Can we talk about film?

[mollyc]

Hi, I am back with more questions. ?

So I had a roll of Portra 400 and a roll of Fuji Superia Xtra 400 developed. I am working on camera scanning them myself. I know there is going to be a lot of trial and error to start and that I shouldn't get frustrated right off the bat (easier said than done).

I have film holders from Negative Supply Lab; they work really well and I have no issues with those. I am finding though that I have no idea how to set the camera exposure for the negatives, and the camera exposure plays a huge deal in the final image. I scanned the Portra 400 twice because there was a lot of lint/dust on the first scan, so I decided it would be easier to rescan (re-shoot) the roll and use a rocket blower before each frame than to manually clone out the dust. But I did the scans at two different times, and my second go round I had a brighter exposure and so have a lot more detail in the shadows. This of course is a good thing but I don't know how bright to make the camera exposure. Is there a way to tell? My brain can't convert the colors from negative to positive (although I did realize that since I am using the Snapbridge app on my phone for the shutter that I can put my entire phone screen in negative mode through accessibility and then I am viewing the negative as a positive on my phone).

I also bought Negative Lab Pro for LR to help with the negative to positive conversion and try to automate it. Does anyone here use it? I quickly discovered that I really can't use the same settings for different film brands (which is somewhat obvious) but I am having a hard time getting what I would say are "portra" colors. I'm sure I just need to experiment more but wondered if anyone was familiar with this.

My POTD today is from the Portra 400 and it just seems overly cool to me, even after trying to tweak colors and even color grade some, but it's also entirely possible that I'm not experienced enough to know what good colors are from film. I do love the grain though and the feel of the image.

I do have some Portra 400 from this summer that was lab scanned, and I might try camera scanning to to see how close I can get to the lab scan, but in the meantime I have to scan five rolls for my daughter and would love to find some decent auto settings for hers because she isn't nearly as picky as I am.

 

[mollyc]

I will also say that I camera scanned them with the sprocket borders. I am wondering if I should crop those out before trying to convert n-->p.

 

[Clix Pix]

Back in the film days, color was notoriously difficult to get right when trying to develop and print at home. Usually the person with a home darkroom would use Beseler or other rotating drums and specific chemicals and the results often were not as pleasing or accurate as one would like. (Voice of experience here!) In general, most of us found that B&W is much more suited to developing and printing in the home darkroom.

I am not surprised that by trying to scan color negatives with a camera that your colors aren't coming out as expected. A lot of variables are coming into play which affect light and color balance. I wonder if working with color slides would be easier and more effective?

 

[mollyc]

My film was lab developed, not home developed (Dominion Camera). I don't have slides to test and Dominion doesn't develop slides.

After some more research, I actually suspect my light pad is the issue and that I need a better one. I can probably make due with this one on a temporary basis but I think I need something more advanced.

 

[bunnspecial]

Your POTD doesn't look terrible to me considering that Portra really isn't a super high saturation film. Don't forget too that the white balance is "baked in" to film and most is daylight balanced. If that photo is in the shade(it looks like it) it will be cool. Throw an 81A/81B/81C on your camera or, with negative film, just fix it in post. "Back in the day" you could actually get films with different color balances, although usually only slide film(typically tungsten balanced for use under studio hot lights, and then Kodak at least made a "warm" version of the E100 slide film called E100GX that was about like using an 81A filter all the time where E100G, the regular film, was a bit cool).

As for exposure-are you using your Z6? If so, I THINK the sensor is ISO-less so I'd just shoot in RAW, base ISO, reasonable shutter speed/aperture(keep it to 5.6 or f/8 to account for film flatness, but don't go too nuts as you don't want to kill it with diffraction). Assuming you're on a stable platform, I'd just, again, use say 1/125 at f/8 and base ISO, then fix in post to taste.

Also, don't forget that your baclight source is a big deal. Incandescent bulbs may be warm but essentially are perfect black body emitters with a full spectrum(gaussian distribution running from at least near IR and potentially flirting with UV if it's a halogen, and peaking right around the known color temp of the lamp). This is NOT necessarily a valid assumption for fluorescent or LED lamps. Best to either point it out the window or fire a strobe at it.

 

[mollyc]

Your POTD doesn't look terrible to me considering that Portra really isn't a super high saturation film. Don't forget too that the white balance is "baked in" to film and most is daylight balanced. If that photo is in the shade(it looks like it) it will be cool. Throw an 81A/81B/81C on your camera or, with negative film, just fix it in post. "Back in the day" you could actually get films with different color balances, although usually only slide film(typically tungsten balanced for use under studio hot lights, and then Kodak at least made a "warm" version of the E100 slide film called E100GX that was about like using an 81A filter all the time where E100G, the regular film, was a bit cool).

As for exposure-are you using your Z6? If so, I THINK the sensor is ISO-less so I'd just shoot in RAW, base ISO, reasonable shutter speed/aperture(keep it to 5.6 or f/8 to account for film flatness, but don't go too nuts as you don't want to kill it with diffraction). Assuming you're on a stable platform, I'd just, again, use say 1/125 at f/8 and base ISO, then fix in post to taste.

Also, don't forget that your baclight source is a big deal. Incandescent bulbs may be warm but essentially are perfect black body emitters with a full spectrum(gaussian distribution running from at least near IR and potentially flirting with UV if it's a halogen, and peaking right around the known color temp of the lamp). This is NOT necessarily a valid assumption for fluorescent or LED lamps. Best to either point it out the window or fire a strobe at it.

Yes I'm pretty sure my issue is my light pad. I bought my daughter a cheap one awhile back when she had to online art class (pandemic school). It's perfectly suitable for tracing and other craft type stuff, but I think the WB is really off on it, and probably it isn't bright enough. I was shooting at ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/30. Which is why I ended up using the camera app remote because I didn't think that pressing the shutter button at 1/30 was a very smart idea.

I do have two different strobes that I guess I could try. I just thought the light was supposed to come from behind the negative? I don't have an easy way of affixing the negative holder sideways to shoot straight on. Would be easier to buy a new light pad.

My flower was on a table just near a window, so technically shade, and our windows have UV stuff on them so they probably affect the color temperature a bit too. I will experiment a bit more and see if I can at least make the light pad brighter. I did wonder if that color is actually "correct" and just not what I like, but I did take a photo of my daughter and her friend inside a restaurant and those colors seemed fairly accurate.

Interestingly, the colors from the $35 Fuji camera with Xperia 400 seem better.

I know there are a lot of variables at play here, I just needed a bit of help to figure out what direction to go. I'm pretty sure it's not the software or the camera that's the issue (or even the actual negatives) but my light source.

 

[dimme]

For my setup I started with a Nikon strobe mounted on the camera bouncing off a large piece of white fomcore. This worked great, but the bright flashes were bothersome over time on my eyes. I now use https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07PMSBLTH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

RALENO LED Video Soft Light Panel which is easer on the eyes and you can also alter the color balance.​

 

[mollyc]

For my setup I started with a Nikon strobe mounted on the camera bouncing off a large piece of white fomcore. This worked great, but the bright flashes were bothersome over time on my eyes. I now use https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07PMSBLTH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

RALENO LED Video Soft Light Panel which is easer on the eyes and you can also alter the color balance.​

oh, that's helpful! I saw someone on the NLP forum recommend a video light also, but not sure if it's the same one. So you can lay this flat on a table and put the negatives on top of it?

 

[mollyc]

Okay, so the good news is I tried using a strobe, and I am pretty sure that the color of the light pad is what is screwing me up. You can see here the right side of the image where my strobe was is a lot warmer than the left, and the shadows are a lot more neutral.

The bad news is I literally scratched my negative trying to get rid of dust/lint. So now it's permanently ruined. :/ This is cleaned up a bit in PS, but you can see the lateral scratches. Such a dummy move on my part.

 

[bunnspecial]

The "old way" of doing it with a strobe was quite literally firing it directly at the negative from the back. I have a set of Nikon bellows(PB4 maybe? They're the tilt-shift ones) with a film holder and there's a piece of frosted glass as a light difuser.

What strobes do you have? There's probably a way to do them off-camera if they're Nikons...

 

[mollyc]

The "old way" of doing it with a strobe was quite literally firing it directly at the negative from the back. I have a set of Nikon bellows(PB4 maybe? They're the tilt-shift ones) with a film holder and there's a piece of frosted glass as a light difuser.

What strobes do you have? There's probably a way to do them off-camera if they're Nikons...

Oh, I have Alien Bees. I can fire them just fine off camera (I also have Nikon SB-900) but no way to hold the film up laterally. I have several different softbox options, so diffusion isn't really an issue.

 

[mollyc]

So I rigged up a temporary sideways setup for using my strobe, and the color was better, but I think mostly I just didn't chose very good subjects for that roll. Some of my Christmas tree cutting down photos looked a lot better because they were outside.

I ordered the light panel that @dimme recommended because I think it is a better long term solution and I saw that panel mentioned in several different places as a good light source. It will be here tomorrow.

(And good news, I discovered I didn't actually scratch that negative after all....shooting it sideways got me a clean image.)

In the meantime, here is Fuji Superia Xtra 400 on the Fujica STX-1. These colors I love. I think it's just because it's outdoors.

 

[mollyc]

I'm getting closer. The top image is the POTD image and the bottom one is shooting into the strobe and different NLP settings. I'm not crazy about the green shadows, but the flower color is a lot better.

 

[Clix Pix]

My film was lab developed, not home developed (Dominion Camera). I don't have slides to test and Dominion doesn't develop slides.

After some more research, I actually suspect my light pad is the issue and that I need a better one. I can probably make due with this one on a temporary basis but I think I need something more advanced.

Yes, I realize that your film was lab-developed and that you don't have a darkroom at home. I was just trying to point out issues that arose in the now long-ago past when some people tried to deal with color negs and color printing in home darkrooms. Bottom line: Color can be tricky..... as many of us know even now in the current era with trying to establish correct white balance while shooting with digital cameras.

Next time you're in Dominion Camera, if Mo is there say hi to him from me! Oddly enough the last time I was in Dominion, some time ago now, I was startled to see him there and it was not long after that when we learned that he was now incorporating that shop into his overall operation, which includes his main store, Ace Photo out in Ashburn. Well worth a trip out there -- his inventory is absolutely amazing!

Yes, if you're using a light pad (I assume that's what I've always called a "light box"), if it is not properly balanced in terms of light output that definitely would affect your project of scanning in color negatives. The light box should be specifically designed for photography. LEDs are much more accurate than the old fluorescent lighting in earlier light boxes but even so, yes, appropriate levels of kelvin temperatures are important to establish accuracy when viewing and scanning negatives. I definitely notice a difference in the quality of light when comparing the many-years-old fluorescent light box to the more recent LED one that I bought a couple of years ago.

 

[mollyc]

i think the point you are missing is that i DO understand about white balance which is why i started this portion of the thread. it’s because i can see that it’s wrong that i am asking how to fix it.

and yes, as i said above, i ordered a new lighting setup.

 

[Clix Pix]

I am not missing your point, but apparently you have been missing mine, which were intended to be helpful. Also I posted before getting to the other posts. Whatever...... We seem to be posting at cross-purposes here. Never mind...

Hope the new light panel or light pad or light box, whatever they're called these days, works out for you.

 

[mollyc]

I am not missing your point, but apparently you have been missing mine, which were intended to be helpful. Also I posted before getting to the other posts. Whatever...... We seem to be posting at cross-purposes here. Never mind...

Hope the new light panel or light pad or light box, whatever they're called these days, works out for you.

I'd be more inclined to think you were trying to be helpful if you didn't include the very derisive "whatever" in so many of your responses to me.

"Color is tricky" is also hardly helpful. Helpful would be linking to a specific product that you have personally found to be successful in your own workflow in digitizing negatives. "A more recent LED one" tells me nothing about a product that might be useful. dimme was kind enough to recommend something specific. Telling me to start with slide film is also not helpful as 1) it's not what I am shooting and 2) is difficult to have processed currently.

Words matter.

 

[Clix Pix]

Such a gracious response....

 

[dimme]

oh, that's helpful! I saw someone on the NLP forum recommend a video light also, but not sure if it's the same one. So you can lay this flat on a table and put the negatives on top of it?

Yes you can.


As far as keeping film clean before you scan... Back in my lab days all the print and scan operators used Alford anti-static cloths to clean the film. It just takes a very light touch, and works great.

ANTISTATIC CLOTH

Eliminates dust and static from photographic materials and equipment such as cameras, lenses, enlargers and negatives. Essential darkroom accessory Eliminates dust and static High quality cotton with unique anti-static treatment

www.ilfordphoto.com

 

[bunnspecial]

Oh, I have Alien Bees. I can fire them just fine off camera (I also have Nikon SB-900) but no way to hold the film up laterally. I have several different softbox options, so diffusion isn't really an issue.

Sorry! Should have known you'd have much better equipment than just a few on-camera/hotshoe flashes.

Definitely looking good though!

ould affect your project of scanning in color negatives. The light box should be specifically designed for photography. LEDs are much more accurate than the old fluorescent lighting in earlier light boxes but even so, yes, appropriate levels of kelvin temperatures are important to establish accuracy when viewing and scanning negatives.

LEDs are definitely iffy as a source for something like this if you're not incredibly careful about making them true full spectrum.

If a particular wavelength isn't there, it isn't there and there's no way in post or otherwise to recover it. It's the same deal if you shoot C-41 film with a Y-2 or whatever on the lens-the yellow will be gone and it ain't coming back.

I have two light boxes-one a homemade one(not by me-a lab that was closing gave it to me-it sat right by their E-6 line) and one a commercial one. My commercial on is a lot "slicker" but my home made actually has better color. It uses good old fashioned magnetic ballasts, and I asked my friend @LightBulbFun to help me find good color-appropriate tubes for it the last time I had one go out.

 

[mollyc]

Yes you can.


As far as keeping film clean before you scan... Back in my lab days all the print and scan operators used Alford anti-static cloths to clean the film. It just takes a very light touch, and works great.

ANTISTATIC CLOTH

Eliminates dust and static from photographic materials and equipment such as cameras, lenses, enlargers and negatives. Essential darkroom accessory Eliminates dust and static High quality cotton with unique anti-static treatment

www.ilfordphoto.com

My new light is out for delivery already, so should be here soon. I like that it's actually also a video light, so it will have multiple purposes! I've never used a continuous light source, so that will be an interesting side experiment.

I read on another site that people use swiffer wipes. Do you think that would work without scratching? We have a lot of Costco yellow microfiber towels that would theoretically work, but we use them on everything and over time they hold on to pieces of bark and stuff. I could just get a new, unused one; we have a new pack. But the swiffer wipes seemed like maybe they'd be more gentle.

Sorry! Should have known you'd have much better equipment than just a few on-camera/hotshoe flashes.

Definitely looking good though!



LEDs are definitely iffy as a source for something like this if you're not incredibly careful about making them true full spectrum.

If a particular wavelength isn't there, it isn't there and there's no way in post or otherwise to recover it. It's the same deal if you shoot C-41 film with a Y-2 or whatever on the lens-the yellow will be gone and it ain't coming back.

I have two light boxes-one a homemade one(not by me-a lab that was closing gave it to me-it sat right by their E-6 line) and one a commercial one. My commercial on is a lot "slicker" but my home made actually has better color. It uses good old fashioned magnetic ballasts, and I asked my friend @LightBulbFun to help me find good color-appropriate tubes for it the last time I had one go out.

Yes, yesterday I learned about the CRI scale for lighting, and the one that dimme recommended 95+ which is pretty good for the price.

It's always fun to go down a new path with this hobby. There are so many things I have never thought about before and I love that over time I am just always learning new stuff.

You'll notice I am tackling this in stages. First a camera or two and some film stocks. I'm happy that my metering in cameras both sophisticated and manual seems to be relatively consistent. Now I am figuring out the scanning portion. A couple of rolls of that to figure out best practices. Once I get scanning down I'm going to have to move to developing. ?

Oh, but today I will start my first bw roll. I'm not sure I ever shot bw as a kid, even in my 1980s point and shoots. I would have always chosen color. Oh, I take that back. I put one roll into my first Canon SLR and had my dad shoot some engagement photos of my husband and me. Then I just shot dumb stuff to finish off the roll. That's probably the only time it happened.

 

[dimme]

I personally would not use a microfiber cloth the Ilford cloths are somewhat different. I would also recommend a very soft negative cleaning brush like the Kinetronics Model 100N which I use for slide scanning.
never used a swifter wipe but I don’t think that would be wise.

 

[mollyc]

I personally would not use a microfiber cloth the Ilford cloths are somewhat different. I would also recommend a very soft negative cleaning brush like the Kinetronics Model 100N which I use for slide scanning.
never used a swifter wipe but I don’t think that would be wise.

thanks. ? my new light is here so will try it out this afternoon. thanks for your help.

 

[kenoh]

oh, that's helpful! I saw someone on the NLP forum recommend a video light also, but not sure if it's the same one. So you can lay this flat on a table and put the negatives on top of it?

This is a good LED light too -

Pixel G1s RGB Video Light​

It is about the size. Of an iPhone and has a flat back.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Just a thought on scanning colour negs. The light source must be full spectrum. Many light sources have portions of the visible spectrum which drop out to some degree or another.

Not on topic but I used to hand process C-41 films. I used a dip and dunk reel method with a water bath keeping the tanks at temp. I was fortunate in finding an aquarium heater that kept things at the perfect temp. That said it is really only the developer that must be carefully controlled. The bleach and fix steps are not nearly as critical. If replenishing, it is crucial to keep track of the specific gravity of the developer, otherwise it can become so strong that it weakens the bleach to a point that negs will produce poor results.