposure will give you an all-white result (not neg, but result), underexposure gives all black.

????
 
Yes, and over-development also = white (or at least mucho grey, which is what you have). This is what you have done wrong, the problem is not in the image taking.

FWIW you can get something reasonable looking from that by adjusting the curves in PS, but there are blown highlights on areas of the clouds. I suspect the scanning is partly at fault too, but you should still do what Tantris says when developing cause it isn't all down to scanning.
 
I'm 100% certain that these aren't overdeveloped because I decreased development times by 15% and I'm now advised that because of the small quantities of chemicals used in the Orbital processor, I shouldn't have decreased times for continuous agitation at all.

BTW are the holes that appeared in the shirt I wore coincidence, or did I spill developer/fixer/photo-flo on it? I wasn't aware of it at the time, but I'd like to avoid it happening in the future in the event I get a decent shirt to wear.
 
Patrick,

It certainly wasn't photoflo - that stuff is pretty inert. It's just a surfactant, and I've seen it used in DIY vinyl record wash recipes. Plus the amount used is miniscule - like 100 to 1 or something. If it was anything I'd guess it was the fixer.

Dan
 
This what it's supposed to look like:

Field1.jpg


although it took a bit of work and a lot of expertise ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top