35mm developing question

[Disastrous]

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I found a roll of film that went out of date in 2006 i a drawer so decided to run that through as a quick tester to get my head round the chemical quantities, process, timings etc and it seems to have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My question is, is this likely to do with out of date emulsion losing effectiveness at the start and the end first (I would have guessed the start only), or does it point to a problem with my spiral winding, or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!

[Disastrous]

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.

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...

[Disastrous]

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 st. 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.

[Disastrous]

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.

[Disastrous]

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.

[Disastrous]

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.

I'm not sure I agree. Ultimately everything ends up on a computer so it can be shared and so on anyway. To continue the musical analogies, I'd expect most musicians to be interested in playing live as well as recording on the computer, editing, mixing, arguing about tape/vinyl vs cd etc etc.

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.

[Disastrous]

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?

[Disastrous]

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!

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]

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.

Noted, thanks.

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]

I still can't make up my mind about this, as in whether to get a Plustek scanner or a Macro lens and use my DSLR.

I think the supposed 20-odd minutes to scan an image with the Plustek puts me off but so does the gaffing involved in photographing the negatives. Indecision reigns.

[Disastrous]

droopsnoot said:

I've just sent you a PM about that enlarger in case you're still interested in that.

Have just seen it and replied, thanks