Can we talk about film?

[Jumpthesnark]

I sometimes share an individual photo in the POTD thread, but it's been awhile since I've shared a group of film photos; probably the last time was when I was diagnosing the broken F100.

I now shoot primarily with a fully functioning Nikon F100, and most often with a Nikkor 35mm 1.8 lens. I've tried some macro work with this camera but I haven't really been happy with many of those images so far. Probably my eyes are too old to focus through a traditional OVF. I ask a lot of questions about camera scanning vs regular scanning because I'm not convinced I'm getting the best quality from camera scanning. I'll break these into several posts since I have a lot to share.

I camera scan with either a Z6 or a Z6ii and convert and process with Negative Lab pro. I also use a film carrier from Negative Film Supply and have a Raleno video light rated at 95+ CRI for a light source (recommended to me in this thread).

Earlier this year I shot two rolls of bw and home developed them with Cinestill monobath. Many of you know my daughter has done two semesters of a darkroom class in high school, so she helped me learn how to get the film on the reel and to use the tanks, although at school they use a regular development method with fixer and stop bath, etc.

This roll was the first I did was shot with Kodak TMAXX 3200 shot in a Fujica STX-1, all manual camera with a manual focus Fuji 50mm 1.8 lens.


1. View attachment 2033931

2. View attachment 2033929


3. View attachment 2033932

When TMAX 3200 came out, it was a life-saver. It has a degree of base fog built in, which made it possible to get more shadow detail under super low light conditions (which it was made for) than what we had been using before - Tri-X at 1600 and 3200.

I see lots of scratches on these images, is that from handling them wet after you developed them? Or from when you're scanning them? And to fix scratches, have you heard of the old school nose grease trick?

 

[Jumpthesnark]

On the other hand, that one roll I did like I shot at 200, so maybe I just need to try that again.

Did you tell the photo lab that you had overexposed the film by 1 stop when you brought it in for processing?

 

[mollyc]

When TMAX 3200 came out, it was a life-saver. It has a degree of base fog built in, which made it possible to get more shadow detail under super low light conditions (which it was made for) than what we had been using before - Tri-X at 1600 and 3200.

I see lots of scratches on these images, is that from handling them wet after you developed them? Or from when you're scanning them? And to fix scratches, have you heard of the old school nose grease trick?

The scratches are from when I handled them after developing them. I'm not inherently bothered by them in this particular role because it was magical that they developed at all. 🙂 I know going forward to be more careful.

Did you tell the photo lab that you had overexposed the film by 1 stop when you brought it in for processing?

No, I basically just overexposed that roll by two stops; once by the ISO setting and then metering at +1; but it was developed for ISO 400. It was not pulled in development.

 

[mollyc]

One thing I am not particularly careful about when I scan is stray light on the negative. I don't use any room lights, but my studio is bright even on a cloudy day since I have windows on all four sides of the room. I just learned yesterday that Negative Supply Lab has a hood kind of thing that you can put over the end of the lens and is the same size as the opening of the film carrier, which will then basically block out the stray light; I have a feeling that might make a big difference, and it's only $30. I can probably make a ghetto one out of some construction paper to see if it makes a difference and if so then buy a real one.

Basic Scanning Hood for the Basic Film Carrier 35 — Negative Supply

This hood is an accessory for our Basic Film Carrier 35. It helps block extraneous light from entering the film carrier and eliminating glare and ghosting. This is perfect for DSLR camera scanning users with macro lenses of various focal lengths.

www.negative.supply

 

[mollyc]

I might also recruit my husband into making me a copy stand, because I'm pretty sure he can make one for way less than the $400 dollars that Negative Supply charges (or even $180 for the mini one). He loves projects like this.

 

[mollyc]

@mollyc If I could commit on you what you posted about you scanning experience. " I am not finding the same level of clarity from my home scans as I get from the lab scans". I've set up Nuoritsu and fuji scanners that is probably at your social lab. There is a lot that goes into those scanners compare to what you could buy for home use. The software and the image processing electronics is where the magic happens. Perhaps a work flow could be both from the samples you shared the both had very different looks and both looks were very nice.

Thanks, this is a good point. When I get a bit more organized, I think I will camera scan one of my lab scanned rolls to see how close I can get since I have a reference point for what look I like.

Don't get me wrong, many of my home scanned images delight me, but I'm still not sure I am doing the best I can; if I can back into something from a lab, and get close I'll know what to do for future rolls.

My local lab uses a Noritsu scanner; they were surprised when I asked and that I knew there was a choice between that and Frontier. 🙂 (I know some labs use other scanners as well, but that those are the big two.)

There is also this weird perception I have when I shoot that I envision the final image in my head when I shoot it. When I shoot digital, this isn't an issue because I know how to edit digital images to end up with my "pre-visioned" image. With film, there isn't as much latitude and the base filmstock has a lot of bias. I've scanned more images for my daughter than I have for myself, and she loves her images; she shoots Kodak ultramax in a point and shoot (and with flash for half her images) but the scans I give her are close enough to lab scans for her, and she doesn't have to pay for scans now. So I don't think the issue is *all* with my scanning procedure, just more still learning the differences between digital and film and adjusting my expectations.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

No, I basically just overexposed that roll by two stops; once by the ISO setting and then metering at +1; but it was developed for ISO 400. It was not pulled in development.

You mentioned that you had difficulty scanning that roll. Do you think it was because the film was overexposed or was it related to the film coming from your broken camera?

I like the idea of the scanner hood. You only want light coming through the negative, and not reflecting off of it. Except of course it's artist's prerogative to break the rules!

 

[mollyc]

You mentioned that you had difficulty scanning that roll. Do you think it was because the film was overexposed or was it related to the film coming from your broken camera?

I like the idea of the scanner hood. You only want light coming through the negative, and not reflecting off of it. Except of course it's artist's prerogative to break the rules!

no that roll was dev and scanned by a lab. it’s the only roll of porta that i DID like. 🙂 it just wasn’t in focus for the most part because unbeknownst to me the camera was broken.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

no that roll was dev and scanned by a lab. it’s the only roll of porta that i DID like. 🙂 it just wasn’t in focus for the most part because unbeknownst to me the camera was broken.

Ahhh right! The wonky lens mount or something, giving you the LensBaby effect without the expense of buying a LensBaby

 

[mollyc]

Ahhh right! The wonky lens mount or something, giving you the LensBaby effect without the expense of buying a LensBaby

yes, it was never determined what was wrong with it to my knowledge. It would focus sharply in manual focus, so it was clearly something in the AF system.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

yes, it was never determined what was wrong with it to my knowledge. It would focus sharply in manual focus, so it was clearly something in the AF system.

People really love that F100. I'm glad the guy at the camera store agreed to take back the first one you got so you have a fully working, reliably-focusing one now.

 

[bunnspecial]

Portra will soak up 1 stop of overexposure like it's nothing.

Back when I shot color negative film, I use to regularly overexpose by 1 stop by default. I found this especially useful with consumer films and shot under mixed lighting types where the extra density can help color correction in printing.

Some films don't like overexposure as much. Ektar 100 IME should be shot at box speed, but any of the Portra films and basically any consumer film won't have an issue.

 

[mollyc]

oh hey...me again.

Who has any good info on digitizing 120 film? I'm kind of at a happy place with scanning 35mm, but I've added a medium format camera to the mix. I'm considering shooting primarily bw in it so I can develop at home, but digitizing is a bit of an issue since I camera scan. lab scanning costs $16/roll at my local lab for 120 (vs $8/roll for 35mm) and standard resolution (2400x3600). It won't take long to break even on a home setup for MF but not really sure what I should look for. Ideally not super expensive.

I currently camera scan, but I think that's going to be a headache for MF since I'll have to stitch everything together for one image. Currently considering an Epson V600.....would still use Negative Lab Pro to convert. I don't need massive scans, anything that gets me to a digital equivalent of 24mp is fine with me.

 

[bunnspecial]

Halfway into your post I was going to suggest a V600 as a possible good choice for you...

And on a 6x6 camera, even at 3200 dpi you're going to end up at 51mp (I think it can go 4000x4000, although you need to have a perfect focus both in the camera and in the scanner to hope to get that).

 

[mollyc]

So I just discovered that Lomo makes a fairly well regarded 120 film holder. It's only $50. I might start with it and see how I get with camera scanning short term (even though I wouldn't get a 1:1 reproduction) and then ask Santa for the V600 if I need more resolution; the mask is really designed for flatbed scanning, but people use it with a camera and light table.

But good to know the V600 wins a Bunnspecial Seal of Approval. 🥳

 

[mollyc]

The advantage to the Lomo mask is that I also have a Lomo Sprocket Rocket which is 35mm panoramic, and I think I can use this mask for the double frames. I don't think my current Negative Lab Pro 35mm film holder will allow two frames at once.

I swear I do actually research these things before posting.

 

[Clix Pix]

Congrats on the TLR medium format camera! Since you seem to be really interested in working with film, why not set up a home darkroom? Buy an enlarger and the appropriate papers and chemicals, etc. You've already got the equipment for developing film, might as well go on to the next step of using an enlarger to really get the genuine film experience.....

 

[mollyc]

At present I don't really have any interest in printing anything. And even so, I'd have to digitize regardless to share. I frankly don't have enough wall space in my open concept house to start printing in large quanities to make an actual darkroom space make sense.

Maybe some day, but not now.

 

[bunnspecial]

But good to know the V600 wins a Bunnspecial Seal of Approval. 🥳

Not that that's actually worth anything!

 

[Clix Pix]

True, you'd still have to digitalize anyway, but I was thinking in terms of how much you could learn and enjoy from the experience and, yes, challenge, of working in a darkroom under an enlarger, especially with B&W and medium format. One doesn't have to hang every print one creates, or stick it into a frame, whatever. One can simply keep them in portfolios -- real, physical portfolios, not digital ones -- and be selective in what is chosen to be a "wall hanger."

Years ago they used to have locations where darkrooms were available for public use -- for a fee, the photographer arrived with his or her own paper plus negatives they wanted to work on, and the chemicals and enlarger were provided for a given period of time. I doubt that there are any of those still around these days, given the changeover to "the digital darkroom."

 

[mollyc]

Not that that's actually worth anything!

it's worth a lot! ❤️

True, you'd still have to digitalize anyway, but I was thinking in terms of how much you could learn and enjoy from the experience and, yes, challenge, of working in a darkroom under an enlarger, especially with B&W and medium format. One doesn't have to hang every print one creates, or stick it into a frame, whatever. One can simply keep them in portfolios -- real, physical portfolios, not digital ones -- and be selective in what is chosen to be a "wall hanger."

Years ago they used to have locations where darkrooms were available for public use -- for a fee, the photographer arrived with his or her own paper plus negatives they wanted to work on, and the chemicals and enlarger were provided for a given period of time. I doubt that there are any of those still around these days, given the changeover to "the digital darkroom."

Frankly I don't really have the space in my house for a dark room. in terms of square footage, probably, but in terms of someplace light tight, not really. Even our basement gets a bit of natural light and I still have to put a towel around the door of the unwindowed-basement bath (that my son uses...doubt he'd like me taking over his bathroom for any longer than the 5-10 minutes it takes me to reel a roll of film).

Maybe my next house.

 

[Clix Pix]

Well, if you ever have the opportunity to use a real darkroom, go for it!

 

[tizeye]

Definitely the V600. I have its predecessor, the V550. I have scanned 35mm and 120 on it with great success. There is an issue with the aged Epson driver and on the Mac they include a version on one of the commercial conversion software (forget which as away from home until Tuesday) for free,registering with the scanner serial number.

On direct camera scanning, may want to try building the light box l posted a couple pages back. While illustrated with slide holder, have been thinking of designing a rail swstem to pull negative film through. Essentially cut an opening in box sized for 120. Then make 3 overlays placed/secured over the box hole with each designed for film type - mounted slide, 35mm negative strip, and 120 negative strip. If you design as I did, the camera can be mounted on a standard tripod, where most of the commercial holders require the camera to be shooting down.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

oh hey...me again.

Who has any good info on digitizing 120 film? I'm kind of at a happy place with scanning 35mm, but I've added a medium format camera to the mix. I'm considering shooting primarily bw in it so I can develop at home, but digitizing is a bit of an issue since I camera scan. lab scanning costs $16/roll at my local lab for 120 (vs $8/roll for 35mm) and standard resolution (2400x3600). It won't take long to break even on a home setup for MF but not really sure what I should look for. Ideally not super expensive.

I currently camera scan, but I think that's going to be a headache for MF since I'll have to stitch everything together for one image. Currently considering an Epson V600.....would still use Negative Lab Pro to convert. I don't need massive scans, anything that gets me to a digital equivalent of 24mp is fine with me.

If the Lomo isn't to your satisfaction, try the Essential Film Holder. Solid quality, he has different size masks, he's insanely supportive toward customers. I can't recommend the device and its maker enough.

 

[tizeye]

Looked back through page 6 and didn’t see it so must have been another thread. Will re-post the photo. Also, the free software Epson supplies for Mac is Silverfast.

On the light box, total cost was $0.00 It was a Amazon box pulled out the recycle bin. Interior white foam poster board had on hand For color balance. Video LED used, bounce off lower box interior foreven light and avoid direct LED hot spots. Slide holde from 3 foam poster boards to slide slide I’m. For film pull through woul experiment with one or two film layers (or similar depth cardboard) used as upper an lower guides. On the left an right edges foam overlay to fish the film under to pull along the guides.

Linking camera to large monitor for fine focus and firing camera, avoiding shake.