Can we talk about film?

[ChrisA]

About medium format. Send it is ScanCafe. They do a medium format 3000 DPI scan for $2 per frame. The price include some minimum amount of hand work to remove dust and scratches and correct exposure and contrast.

A $2 it is not worth doing this yourself. Of course, you only have them scan the best frames, not the entire roll.

The result is about a 40 megapixel scan

Fr B&W you REALLY want t use a real film scanning and not a camera. Cameras have a color mask and not enough resulton to captue MF negative but WORSE. Scanners have an Infrared channels that can detect scratches and digtal software can use the IR channel o fix 80% of the problems. You get dramatically better results with a scanner. For color, a camera scan is not bad

 

[dimme]

I too have a Epson V600 and it's not bad for 120 film at all the only issue I have is some times the focus is not spot on. It is great for sharing on the web but if your end product is a medium to large print then you may want more(it terms of sharpness). Another option if you want do continue with camera scanning and you all ready have a light source and macro lens you may want to build a setup like this... It not mine it fromhttps://discuss.pixls.us/t/diy-copy-stand-for-dslr-scanning/14833. I like how they repurposed a film carrier from a enlarger to hold the film and the copy stand looks to be very secure and much easier to use that a tripod.

 

[mollyc]

I already have the setup for camera scanning; I'll share a photo the next time I scan something (later this week)...it's just the jump to MF that bothers me in terms of resolution. But I think I might just accept not 1:1 scans to start (since I pretty much only share here and on FB/IG anyway) and then if there is a specific image that really screams for full reproduction, I'll just rescan it in sections and stitch it together.

 

[mollyc]

About medium format. Send it is ScanCafe. They do a medium format 3000 DPI scan for $2 per frame. The price include some minimum amount of hand work to remove dust and scratches and correct exposure and contrast.

A $2 it is not worth doing this yourself. Of course, you only have them scan the best frames, not the entire roll.

The result is about a 40 megapixel scan

Fr B&W you REALLY want t use a real film scanning and not a camera. Cameras have a color mask and not enough resulton to captue MF negative but WORSE. Scanners have an Infrared channels that can detect scratches and digtal software can use the IR channel o fix 80% of the problems. You get dramatically better results with a scanner. For color, a camera scan is not bad

I have a local lab one town over where I get my film processed and scanned if necessary. I get film back anywhere from 1-3 days of dropoff. It wouldn't make sense for me to pay to develop at my local lab and then send negatives off and have to wait 3-4 weeks and pay just as much for downloads. But thanks for the recommendation.

 

[mollyc]

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. View attachment 2091759 View attachment 2091760

But that is 35mm right? I'm good with 35mm, but it's the medium format part that is tricking my brain right now. 🙂 But I think I will try the Lomo mask (which I think I can pick up today at my local store) and try that first.

 

[kenoh]

Anyone else use one of these?

Lab-Box: the Multiformat Daylight-Loading Film Tank

Buy Lab-Box: the Multiformat Daylight-Loading Film Tank from Analogue Wonderland and get fast tracked shipping to your door! NB: price includes free UK Tracked Shipping!

analoguewonderland.co.uk

I have one and it is great if you are only processing a couple of rolls of film at a time.

 

[mollyc]

The two rolls that I've done I've just done in a 97% dark basement bathroom to roll the spools and then take everything to the kitchen sink to process.

 

[dimme]

I already have the setup for camera scanning; I'll share a photo the next time I scan something (later this week)...it's just the jump to MF that bothers me in terms of resolution. But I think I might just accept not 1:1 scans to start (since I pretty much only share here and on FB/IG anyway) and then if there is a specific image that really screams for full reproduction, I'll just rescan it in sections and stitch it together.

Not being 1:1 should not really be a issue it terms of quality. (unless I am missing something) It sounds like you have a good setup for 35MM scanning so 120 scanning should be just as good. Back in my lab days, scanning with commercial film scanners the sensors were smaller that 120 and 4x5 film and the quality of the scans were excellent. The lens of the scanner would just move to accommodate the film original. The only issue you may run into is stray light because the camera is farther back. But some black paper fashioned into a cone between the lens and film being scanned will easily fix that issue

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Well, it looks like I'll be diving into home developing now...

An acquaintance just gave me a Nikon FM he no longer uses (I think he mostly shoots film with a Nikon F2 variant). My first Nikon camera (digital or film, for that matter), and I love it. Great ergonomics and super user-friendly light meter.

He left it with me yesterday loaded with some Pan 400 B&W, and said "shoot this roll and I'll stop by tomorrow afternoon and we'll develop it in your basement". He didn't ask to come over. I guess I have no choice. 🤣

I guess I need to start shopping affordable film scanners, or a rig for my EOS RP digital.

 

[mollyc]

Well, it looks like I'll be diving into home developing now...

An acquaintance just gave me a Nikon FM he no longer uses (I think he mostly shoots film with a Nikon F2 variant). My first Nikon camera (digital or film, for that matter), and I love it. Great ergonomics and super user-friendly light meter.

He left it with me yesterday loaded with some Pan 400 B&W, and said "shoot this roll and I'll stop by tomorrow afternoon and we'll develop it in your basement". He didn't ask to come over. I guess I have no choice. 🤣

I guess I need to start shopping affordable film scanners, or a rig for my EOS RP digital.

Do you have a macro lens and a decent tripod? If so, you can get started for around $250 (less if you're thrifty). You'll need a film carrier, a light source, and software, although you can make do without software if you absolutely must (just invert your tone curve to get your negative, then all the sliders work backwards in LR/ACR, or your raw editor of choice.

1. I use a film carrier from Negative Supply Co., but there are other less expensive options out there. Lomography has a kit that includes a carrier and backlight if you don't want to source a separate light.

2. There are a lot of light sources, some people even use their phone or iPad, but this one was recommended to me in this thread and I've been pleased with it.

3. I highly recommend Negative Lab Pro. The developer is awesome and really responsive and has an active FB group if you are on that platform. I would say if you could hold out a month or so to do so, though, as he is releasing v3 in early 2023 and it will be a paid upgrade. I've used it for the past year and he just released a great update a few weeks ago, but the v3 will be even better...I think current owners get a discount though, and not sure how much v3 will be as the initial program. I think the upgrade will be $50 for existing users.

I have an old Manfrotto tripod that I can pull the center arm out and reverse, so I use that as a c-stand. Someday I might upgrade to a real c-stand where I can mark different heights (I scan both 35mm and medium format, so my height changes based on what roll I'm doing).

Here's a photo of my basic setup. I have a couple of extra things shown here that I've added in over the past year but they aren't absolutely necessary (like the scanning hood, which I only have for 35mm). And I bought some bubble levels to make sure my camera is square to the scanning setup.

 

[ChrisA]

I guess I need to start shopping affordable film scanners, or a rig for my EOS RP digital.

Scanners can dramatically better than shooting with a macro lens if you use a scanner that has a fourth IR color channel.

There is a trick the scanners use that cameras can't us called "Kodak Digital ICE". This is a technology developed by Kodak in the 1960s and 70s that makes a scecond scan using IR light. IR will bitpss through scratches and dust and is used to find and remove these defects. Ys even newly processed film is these defects

Most film scanners have this IR channel and software lincensed from kodak an they will find and remove abut 80% of the defects.

Scanng is NOT as easy as you might think. Almost ever scann will requires about 5 minutes of hand corection in Photoshop. "dust busting" is the #1 time consumming thing and then you will likley need to adjust the levels in every scan.

But it is not all that bad, Most of you negative frames are "rejects " and you will not even scan them. But expect to spend 5 minutes per scan doing very quick fixes and on the best shots perhaps 30 minutes

Scanning is not less hard to makeing prints. the negatie hold MUCH more information then the digital file so you have to think about contrast and ecposure. his takes about 5 minutes once you have a "system" down.

Look n eBay for old Nikon film scanners, stay away from automatic feeds, they detroy film. An ls-4000 would be very nice to have. But even a flat bed scanner can work if it has film holders.

 

[dimme]

I thought I would share my camera scanning setup. I found all of these parts on eBay. What I like about it is once it is setup the film and sensor plane stay in alignment. As far as software goes I just use photoshop for my conversions. I have actions set up so the negative conversion is pretty quick. I also have a few desktop scanners I also got from eBay. Usually I need to buy two or three to get one working one. I also keep an old snow leopard Mac running to use the native scanning software. I not a big fan of digital ice, in my view it degrades the image too much for my taste, also I have a lot of old Kodachrome's & Black and white negs and ICE does not work well with those films. Being an old lab rat (photo lab worker) The cleanup does not take me very long.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Well, it looks like I'll be diving into home developing now...

An acquaintance just gave me a Nikon FM he no longer uses (I think he mostly shoots film with a Nikon F2 variant). My first Nikon camera (digital or film, for that matter), and I love it. Great ergonomics and super user-friendly light meter.

He left it with me yesterday loaded with some Pan 400 B&W, and said "shoot this roll and I'll stop by tomorrow afternoon and we'll develop it in your basement". He didn't ask to come over. I guess I have no choice. 🤣

I guess I need to start shopping affordable film scanners, or a rig for my EOS RP digital.

I assume your friend is bringing over the chemicals, developing tanks & reels, thermometers, dark bags, etc.? If so, you may want to put up a clothesline or some other line, at least 6 feet off the ground, and get some binder clips or clothespins. These will be used for when the negs are drying. Use one clip or clothespin to hold the end of the film on the line as it dries, and the other one gets clipped to the bottom, to weigh the film down. Also, it never hurts to have scissors ready for when you'll want to cut the dried negs into strips. Also, you should probably supply drinks and tunes. Good luck! The FM is such a great camera.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Thanks to all for the tips! I've shopped scanners before, and I keep circling back to wanting the PlusTek 8200i SE. But the $400 price tag just isn't justifiable for me right now. Maybe later.

I'll probably start by trying one of the film holders like the Lomography kit (thanks @mollyc) coupled with my EOS RP and an EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro I can borrow. I have an older copy of Photoshop I can use for basic image adjustments.

I see the value of the dust/scratch removal software (and again I'd like to get that PlusTek Scanner with SilverFast eventually), but are dust and scratches that big of a problem with newly-developed film?

I assume your friend is bringing over the chemicals, developing tanks & reels, thermometers, dark bags, etc.? If so, you may want to put up a clothesline or some other line, at least 6 feet off the ground, and get some binder clips or clothespins. These will be used for when the negs are drying. Use one clip or clothespin to hold the end of the film on the line as it dries, and the other one gets clipped to the bottom, to weigh the film down. Also, it never hurts to have scissors ready for when you'll want to cut the dried negs into strips. Also, you should probably supply drinks and tunes. Good luck! The FM is such a great camera.

Yes, our friend brought bottles of Kodak HC 110 and Photo Flow along with a bottle of fixer. He left these behind along with a Paterson Super System 4 developing tank with reels.

I provided beer, conversation, and did the gruntwork agitating the tank.

The developing process went pretty smoothly, though I'll need to read up on it more before I try it again myself to make sure I don't forget any steps. The only really tricky part was getting the film on the reels in the dark (he had a dark bag but I have a totally dark room in the basement that is perfect for this). He said the little ball bearings on the reels, meant to keep the film from unspooling while you wind it on the reel, are more trouble than they are worth and with experience you can get the film on the reels without them. He did that part for me, but left a junk roll of film I can use to practice opening the canister and loading the reel with. We hung the negative with a clothespin and the photos look to have turned out. Excited to get them scanned.

He also pushed me to try shooting Kentmere Pan 400...right now it's a little more than half as expensive as Ilford HP5, and less than half as much as the Tri-X 400, so it won't hurt as much if I ruin a few rolls while learning to develop.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

You'll see dust and scratches on just-developed film once you start scanning. It's there! But if you handle your negs carefully it's minor and easily fixed once you have a digital file to work on.

I remember HC-110 yielded a variety of results, depending on the quality of light and type of film. I used to shoot mostly Tri-X and HP5, though. So I don't know how Kentmere will look. I remember HC-110 being easier to deal with, but D-76 giving better grain and shadow detail with those films.

And yes, you will have to practice with those reels before you get the hang of it. I can't stand the plastic Paterson rotate-and-click reels. They always felt fiddly to me, and if there was even a slight bit of moisture on the reel, it would catch the film you're trying to load, and slow things down. Stainless steel reels (made from larger gauge wire, such as Nikor) were my preference, and it became quick and easy to catch the end of the roll on the inside of the reel in complete darkness, and feed the film onto the reel rapidly.

Glad your first try went well. Good luck and keep us updated!

 

[mollyc]

i haven’t used kentmere yet but ilford just released it in 120 format this week! seems a bit lower contrast that the hp5+ i’ve been using recently.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

And yes, you will have to practice with those reels before you get the hang of it. I can't stand the plastic Paterson rotate-and-click reels. They always felt fiddly to me, and if there was even a slight bit of moisture on the reel, it would catch the film you're trying to load, and slow things down. Stainless steel reels (made from larger gauge wire, such as Nikor) were my preference, and it became quick and easy to catch the end of the roll on the inside of the reel in complete darkness, and feed the film onto the reel rapidly.

The reels are definitely very fiddly. Once he got them loaded everything went fine, but I can see the loading part, in the dark, requiring plenty of practice and patience.

i haven’t used kentmere yet but ilford just released it in 120 format this week! seems a bit lower contrast that the hp5+ i’ve been using recently.

I just shot a couple frames from the film strip quickly on the RP, and did a quick and dirty import and invert on IrfanView just to see what they look like. We were shooting quickly and not taking great pictures, and indoors handheld to boot, but they look OK to me. Maybe a little less contrasty than the HP5 I had developed by TheDarkroom.com? But I will need to scan them properly before I judge.

We had the camera's ISO dial set between ISO 200 and 400 (he said it was at 320, his preference for this film), so that probably has an impact. I will shoot at box speed because I am still very much a beginner.

I still love my Canon F1, but this Nikon FM is a great camera - light and small, easy to use, great meter. the 50mm f/1.8 lens is really compact and operates smoothly. And the batteries are cheaper than the F1's Wein Cells.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've used the Kentmere 100 a few times. Most of my usage of it has been from one particular sell from whom I bought a bunch of cameras at one point and he'd always load this film into it before shipping.

My general observation is that it SEEMS(don't hold me to this) to be very similar to FP4+. It's tight grained and low contrast, and overall seems to give a similar tonal response to FP4+. It's not exactly the same, and I like neither as much as my favorite B&W film of all time, Plus-X.

BTW, I have switched almost entirely to stainless steel(for what I can do-I haven't actually developed a roll of film in over 2 years! Hopefully sometime soon I can actually get a darkroom set up again). Good quality stainless steel reels almost load themselves, although cheap ones can be a nightmare and even good ones that are bent will never load properly. After trial and error, I use Hewes reels exclusively for 35mm and have both Nikor and Omega for 120. If nothing else too, the good reels are made of heavier wire than the cheap ones and tend to bend less often.

The FM is a great camera. To me it's miles ahead of its closest contemporary Canon competition, the FTb(although I still like the needle-and-lollipop Canon meter) as well as smaller and lighter. I like the FM2n a little better, but it's splitting hairs. My one complaint is a personal preference, and that's that for a 3-LED meter I like the F2SB/F2AS having it at the bottom of the viewfinder rather than the side. That's a small quibble, though, and sometimes the smaller size and lighter weight of the FM/FM2/FM2n more than outweigh my small meter preference.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I loaded some Tri-X 400 into the FM and will develop that one myself when I finish it, along with a roll of HP5 I currently have in my EOS-1n. I'd rather stick to one film type as a beginner developer, but with film expensive and harder to find in stock, I have a mishmash of different types right now.

I ordered the DigitaLIZA+ negative holder and light from Lomography, and my tripod can be inverted just like @mollyc 's, so I'm going to go that route for now on scanning.

Those stainless rolls look nicer than the plastic ones I have, but for now I'm trying to avoid spending big on my setup, so I'll persevere with the plastic ones unless I am really struggling with them.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I've used the Kentmere 100 a few times. Most of my usage of it has been from one particular sell from whom I bought a bunch of cameras at one point and he'd always load this film into it before shipping.

My general observation is that it SEEMS(don't hold me to this) to be very similar to FP4+. It's tight grained and low contrast, and overall seems to give a similar tonal response to FP4+. It's not exactly the same, and I like neither as much as my favorite B&W film of all time, Plus-X.

BTW, I have switched almost entirely to stainless steel(for what I can do-I haven't actually developed a roll of film in over 2 years! Hopefully sometime soon I can actually get a darkroom set up again). Good quality stainless steel reels almost load themselves, although cheap ones can be a nightmare and even good ones that are bent will never load properly. After trial and error, I use Hewes reels exclusively for 35mm and have both Nikor and Omega for 120. If nothing else too, the good reels are made of heavier wire than the cheap ones and tend to bend less often.

The FM is a great camera. To me it's miles ahead of its closest contemporary Canon competition, the FTb(although I still like the needle-and-lollipop Canon meter) as well as smaller and lighter. I like the FM2n a little better, but it's splitting hairs. My one complaint is a personal preference, and that's that for a 3-LED meter I like the F2SB/F2AS having it at the bottom of the viewfinder rather than the side. That's a small quibble, though, and sometimes the smaller size and lighter weight of the FM/FM2/FM2n more than outweigh my small meter preference.

The biggest reason to get the FM2n over the FM2 (for me) was the higher sync speed (1/250 vs 1/200) - when mixing strobe with sunlight, every little bit helped.

That said, both cameras are so good.

 

[bunnspecial]

The biggest reason to get the FM2n over the FM2 (for me) was the higher sync speed (1/250 vs 1/200) - when mixing strobe with sunlight, every little bit helped.

That said, both cameras are so good.

I've never actually used a regular FM2, so can't comment there.

TBH, not that I mix lights enough, but I like the freedom of a leaf shutter for that. At one point I even had the 165mm f/4 LS lens for my Pentax 67, although I didn't use it enough to really keep around. That's a camera that IMO is basically useless for outdoor fill flash without suhc a lens since I think the sync speed is like 1/30. There's a reason Pentax made leaf shutter lenses for their MF SLRs.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I've run into a rather embarrassing obstacle through my own inexperience with camera-based 35mm film scanning...

I have access to two macro lenses, an old FD 50mm f/3.5 with extension tube, and an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. I planned to use the latter on the RP with my EF/RF adapter to scan negatives.

But, and here's where the experienced people will chuckle, I hadn't appreciated that the minimum focus distance of the 50mm macro lens (.749ft) is too far away from the negative to fill the RP's frame. I'm wasting more than half of the sensor area when shooting the negatives, so my resolution will be poor. I could slap the same macro lens on my old Rebel XT; with the 1.6 crop factor I get closer to a full frame - but am using a vintage 2007 sensor and, again lowering the resolution.

I'm just going to push forward accepting the resolution loss with the gear I have, and see how the images turn out. Maybe the film scanner is actually the better option long-term, since it is cheaper than most macro lenses.

 

[mollyc]

I've run into a rather embarrassing obstacle through my own inexperience with camera-based 35mm film scanning...

I have access to two macro lenses, an old FD 50mm f/3.5 with extension tube, and an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. I planned to use the latter on the RP with my EF/RF adapter to scan negatives.

But, and here's where the experienced people will chuckle, I hadn't appreciated that the minimum focus distance of the 50mm macro lens (.749ft) is too far away from the negative to fill the RP's frame. I'm wasting more than half of the sensor area when shooting the negatives, so my resolution will be poor. I could slap the same macro lens on my old Rebel XT; with the 1.6 crop factor I get closer to a full frame - but am using a vintage 2007 sensor and, again lowering the resolution.

I'm just going to push forward accepting the resolution loss with the gear I have, and see how the images turn out. Maybe the film scanner is actually the better option long-term, since it is cheaper than most macro lenses.

Have you tried the extension tube with the macro lens?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Have you tried the extension tube with the macro lens?

Not yet. To do that with the EOS RP I'd have to put the FD Macro on its (FD) extension tube, and then daisy chain the FD-EF adapter and EF-RF adapter. That sounds a bit mad...? Or get an FD-RF adapter, which is again buying more niche kit.

I shot a few frames of negative with the RP and the EF Macro, and it works just fine in terms of capturing clear images of the negatives - but again I'm only using maybe a third of the sensor's area for the actual negative even at the minimum focusing distance of the lens.

 

[mollyc]

Not yet. To do that with the RP camera I'd have to put the FD Macro on its (FD) extension tube, and then daisy chain the FD-EF adapter and EF-RF adapter. That sounds a bit mad...?

oh. well i do use a nikon f mount + ftz adapter + z mount extension tubes occasionally (not for film scanning just in general). so it doesn’t seem that different to me. 🙂