35mm developing question
Discussion
Morning all.
I've just processed my first B and W film roll!
I found a roll of film that went out of date in 2006 i a drawer so decided to run that through as a quick tester to get my head round the chemical quantities, process, timings etc and it seems to have gone ok.
Hard to tell looking at the negatives but most of them seem to have come out actually pretty well.
One thing slightly worrying is that the start and the end few frames seems to be almost white, as if development has hardly taken place.
My question is, is this likely to do with out of date emulsion losing effectiveness at the start and the end first (I would have guessed the start only), or does it point to a problem with my spiral winding, or something else? Or is it best just to ignore it and see how the new roll of Ilford I have in the camera comes out?
My other question is I haven't thought ahead to the process of actually storing and scanning these negatives yet.
I've got my eye on a scanner but in the short term, do Tesco or anyone offer scan from negatives service?
Also, can you buy 35mm storage sleeves in Staples or similar?
Ta!
I've just processed my first B and W film roll!
I found a roll of film that went out of date in 2006 i a drawer so decided to run that through as a quick tester to get my head round the chemical quantities, process, timings etc and it seems to have gone ok.
Hard to tell looking at the negatives but most of them seem to have come out actually pretty well.
One thing slightly worrying is that the start and the end few frames seems to be almost white, as if development has hardly taken place.
My question is, is this likely to do with out of date emulsion losing effectiveness at the start and the end first (I would have guessed the start only), or does it point to a problem with my spiral winding, or something else? Or is it best just to ignore it and see how the new roll of Ilford I have in the camera comes out?
My other question is I haven't thought ahead to the process of actually storing and scanning these negatives yet.
I've got my eye on a scanner but in the short term, do Tesco or anyone offer scan from negatives service?
Also, can you buy 35mm storage sleeves in Staples or similar?
Ta!
I just had a quick look at some of my old negs, one of those had a completely black section at the front presumably because of where the film is exposed while loading it into the camera. It's not consistent, but then I used to cut those off before filing the negatives.
On the subject of doing something with them, I have a Paterson 35mm enlarger surplus to requirements if you decide to get into printing.
On the subject of doing something with them, I have a Paterson 35mm enlarger surplus to requirements if you decide to get into printing.
droopsnoot said:
I just had a quick look at some of my old negs, one of those had a completely black section at the front presumably because of where the film is exposed while loading it into the camera. It's not consistent, but then I used to cut those off before filing the negatives.
On the subject of doing something with them, I have a Paterson 35mm enlarger surplus to requirements if you decide to get into printing.
Yeah, the leader is black as expected but the first few frames and last few frames are very milky-white with very few details...Possibly just under-exposed as I was playing with the camera.On the subject of doing something with them, I have a Paterson 35mm enlarger surplus to requirements if you decide to get into printing.
I'd be interested in the enlarger. Can you point me to a link to it please?
Initially, I think I'll just scan the films but would quite like the option to make prints if I like. My study only has one window so a small investment in blackout drapes would turn it into a passable darkroom...
Well, I did a bit of reading last night and it turns out loadsa people 'scan' their negatives quite successfully using a DSLR to take pictures of them over a Lightbox before inverting them in Lightroom or wherever.
So in my impatience I tried that.
Results were...disappointing, to say the least.
I tried several things: making a flashbox out of a shoebox and leaving a white mask at one end I could run the neg over, a flash under my coffee table with camera above etc etc but ultimately, what worked best was a lightbox app for the iPad, a piece of white plastic bag to diffuse the light/pixels, a pane of glass and then neg on top, snapped from above.
The problem is it looks s
t. The other problem is there are so many variables at play I don't know why.
It could be because:
1). The film is old and st and hasn't exposed properly
2). The camera is old and knackered (less likely as Google suggests it takes lovely images)
3). I need a macro lens for scanning (was using a 50mm and cropping but having to crop waaaaay too much) properly
4). My developing process went awry
5). I'm cack handed and haven't got to know that camera's meter and settings yet
6). Something else entirely
Basically, it could be any one or a combination of all the above and it's depressed me a bit, given the amount of effort. Also, taking photos of photos seems silly and makes me wonder if I'm better of just shooting everything digitally and consigning my dreams of arty black and white film to history.
Annoying as I very much enjoyed the process but I'm a results-driven man and I'd have definitely got better results using my DSLR and just converting to B and W.
I'd really like to get this right though so any advice or tips appreciated (even forum recommendations as I suppose this sort of thing isn't so popular on here).
My immediate thoughts are that the most likely issue is lack of detail as I'm having to crop too much out. Sound probable?
The follow-up thought to that is would I be better buying a dedicated negative scanner like the Plustek mentioned on the other thread, or a macro lens? Dunno.
So in my impatience I tried that.
Results were...disappointing, to say the least.
I tried several things: making a flashbox out of a shoebox and leaving a white mask at one end I could run the neg over, a flash under my coffee table with camera above etc etc but ultimately, what worked best was a lightbox app for the iPad, a piece of white plastic bag to diffuse the light/pixels, a pane of glass and then neg on top, snapped from above.
The problem is it looks s
t. The other problem is there are so many variables at play I don't know why.It could be because:
1). The film is old and s
t and hasn't exposed properly2). The camera is old and knackered (less likely as Google suggests it takes lovely images)
3). I need a macro lens for scanning (was using a 50mm and cropping but having to crop waaaaay too much) properly
4). My developing process went awry
5). I'm cack handed and haven't got to know that camera's meter and settings yet
6). Something else entirely
Basically, it could be any one or a combination of all the above and it's depressed me a bit, given the amount of effort. Also, taking photos of photos seems silly and makes me wonder if I'm better of just shooting everything digitally and consigning my dreams of arty black and white film to history.
Annoying as I very much enjoyed the process but I'm a results-driven man and I'd have definitely got better results using my DSLR and just converting to B and W.
I'd really like to get this right though so any advice or tips appreciated (even forum recommendations as I suppose this sort of thing isn't so popular on here).
My immediate thoughts are that the most likely issue is lack of detail as I'm having to crop too much out. Sound probable?
The follow-up thought to that is would I be better buying a dedicated negative scanner like the Plustek mentioned on the other thread, or a macro lens? Dunno.
You can imagine what fun it was when processing the film was the easy bit. Then you had to load it into an enlarger, set up the photographic paper underneath in a printing frame by safelight, expose it correctly, then develop the paper in trays of chemicals.
It's all simple enough if you're geared up for it and had some practice - amateur togs were knocking out b/w prints very well for 100+ years. It's also easy to play the piano if you're geared up for it and had some practice! But you're unlikely to play Beethoven at the first go.
It's all simple enough if you're geared up for it and had some practice - amateur togs were knocking out b/w prints very well for 100+ years. It's also easy to play the piano if you're geared up for it and had some practice! But you're unlikely to play Beethoven at the first go.
Simpo Two said:
It's all simple enough if you're geared up for it and had some practice - amateur togs were knocking out b/w prints very well for 100+ years. It's also easy to play the piano if you're geared up for it and had some practice! But you're unlikely to play Beethoven at the first go.
Oh absolutely, and I more than take your point.I suppose the number of factors potentially at play is what's daunting. To take your analogy further, it might be my lef hand, my right hand, my sight-reading, the piano, the strings, the tuning etc etc all affecting my Beethoven.
i suppose what I'm trying to do is work out what stages I might have made an arse of.
At the moment, my guess is most likely the lack of macro lens for 'scanning'. I suspect an extension of that is the lack of sharpness and fine detail due to having to crop far too much/problems focusing.
Am I right in thinking the dev process ought to be pretty bombproof if going 'by the book'? And if it had been messed up, is not likely to affect image sharpness, is it?
I'm borrowing my DoP's macro tonight to give it another go and see how I get on, so shall update if anyone is remotely interested.
If that fails, then it suggests the problem lies either with the film or the camera. I've got a Canon A1 lying about so plan to shoot a couple of rolls of the same stock on that and the Rangefinder and see how we're doing.
It can be very hard to learn new and complex things without a teacher, so how about finding a course or an evening class that will get you going properly and capitalise on your enthusisam? But be prepared to spend some money and put some time in.
The analogy is not entirely fanciful; having not played a note since I was 11, I recently bought a keyboard and found a good teacher. Without that guidance I'd have got dispirited and given up having not achieved a fraction of what I have.
The analogy is not entirely fanciful; having not played a note since I was 11, I recently bought a keyboard and found a good teacher. Without that guidance I'd have got dispirited and given up having not achieved a fraction of what I have.
A fair one, but I think scanning negatives with DSLR is an obscure enough process that I can't find anyone near me offering instruction in it. Add to that the fact that my 'learning time' has to be the middle of the night when everyone else is asleep and I'm an impatient sod and it's not a goer!
I'll have to muddle on as best I can with trial, error and Internet forums
Funnily enough, the proper darkroom stuff is less of a concern as I have a father who was one well into all that to lend a hand. He stopped when things went digital though so has no knowledge of trying to cross formats.
I'll have to muddle on as best I can with trial, error and Internet forums
Funnily enough, the proper darkroom stuff is less of a concern as I have a father who was one well into all that to lend a hand. He stopped when things went digital though so has no knowledge of trying to cross formats.
Disastrous said:
A fair one, but I think scanning negatives with DSLR is an obscure enough process that I can't find anyone near me offering instruction in it.
Well, I meant the art of d&p from scratch, not baling out halfway and going digital...I've used a DSLR with macro lens to re-photograph colour slides. It works well enough if you have a decent flat white light source behind, but you'll still need to wrangle the colours etc in so shoot RAW. B/w would be much easier.
On balance, if you don't want to be an arty alchemist but just have nice b/w photos quickly, I'd ditch the film altogether and go 100% digital. I see no advantage in shooting film if you don't stay with it to the end; it would be like learning to play the opening bar then putting on a CD.
I used to have a Jessops slide convertor which was basically a piece of opaque plastic and a System-7 adapter at the end of a tube. I can't remember if there were any optics in it. The idea was that you stick the slide or neg in against the plastic, hold it up to the light and take a photo of it. The S7 mount (if I've remembered the name properly) screws into the filter thread on the end of the lens.
Worked really badly, sold it on eBay for the same pound I paid for it.
ETA - photo of Paterson enlarger. The lamp lights up, I can't really say any more than that.
Worked really badly, sold it on eBay for the same pound I paid for it.
ETA - photo of Paterson enlarger. The lamp lights up, I can't really say any more than that.
Edited by droopsnoot on Thursday 26th March 19:09
Simpo Two said:
Disastrous said:
A fair one, but I think scanning negatives with DSLR is an obscure enough process that I can't find anyone near me offering instruction in it.
Well, I meant the art of d&p from scratch, not baling out halfway and going digital...I've used a DSLR with macro lens to re-photograph colour slides. It works well enough if you have a decent flat white light source behind, but you'll still need to wrangle the colours etc in so shoot RAW. B/w would be much easier.
On balance, if you don't want to be an arty alchemist but just have nice b/w photos quickly, I'd ditch the film altogether and go 100% digital. I see no advantage in shooting film if you don't stay with it to the end; it would be like learning to play the opening bar then putting on a CD.
Id love to build a darkroom and do the whole lot but it's a much bigger step than a 'digital darkroom' if only for the space needed.
My vague plan at the moment is to use digital conversion as a means of quickly seeing my work, sharing online etc, and then set up a temporary darkroom should I produce anything that excites me enough to want to make a proper print of.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive and besides, digital cameras are 'work' to me and whilst I enjoy digital and its convenience, I have a bit of a desire to learn the analogue process as well. It's not an either/or thing for me.
I think the main problem I'm having is lens related but have been doing more research and think I'm on the right track though. I've satisfied myself that the bulk of the problem is in the reproduction rather than the negative.
I was just thinking, though, that might be a good solution, if a little time-consuming. You make a decent-sized (say 8"x10") print of a negative, then you scan it on a reasonable A4 scanner. If you want to scan the negative, you'll need a good negative scanner (as opposed to my Maplins £20 one which is basically a webcam and a slide mount) which will be way more expensive than a desktop scanner to get anything like the quality.
You might find the trouble you're having with that negative is just down to colour balance. I did a bit of playing in Paintshop (not Photoshop) and got it looking much better, but not good enough to be worth posting up, and I'm sure some tweaking in PS by someone who knows how to use it could make it much better. If your negatives are anything like mine (and mine are OK, they date from a time when I used to know how to do this) there will be a grey "tint" over the whole thing, which I assume is counteracted by the way the emulsion on the paper reacts to the light, but it doesn't look as if it's being dealt with when you take a photo of the negative.
Interesting droopsnoot, thanks - will look into that.
The biggest thing for me is the lack of clarity/sharpness in the image, as although I can identify about 101 basic developing errors I've made and will look to address them on the next one, I can't decide whether this lack of sharpness is caused by the camera, the out of date film or the photo of the negative I'm making.
For reference, this image was taken with the same camera/lens combination (by someone else!) so I'd like to think I could produce something comparable to that:
Also, would be very interested in your enlarger but I guess it's not the easiest bit of kit to post!
Where about are you based and what would you be looking for for it?
The biggest thing for me is the lack of clarity/sharpness in the image, as although I can identify about 101 basic developing errors I've made and will look to address them on the next one, I can't decide whether this lack of sharpness is caused by the camera, the out of date film or the photo of the negative I'm making.
For reference, this image was taken with the same camera/lens combination (by someone else!) so I'd like to think I could produce something comparable to that:
Also, would be very interested in your enlarger but I guess it's not the easiest bit of kit to post!
Where about are you based and what would you be looking for for it?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff