35mm developing question
Discussion
I'm in South Cheshire, where are you? I'll weigh it and see what the postage is - it does come to pieces, and goes back together.
I think the lack of clarity might just be because you're photographing a 35mm negative - you need some serious resolution to make much of it, why I was thinking that scanning an 8x10 print would probably get better results.
I think the lack of clarity might just be because you're photographing a 35mm negative - you need some serious resolution to make much of it, why I was thinking that scanning an 8x10 print would probably get better results.
droopsnoot said:
I'm in South Cheshire, where are you? I'll weigh it and see what the postage is - it does come to pieces, and goes back together.
I think the lack of clarity might just be because you're photographing a 35mm negative - you need some serious resolution to make much of it, why I was thinking that scanning an 8x10 print would probably get better results.
I'm based in Glasgow so let me know - more than happy to cover the postage if not too deadly!I think the lack of clarity might just be because you're photographing a 35mm negative - you need some serious resolution to make much of it, why I was thinking that scanning an 8x10 print would probably get better results.
You may be right. My reading suggests a good macro lens over a light box ought to yield good results so once I can get my hands on a decent macro I'll give it another go. At the moment, my negative is about maybe one sixth of the size of my frame so a LOT of cropping.
Disastrous said:
My reading suggests a good macro lens over a light box ought to yield good results so once I can get my hands on a decent macro I'll give it another go. At the moment, my negative is about maybe one sixth of the size of my frame so a LOT of cropping.
You'll need to keep the neg absolutely flat to fit into a macro lens' shallow DOF. Glass on top perhaps, and watch out for reflections. But once you've got it set up, it's a good method.Simpo Two said:
Disastrous said:
My reading suggests a good macro lens over a light box ought to yield good results so once I can get my hands on a decent macro I'll give it another go. At the moment, my negative is about maybe one sixth of the size of my frame so a LOT of cropping.
You'll need to keep the neg absolutely flat to fit into a macro lens' shallow DOF. Glass on top perhaps, and watch out for reflections. But once you've got it set up, it's a good method.
My rather ghetto setup is:
Ipad with light box app
Piece of wax paper/plastic over screen to diffuse pixels
Glass from a photo frame on top of that (to my mind double benefit of smoothing the paper and keeping the screen further from the focal plane)
Neg taped on top of glass
I'd considered a second layer of glass but as you say, the risk of reflections put me off. Maybe work in a dark room though...
ETA-I'm repeating myself I think, but I'd like the DSLR method to work as I'd rather buy a nice new macro lens than a scanner!
Edited by Disastrous on Friday 27th March 20:37
Disastrous said:
Ipad with light box app
Piece of wax paper/plastic over screen to diffuse pixels
Glass from a photo frame on top of that (to my mind double benefit of smoothing the paper and keeping the screen further from the focal plane)
Neg taped on top of glass
I'd considered a second layer of glass but as you say, the risk of reflections put me off. Maybe work in a dark room though...
Using a screenful of pixels as a light source is a new one to me! But I think that a sheet of glass on top will space the pixels far enough away from the neg to disappear them when you add the minimal DOF of a macro lens.Piece of wax paper/plastic over screen to diffuse pixels
Glass from a photo frame on top of that (to my mind double benefit of smoothing the paper and keeping the screen further from the focal plane)
Neg taped on top of glass
I'd considered a second layer of glass but as you say, the risk of reflections put me off. Maybe work in a dark room though...
I think taping each neg down is going to get annoying quite quickly.
Disastrous said:
I'd like the DSLR method to work as I'd rather buy a nice new macro lens than a scanner!
A macro lens is a very good thing - not just for macro (which is a whole world in itself) but also portraiture and anything else that needs that focal length with a reasonably fast aperture.OP, used to scan all my film with a crop DSLR and 58mm on macro tubes with a slide duplicator attached to the end with an enlarger light to provide even lighting. Was pretty much able to fill the frame with the neg. In any case the time consuming part was the post process and removing the color cast of the film. Color negative being a nightmare for it. Cant remember what color comes out on B&W but the brown Kodak gold film would have a blue case all over.
For the image itself, looks pretty much like my own just after inverting the image. Not any major issues with the devloping side.
Now using a film scanner and silverfast for the scanning end of things. Makes things a hell of a lot easier but it is possible to get a decent scan using the DSLR to scan the negative.
For the image itself, looks pretty much like my own just after inverting the image. Not any major issues with the devloping side.
Now using a film scanner and silverfast for the scanning end of things. Makes things a hell of a lot easier but it is possible to get a decent scan using the DSLR to scan the negative.
Won't local photo print shops scan negatives / slides to CDR now? Admittedly they are few and far apart. Failing that, spend a small amount of money on a neg scanner.
When taking landscape photos, you might want to use a light orange filter, which darkens the (blue) sky and brings out the clouds and foreground.
When taking landscape photos, you might want to use a light orange filter, which darkens the (blue) sky and brings out the clouds and foreground.
Zad said:
Won't local photo print shops scan negatives / slides to CDR now? Admittedly they are few and far apart. Failing that, spend a small amount of money on a neg scanner.
Trouble with local print shops is when they do the prints/ scans they either use a poor post process typically giving high saturation or none at all with exception of color cast removal of the film. Black and white films scanned here are worse still. All grey with no blacks or whites in my experience.Negative film leaves a lot of interpretation open for the technician scanning the film whereas it's not the case with slide film. 2 different places would, most likely, provide 2 different prints.
I recall requesting for high quality scans before from a small chain of print shops. I received 500KB JPG files. There are some places that will scan in TIFF, giving you headroom to play with the image before printing.
Much more consistent to do your own scanning, or if you do get your scans there, make sure they're of high enough quality. Treat the initial scanned file as raw data and "develop" your own final image from that. Silverfast or similar is essential to the process IMO. For black and white, get the darkroom up and running. Much more fun
edited to add: apologies if this has turned a bit into an incoherent ramble. The clocks changing must be getting to me
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff