Disappointed with my first roll of T-Max, whats wrong?

developing your own film smells good too, I'm now using photoshop whilst sniffing a big bowl of acetic acid

Kubrick, some sound advice in here re-developing your own film however the only problem with developing your own film is.......

1) you need a darkroom to print the negs

or

2) you need to pay for individual negs printing by a lab

or

3) you need to be able to scan them into a PC

IMHO I think that option 2 is not very cost effective, option 1 is only a serious option if your prepared to make the effort (and have the space) to set up a darkroom, option 3 is a waste of time, you may as well shoot digtial and convert (this last statement will probably open a can of worms)

Go for option 1, darkroom equipment can now be be found for a very reasonable price, and you dont need a specific darkroom, just somewhere you can set up an enlarger and three developing trays...and a bucket of water to keep prints in till you can get out to wash them. obviously you need to black the room out which isnt difficult if you work at night.

If you have the room give it a go, there is nothing better than watching your images appear in the developer tray, and if your uncertain about what to do then you'll find plenty of help on this forum.

My first darkroom was in the attic. Water was carried up and down in black buckets. It was fantastic.

My current darkroom can be walked into, but water still has to be carried in and out in black buckets. It is fantastic.

However, it has also not been used for the past 2 years as all my photography has been digital, including scanning and printing from negatives.

The pleasure of being isolated for hours under that red light has been replaced by a different sort of pleasure at the PC. It must be said that I now prefer digital imaging and only use film for transparencies.

Time moves on.

There is another couple of options that I use - will also help with those early stages of the B&W learning process... Enroll yourself on a local college course - I've just spent the last 3 years doing a City & Guilds course 1 evening each week with the sole intention of just using the college darkroom facilities and it's been great - only cost me £80 per year and I got to meet some great likeminded people and use their facilities and chemicals - I also came out the other end with a qualification, you might not need the tuition but it's a nice challenge producing work to set themes.

Also, have a search around the local area there might be a studio or the like near you that will rent out darkroom facilities. I do exactly this in Bedford at the BCA Gallery which is part of Bedford museum - think they charge me a whopping £4 per hour

Like the others have said it's so much fun being able to process your own films and then there's the magic of getting the printing right...

Give it a go...

spirit....

excelent recomendation, thats what got me hooked on B&W in the first place.

Kubrick, you could also try to find out if there are any "community" darkrooms in your area.

Thanks again for all the helpful replies so far.

I returned the film to the lab, they have examined the negatives and the prints and returned them back to me. The lab claim there is no error in processing but that the most of the negatives are underexposed due to some ever I need when taking them. As I said earlier in the thread, I use my Pentax SLR's in camera metering which has never let me down, and the film speed dial was set correctly at 100 ISO. I'm a bit stuck now, because I'm sure I've done nothing wrong.

If most of the frames were under-exposed, then presumably some were correctly exposed or over exposed, or both.

Are there any good frames?

G

I think we've already established that there was a density problem that clearly indicate a LAB ERROR. Most labs post diclaimers that limit thier liability to a replacement roll of film. This lab however seems to be blaming you for thier error, and not even willing to go that far.
All you can do is pick a date right after xmas when they're really busy and demand some satisfaction in front of as many witnesses as possible. Exercise your right to freedom of speech and warn others. lastly write a few letters..here in Canada I'd try the better business bureau and chamber of commerce.
seem like more trouble than it's worth? I think so..take your business elswhere.
bottom line:
Everybody's nice when things go right, it's when things go wrong that people show thier true colors.
they're no good. move on.

Kubrick

are you from the UK? did you by chance use a photo-processors whos name begins with K and ends with k?

Try having your stuff developed through a photographic dealer like Jessops or Jacobs etc, at least if you have any problems you are then dealing with people who (should) know what their talking about when it comes to discussing processing problems, or at least be able to comprehend when you show them the difference between a correctly and wrongly developed negative.

The staff at the Lab I mention above had no comprehension of what I was trying to tell them when some re-prints came back with a cyan cast, all they could say was "Its a different paper, so the colours are bound to be different" Nedlessto say I have never used that lab again, even for snapshots.

I have been staring at these photographs so intently and for so long that they are starting to look normal! It is possible that I just don't like the film, but I am then baffled by the lab's comments that the roll is underexposed. If they had said, "yes, this is what Tmax looks like" the problem would be solved.

I have posted some prints from this roll on my flickr page. The prints are titled TMax1 and 2. I would be interested to hear your comments after having a look. Are they underexposed, overexposed or normal?

Thanks everyone for taking the time to help me solve this problem. The link to my pictures is below

http://www.flickr.com/photos/coded_image/

It's impossible to draw any conclusions from prints, we really need to see the negatives. It is true that pictures with lots of sky can lead to under-exposure with centre weighted metering systems, but I presume you metered off the ground and used that reading?

Can you show an actual negative and make it an accurate as possible representation?

I have put some scans of the negatives up at the above address. I had to doctor the scan to make it look as much like the negatives as possible, and it is a fairly accurate representation I think. Of course, everyone will be looking at the scan in different monitors and it may appear slightly different.

I think I may just chalk this one up to experience and give my next roll of TMax to a different lab and see if there is a difference in the resulting negatives.

I'm not sure from that - the negs look under-exposed, but whether that is from exposure or under-development is hard to tell without handling the originals.

I don't know where you are, but if you have a local Photo Society thery should have at least one member who could tell you what you need to know. Why not contact them?

Thanks again for everyone's help with my original question.

John - I do have a local photo club but it's a bit 'stuffy' from what I've heard. I think I will probably just shoot another roll of TMax and see how it comes out. I will give it to a different lab though.

Was the lab a 'pro' lab with a high volume of B+W work because another cause could be stale developer.