advertisement


35mm B&W film developing

scotty38

scotty38

pfm Member
Following on from my "dusting off my OM2" in another thread I began to regret selling off all my darkroom kit. That aside, if I decided to develop the films myself using the most basic of tools what's next???

Assuming I am not going to be printing anything then I guess scanning the negatives is the obvious answer so what kit tends to get used to do that these days? Bear in mind I have no real thoughts on this over and above wondering what's available.

Thanks....
 
Unless you're planning to make large exhibition quality prints an Epson flatbed scanner is the best affordable option. I have a V700, which is excellent for medium and large format too, but if you're only scanning 35mm something like the V600 will be fine:

https://www.epson.co.uk/products/scanners/consumer-scanners/perfection-v600-photo

Lots of people will chime in that dedicated film scanners like those Nikon used to make are much better than a flatbed, but unless you're making large prints you won't see any difference.
 
I have a Canoscan 8800F flatbed that has a film scan option and an older dedicated Nikon film scanner.
The Canon will scan 35mm and 120 film ... the Nikon is limited to 35mm.

Both make exceptionally good scans within the limitations of the film originals.

Can you see the difference on screen or with smaller prints (e.g A4) ?
Most definitely - and unfortunately the Canoscan loses every time, and the difference is very noticeable from the word go ...
 
sideshowbob said:
The Canonscan 800f doesn't have the resolution of the Epson V series.
Click to expand...

From the manufacturers' web sites:

Canon 8800F
Selectable resolution ... 25 - 19200dpi

Epson V600
Output Resolution ... 50~6400 (1 dpi step), 9600, 12800 DPI

The numbers seem to indicate otherwise. Admittedly confusing as they don't use quite the same terms.

Also, pixel count is not the end of the story as far as actual results go IME....

... either way, the comparison is moot as the 8800F is discontinued :)
 
scotty38 said:
Thanks for the info, I shall have a look at them all.
Click to expand...

Good luck with your search ;¬>

If you do get a scanner and regardless of the choice, I would also look into getting a copy of Vuescan.
Clunky looking interface but a huge range of options and a great selection of film types on board.
(also essential for Nikon as they stopped supporting their film scanners yonks ago)
 
Thanks...

Thinking more I remembered I had an old HP C6280 Printer/Scanner so I just installed Vuescan and plugged it all in. Sure enough it scanned some old negatives I have and, as you'd probably expect, produced a scan of a strip of negatives....

Might be a daft question but with something like a V600, what is the output from that device? Does it scan a negative and create a viewable B&W print or is there intermediate work to be done?
 
They scan as image files at whatever resolution you select (I use high res TIF). You'll need to remove dust, adjust contrast, and add some sharpening afterwards in Photoshop or similar, no scanner will produce a usable printable image without some work. But a dedicated photo scanner comes with film holders, and will scan a strip of negatives to a series of positive images.
 
scotty38 said:
Might be a daft question but with something like a V600, what is the output from that device? Does it scan a negative and create a viewable B&W print or is there intermediate work to be done?
Click to expand...

No experience with the V600 but almost all scanner software I've used worked along the same lines. They offer a preview scan so you can do any tweaks you want (or not) before pressing for the final scan and the the option of saving the file and/or opening in your chosen application. Obviously this process can be streamlined to taste/convenience. Some include ICE software which effectively remove signs of dust, scratches etc. during the scanning process. If you're happy with that you can print without further treatment.

The most important feature IMV is the ability to load different film type profiles (featured in Vuescan) - many don't include this option and PS can't solve all the problems this can throw up. It can be a right royal PITA getting it right afterwards - even with BW film.
 
Scotty,

A guy by the name of Guy used to post in the photo room regularly. I don't know what scanner he's using today, but back in the day he was an Epson V500 user if I'm remembering right / if my neurons can hold a charge for that long.

Guy is mainly a Rollei shooter and medium format film is easier to scan, but he also shot fair bit of 35mm film. This should give you an idea of the quality you can expect from a flatbed scanner at the Epson V600 level or higher.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/guybatey/

His B&W images are the pix to particularly pore over.

Joe
 
Scotty,

Here's a scan I made of Tri-X 320, a long discontinued B&W film.

8347517147_a6c249f9d9_c.jpg


It's a lot of work to get an image, even before you get to the scanning and adjusting stage, but there's a certain joy in and look of an old skool film capture. That said, I'm not entirely happy with the result here as I've blown out the highlights but maybe it's not a disaster in this photo.

Joe
 
Thanks Joe and that’s a great picture.

I’ve done a reasonable amount of B&W dev and print before but I sold all the gear roughly 20 years ago. I’ve just put a few rolls through my OM2 so I suppose I should just send them off just to make sure the camera’s not letting light in if nothing else. The half-used roll that was in there was Tri-X as it happens......
 
Scotty,

I've shot a few different B&W films over the years, but I kept coming back to Tri-X 400. It has the best set of trade-offs for me. (The Tri-X 320 I bought was a mistake — I saw Tri-X on the box but didn't look closer to realize it's a different film. D'oh!)

sideshowbob has a lot of experience scanning B&W film and I think he once said that Tri-X 400 was one of the easier films to scan. It sure is a crap tonne easier to scan than, say, Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50.

Joe
 
I can't afford to shoot Tri-X any more, it's just crazy expensive in the UK now. My last two projects were all shot on HP5+ and I eventually got to like it. Tri-X is still my favourite though.
 
Ian,

Isn't it, though? Tri-X used to be one of the cheaper films.

Joe
 
sideshowbob said:
I can't afford to shoot Tri-X any more, it's just crazy expensive in the UK now. My last two projects were all shot on HP5+ and I eventually got to like it. Tri-X is still my favourite though.
Click to expand...

I buy my film from AG photolab. £7.82 for Tri-X vs £5.50 for HP5+. An extra £1.30 is hardly crazy expensive unless you are shooting a huge amount of film. I tried to cheap out last time and tried Fomapan 400 for £4.20. I didn’t like it at all, way too grainy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top