Not having the details of what film you were using, lens, aperture etc., kind of limits anyones ability to determine what is going on. But here is one problem -
Films are sensitive to light over a limited EV range. This usually equates to about 5 f/stops. This means that the range from the very brightest highlight with any detail at all - to the darkest shadow with any discernible detail is 5 f/stops. This photo exceeds that range.
So your shadows are going to be black, without any detail. The reason for this is that your camera meter takes all the light from the scene and averages it. This sort of guesses at what middle grey would look like under these conditions. So when processed on these machines that Donna spoke of, the highlight and shadows that exceed 2.5 stops above or below middle grey lose any detail. These machines are calibrated to a standard that reads the "average middle-gray" for an "average" scene. Once this is done, all films are run through the machine and processed using those levels. This is compounded when printed on machines. Your image already is too contrasty, so the machine attempts to "correct" it. Results = muddy print.
The best way to correct this is to correct it in the camera. When presented with such a contrasty scene, frame to eliminate the either the darkest areas or the brightest highlights. Or use a grad-neutral density filter.
Here is your scene as it would print without any ND filtering.
When you have your film processed at a place like Walgreens, or Walmart, or Ritz, or Wolf, they all use machines to process and print that are very similar to each other (might not be exactly the same, but close). The only time one of these machines is not used is when you pay (quite a lot!!!) to have them hand-printed.
The machines are calibrated to be "idiot-proof"... in other words, they are set to correct the "mistakes" that snap-shooters often make. While this is helpful for point-and-shooters who don't know much about photography, it can be very detrimental to the photographer. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten prints back which look like nothing, only to scan the film to find the most amazing colors and shadows.
I think what's happening with your photos is that you're assuming that the prints you get back are an accurate representation of your photography. I'm betting they're not, and that what you're getting in your prints is the idiot-proof-corrected photos from the machine that your processor uses.
I'm assuming that you don't have a film scanner, so I'd like to make a suggestion. Take any one of the negatives from the photos you've posted here, to a place where you can scan the negative and make a print. I believe you can do this at a place like Wolf Camera or Ritz Camera, or you can call around and find a place.
Scan the negative, print it, and compare it to the print you've gotten back when you had your film processed. I think you'll be surprised. It might be enough to make you want to spend $1,000 on your own film scanner for home use. Even if you don't want to invest in a film scanner, I think you'll get an idea of what your prints are SUPPOSED to look like (IOW, what's actually on your negatives), and might be a little less inclined to make your scanned photos look exactly like the prints you get back, which are idiot-proof-corrected by the machine.
I'm assuming that, since you said that you send your film out for processing, that you don't have access to a darkroom to make your own prints. A program like Photoshop can have the same effects as a darkroom.... and is much easier to use (in my opinion). The goal of any photographer is to make his or her photographs look the best they can. If someone has the luxury and the technical skills to do this in the darkroom, that's great! But many people dont have access to a darkroom, or, like me, have not perfected their darkroom skills. I see nothing wrong in using a computer to achieve the same effects I would get in a darkroom, if I had the technical skill.
You don't need a digital camera to alter the image. Just open it up in whatever photo editing software you have then try changing the brightness and contrast there. I shoot only film and do this all the time.
I know that I can alter the image properties with photshop etc but Im not using a digital camera, Im using ISO400 Print Film and I intentionally scan the image to match the print I get back from the developers. What I would like to know is how I can improve the original print. Im fairly happy with the composition of the photo's Ive posted to date and that the main purpose of the exercise, however as has been pointed out, the contrasts of the images are not at their best. How can I improve the contrast that is captured in the original image rather than "fixing" the scanned image. Maybe I'm trying to be too perfect or maybe Im missing something in my technique when I take the original picture. Id just rather get it right with the original than have to patch it up later.
Andrew, when you scan the image which image manipulation software are you using. If you have Adobe Photoshop, or Photoshop Elements, then its a simple task of adding a layer adjustment to enhance the contrast.
If you have a different utility then we might be able to give you pointers.
This is not the first time that Ive had comments about the contrasts of my photos. How can I improve it though, the images I post are as near to the printed images they are scanned from as I can get them. Is the contrast something I can change with camera settings or by using a different film or is it primarily down to the developing?
0 
