Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

First B&W with Pentax 645

johnriley
Posted 12/01/2008 - 17:25 Link
If you can, process your own black and white film. It isn't difficult and it will reap rewards for you. Once you are in the swing of things your results will be vastly superior.

If it's colour film then a professional lab will be worth the extra cost.

How do you convert to black and white? If you are using Greyscale then that could account for the flat results. The best method is to use Channel Mixer in Photoshop, which will enable you to adjust the exact tonal balance.
Best regards, John
gartmore
Posted 12/01/2008 - 17:42 Link
niblue wrote:
Ken - what lab are you using to do your development & scans? I had the developing done at Trumps in Edinburgh this time however I wasn't that impressed. All the films have marks/splashes on them and the even managed to lose one of my films for a few days.

I'm scanning using an Epson 4490 flatbed at the moment. The main difficulty I'm finding is in getting the right balance between drama and detail. If I go for a high contrast, punch image then I'm losing highlight and shadow detail.

I'm not great at converting digital shots to B&W either, for similar reasons.

I use B&S in Glasgow and I'm sure they have an Edinburgh branch http://www.b-s.co.uk/ The picture I posted was taken a couple of years ago and I dont think they do B+W processing any more. I've sent you a PM with details of a great processor in Glasgow. I haven't heard of Trumps but marks on negs point to sloppy handling and possible contamination.

I dont know how you might go about this but posting a negative of one of the images might be helpful. You can tell a lot from the density of the edge numbers. Perhaps JR's suggestion about photographing the neg on a light box (or even a white computer screen) might help. You could, if you like post (by mail) a neg to me and I could evaluate that. It may well be that the processor has screwed up and that is what is maling life difficult.

Ken
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Daniel Bridge
Posted 12/01/2008 - 17:43 Link
As I use Elements I haven't got the Channel Mixer, but I use a Hue/Saturation layer instead. Just reduce the saturation to zero, then adjust the lightness of the individual colours - drop down the 'edit' box and choose each colour, play with the lightness and see what effect it has.

Then add a levels layer to ensure you have deep blacks and bright whites if that's what you want.

Ken, I only asked because the image looked lacking in contrast. I had a play and adjusted the levels and I thought it looked better (to me), but obviously it's all down to the look you're after.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
gartmore
Posted 12/01/2008 - 17:50 Link
Daniel Bridge wrote:

Ken, I only asked because the image looked lacking in contrast. I had a play and adjusted the levels and I thought it looked better (to me), but obviously it's all down to the look you're after.

Dan

Thats interesting because it looks quite rich and contrasty to me! Can you post your version? My paranoia knows no bounds.

Ken
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
niblue
Posted 13/01/2008 - 11:53 Link
johnriley wrote:
If you can, process your own black and white film. It isn't difficult and it will reap rewards for you. Once you are in the swing of things your results will be vastly superior.

I've processed B&W before but only 35mm. I've still got all the kit though so I will be giving it a try again. Back then (10 years ago) I used to use Rodinal for all my developing - any suggestions on a general purpose developer now? I'll mostly be shooting Ilford B&W.

Quote:
If it's colour film then a professional lab will be worth the extra cost.

The lab I used is a professional one - it was the first (and probably the last!) time I'd used them though. It's not all their fault that I'm having difficulty getting good results from this film though as I was shooting without using a grad filter (because I don't have a Cokin adaptor yet for the 60mm filter size) and that means the sky is a lot brighter than would be ideal.

Quote:
How do you convert to black and white? If you are using Greyscale then that could account for the flat results. The best method is to use Channel Mixer in Photoshop, which will enable you to adjust the exact tonal balance.

I've been trying a number of different methods. My scanner can do 16-bit greyscale and 48 bit colour but with B&W it doesn't seem to make much difference. What does work though is scanning the film as a positive and then inverting it in PS - for some reason that seems to give a little more detail.

I use elements so don't have Channel Mixer however I have some "Power Tools" (from an advanced PS elements book) and one of those works in the say way as channel mixer so I can alter then amount of red, green and blue I mix into B&W.
johnriley
Posted 14/01/2008 - 09:40 Link
The beauty of processing our own black and white film, apart from being able to get the right quality, is that we can use different developers to get different effects from a given film.

As an example, I use Paterson FX-39 to get a very sharp grain structure. Not the finest grain, but no trace of mushiness and a really crisp result.

For finer grain and a good well rounded negative you could try Paterson Aculux 2.

Both of these are liquid concentrates and more convenient than mixing powders.

It sounds like your equivalent to Channel Mixer is the way to go.
Best regards, John
Daniel Bridge
Posted 14/01/2008 - 11:16 Link
gartmore wrote:
Thats interesting because it looks quite rich and contrasty to me! Can you post your version? My paranoia knows no bounds.



Here's my more contrasty version. It undoubtedly blocks up some of the shadows, but looking at the histogram of the original these are very small areas, just a flat line. Also some of the highlights will be blown, but again these are just a flat line on the histogram.

Comment Image


And a slightly warm version, which I prefer to the blue:

Comment Image



In this digital age, when we all check our histograms to ensure we haven't blown the highlights, I think we often think that we have to keep them in the final image. This was never the case before, when we couldn't check the histogram of our prints, so I don't think we should be so hung up on it now. By all means start with the best 'negative', but if the best print has pure white or pure black elements to it, so be it.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
johnriley
Posted 14/01/2008 - 14:55 Link
Quote:
In this digital age, when we all check our histograms to ensure we haven't blown the highlights, I think we often think that we have to keep them in the final image. This was never the case before, when we couldn't check the histogram of our prints, so I don't think we should be so hung up on it now. By all means start with the best 'negative', but if the best print has pure white or pure black elements to it, so be it.

The trick with digital is to preserve the highlights (although it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned if a bit here and there is blown out) and let the shadows take care of themselves, just like we used to do with slides. An images that is too light is useless. A dark image can be saved.

In other words, I agree with you!
Best regards, John
Daniel Bridge
Posted 14/01/2008 - 15:04 Link
johnriley wrote:
The trick with digital is to preserve the highlights (although it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned if a bit here and there is blown out) and let the shadows take care of themselves, just like we used to do with slides. An images that is too light is useless. A dark image can be saved.

In other words, I agree with you!

I'm glad you agree with me! But just to clarify, I mean at the taking stage preserve the highlights, but when you do your print, if you want to blow them out, that's fine. If that's what looks best, go for it. Don't think "I MUST NOT blow my highlights", if a very high key, predominantly white image, looks fantastic.

But when you take the pic, preserve as much potentially useful information as possible. You might find that the shot doesn't look as good high-key as you thought it would, and detail in the highlights makes the shot after all.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
johnriley
Posted 14/01/2008 - 15:31 Link
I still agree with you...twice in one thread, is this a record?

Best regards, John
gartmore
Posted 14/01/2008 - 16:03 Link
Dan, thanks for showing me that, I think somewhere in between would be good, Grade 3 paper for me. I must say that I hardly ever bother with the histogram when taking pictures and certainly never in PP.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Daniel Bridge
Posted 14/01/2008 - 16:34 Link
johnriley wrote:
I still agree with you...twice in one thread, is this a record?


I think it must be. I'll make a note of it on my calendar.

Ken, I wasn't mentioning the histogram specifically regarding you, just that there tends to be this 'never burn out the highlights' attitude, which I think stems from overstrict application of what the histogram tells us. I think I probably mentioned it more to pre-empt anyone saying "the highlights are burnt out and the shadows have blocked up".

Lovely photo by the way.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
gartmore
Posted 14/01/2008 - 19:28 Link
Daniel Bridge wrote:
johnriley wrote:
I still agree with you...twice in one thread, is this a record?


I think it must be. I'll make a note of it on my calendar.

Ken, I wasn't mentioning the histogram specifically regarding you, just that there tends to be this 'never burn out the highlights' attitude, which I think stems from overstrict application of what the histogram tells us. I think I probably mentioned it more to pre-empt anyone saying "the highlights are burnt out and the shadows have blocked up".

Lovely photo by the way.



Dan

I didn't think you were meaning me, I was agreeing with you in a sort of round about way! I hate all that stuffy stuff - Rule One: There are no rules.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Daniel Bridge
Posted 14/01/2008 - 20:55 Link
Gosh, we are all in an agreeable mood!

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
niblue
Posted 15/01/2008 - 09:49 Link
When I'm shooting landscapes with the DSLR I expose for the sky, for the reasons discussed here.

Shooting film, even though I often will be scanning the results, I don't necessarily take the same approach, but instead would be looking for a more balanced exposure (I don't know if this is right or wrong but it dates back to shooting slide film in my pre-digital days). With this particular film the problem was that I didn't have grads to fit the lenses being used (I was primarily just testing the camera) and therefore in most cases the sky is too light, making it difficult to preserve any detail in the sky. If anything I'm pleasantly surprised by the results I got, especially as there are a couple of shots I quite like.

Trying to get useful web images from the film has been useful practice of my photoshop skils though! Here's another one from the same B&W roll:

Comment Image


As well as having no grads to fit I've also no hood for this lens (or for the other two lenses I have for the 645) so there was a lot of flare in this shot. I've got the 45-85mm zoom coming - with a hood! - which I do have filter fittings for so I won't be going out of my way to get hoods & filter fittings for the others.

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.