35mm B&W film developing

[camverton]

Ooh, this thread is a real trip down memory lane, photography having been my career, if it can be described as such. Since leaving work I have used an Epson V700 for scanning the odd negative but for "scanning" Kodachrome I find that using a digital camera with a decent macro lens far superior to the Epson V700 and Nikon slide scanner the latter being abysmal at coping with the high Dmax of Kodachrome. Whilst working I would get contractors to scan negs and trannies on their impressively expensive drum scanners.

I am curious as why anyone should want to use film in this day and age. Bearing in mind that much of my work was in the scientific and industrial areas I reckon that modern digital is far superior to the film era and if one is nostalgic for the limitations of that clumpy film look than it is possible to emulate that in software these days. As for mucking about with chemicals I would have to feel particularly masochistic to go back down that route!

Mind you I am on the look out for a wind up gramophone to play my old 78s. "Red Riders in the Sky" anyone? Don't think it would replace my current hifi though!

 

[Cesare]

Film shooters tend to have a number of different reasons, from artistic decisions to just for the fun of keeping old equipment working. There's also a school of thought that because of the cost and inconvenience it makes you shoot slower and more carefully, and therefore you get better composed images this way. Of course the quality of digital far outweighs the quality of film images, but it really does depend on what you are doing with them. If, like me, the ultimate aim is to make prints to stick on your wall, then the image quality I get from 100 speed B&W film in medium format is totally fine for a 16*12 print, so it's not a limitation at all. The joy I get is mainly from printing rather than shooting, and I really enjoy the time spent away from computer screens with a traditional darkroom.

I should add that i've got quite an extensive collection of digital cameras as well - it's not some sort of luddite journey for me. I shoot colour digitally, and B&W on film. I rarely convert digital to B&W, and rarely print it either!

 

[Joe P]

Cesare,

There's also a school of thought that because of the cost and inconvenience it makes you shoot slower and more carefully, and therefore you get better composed images this way.

That reminds me of this comic.

Guilty on both counts.

Joe

 

[camverton]

Film shooters tend to have a number of different reasons, from artistic decisions to just for the fun of keeping old equipment working. There's also a school of thought that because of the cost and inconvenience it makes you shoot slower and more carefully, and therefore you get better composed images this way. Of course the quality of digital far outweighs the quality of film images, but it really does depend on what you are doing with them. If, like me, the ultimate aim is to make prints to stick on your wall, then the image quality I get from 100 speed B&W film in medium format is totally fine for a 16*12 print, so it's not a limitation at all. The joy I get is mainly from printing rather than shooting, and I really enjoy the time spent away from computer screens with a traditional darkroom.

I should add that i've got quite an extensive collection of digital cameras as well - it's not some sort of luddite journey for me. I shoot colour digitally, and B&W on film. I rarely convert digital to B&W, and rarely print it either!

Interesting and good points, thanks. I suppose that having done it for a living makes one forget the hobby aspect (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense). I take your point about a slower speed concentrating ones effort, although in my early days working for a freelance news agency (yuck!) we would usually bang off at least a couple of 36s to ensure we got the right shot.

I seem to remember that TriX was the favoured film for news photography and was quite pushable and also gave a tone curve that reproduced well in the papers of the day. Nikon were the favoured cameras not only for their toughness but because the lenses gave a relatively flat effect (MTF? very different to Canon - memory is hazy but it was 45 years or so ago) which again reproduced well. For my own photography I used Pentax, Canon and Olympus but never Nikon. I much preferred the "finer" quality of HP3/HP4. Did it get to HP5 I can't remember? For onsite industrial photography we used 5x4 sheets of iirc Kodak Panchro Royal. It had such a long characteristic curve that one could be quite cavalier about exposure. Handy when using the moving light technique on B. Ah the days of reciprocity failure and all that jazz - don't miss it one little bit! I dread to think how many rolls I put through the ever dependable Hasselblads (fantastic lenses). My favourite sheet film camera was a Linhof and most hated a MPP folder.

All this reminiscing, I think I need a lie down to forget about it all again!

 

[Cesare]

You'll be itching to get some fix stains on your fingers next. You wait...

 

[eternumviti]

Some interesting posts. Whilst I have no doubt that for scientific and industrial applications digital is infinitely superior to film, I certainly don't agree that the 'quality' of digital is necessarily better than film at all, quality being a subjective thing. Film has a certain aesthetic that it isn't quite possible to fully emulate in digital, some of which is attributable to the older uncoated lenses, but much of which is down to the very specific characteristics of the medium, particularly as regards tonal falloff at the two ends of the light spectrum. Try comparing shooting film and digital directly into sunlight, and the film will almost always hold the tones better, with far more subtle falloff into the light. Blocked shadows in digital look inky, splodgy and ugly, with very sharp falloff, in film they can be 'liquid', rich and alluring. I'm thinking mainly but not completely in B&W.

I shoot mainly landscapes, and when I look at silver prints 'in the flesh' from photographers such as Don McCullin, Fay Godwin or Paul Hart, there's something that makes me want to keep looking, something that transcends, an organic richness, depth and completeness that places the photographs in a distinct league, and which I'm not at all convinced I experience in the digital medium.

I work very hard in digital to emulate the B&W film look, and I think that I've become fairly adept at it, but when I look at my own prints there's a sense of involvement that is absent. I have found that even hybrid workflows from film through to scanning, PS and giclee printing give results that are perceptibly more involving than pure digital workflow. I've even done back to back, taking the same shot with digital and film and processing through in PS. The trouble is that even then you can't quite see why the film print is more involving, but (usually, though not always) it just is.

 

[sideshowbob]

I don't know many serious fine art photographers who don't mostly shoot film. You can do anything with digital, but that's also it's weakness - no constraint mostly leads to bad art. I can see why commercial and news photography is mostly digital, however, there are good reasons to favour the practicality of digital in those situations.

 

[PaulMB]

I have a "daylight" box for developing 4x5 sheet film. Built it myself out of plywood. I only need total darkness when I take the film out of the holders and put it into two trays, which sit in the box. Then I put the cover on (double-wall light trap) and usually develop in Rodinal 1:75 for about 25 minutes. Then total darkness again for a couple of minutes when I transfer the sheets from the developer to the stop bath and fixer. I only have to sit on the floor of a large walk-in closet for two minutes at the beginning and two more at the end. Also have a big room, at the back of a garage, 2.20X5.30 meters for printing, but there may be some tiny light leaks that might affect developing.

 

[albireo]

I shoot medium and large format - Kodak is at least twice the price of Ilford.

Fomapan 100 is quite nice in large format, as long as you rate it around ISO 40 and take care with developer choice (it's awful with Rodinal, for example)

Funny how tastes differ, Fomapan 100 is almost all I shoot in 120 and find it wonderful in Adox Rodinal 1+50 shot at box speed. Same for the 200. Both of them are even better in Foma's own formulation of Rodinal, Fomadon R09 (which is based on an older formulation of Rodinal than the one licensed to Adox)

The 400 is a bit more picky, looks better I find in Xtol or Foma's own Xtol clone, Fomadon Excel, which I like to use 1+1.

 

[sideshowbob]

Funny how tastes differ, Fomapan 100 is almost all I shoot in 120 and find it wonderful in Adox Rodinal 1+50 shot at box speed. Same for the 200. Both of them are even better in Foma's own formulation of Rodinal, Fomadon R09 (which is based on an older formulation of Rodinal than the one licensed to Adox)

The 400 is a bit more picky, looks better I find in Xtol or Foma's own Xtol clone, Fomadon Excel, which I like to use 1+1.

I never got it to work for me, but it sounds like you have. Impossible to get two photographers to agree on anything...

 

[albireo]

I never got it to work for me, but it sounds like you have. Impossible to get two photographers to agree on anything...

To be fair Foma film can occasionally be inconsistent across batches! Or perhaps my old cameras all have somewhat sticky shutters and I end up overexposing a tad hence my finding I like it at box speed. I find the latter unlikely though as I have CLAd most of them..

 

[Joe P]

Images from a Leica monochrom look the most like pictures taken with real B&W film to me. In both cases, the thing doing the capturing — the sensor in the Leica or the silver halide in film — isn’t filtering light through an RBG Beyer filter thingy or through dyes.

My spider sense tells me that might be why desaturated colour pix don’t look like traditional B&W pix.

Joe

 

[miktec]

As a consequence of this thread and another where scanning was mentioned I have spent the last 4 days (and still counting) pursuing the most ridiculous chimera down a labyrinthian rabbit hole of preposterous dimensions ... the outcome of which is that (for the moment at least) I view any possible marriage twixt 'digital' and 'analogue' as a complete an utter futility devoid of any single redeeming jot of charisma.

Too wit - I dug out my antiquated Nikon scanner and it's only slightly more youthful Mac Mini companion with a view to showing what an excellent little combo this could be in producing truly magical results ... and it was well and truly bust.

I have wasted much too much time scouring the void for info on operating parameters, software versions, release dates (and more) looking for scant Venn correlations that might make it all good again - I might as well have attempted to fart in the face of the current custodian of No.10 Downing Street for all the good it's done.

Thus far, I have succeeded in finally getting the goddamn thing recognised by Nikon 4.2 and Vuescan a few times and even got to the point where it responded to the 'Preview' command with a slight spring into action ... but as to getting an actual scan, not a chance in hell it seems.

I am currently waiting for a response from someone who seems to be the only person capable and willing to repair these things in the UK (and as a consequence is probably snowed under) ... in the meantime I have earmarked a few slide duplicator candidates on the auctions site ... but will probably end up just using the Canoscan, which still works and seems completely indifferent to the notion of inter-operational obsolescence.

I'll probably bin the few remains rolls of film I have lounging in a drawer - they have been well past their use by date for years already so no real loss ...

Viva Digital !!!

 

[miktec]

Try comparing shooting film and digital directly into sunlight, and the film will almost always hold the tones better, with far more subtle falloff into the light. Blocked shadows in digital look inky, splodgy and ugly, with very sharp falloff, in film they can be 'liquid', rich and alluring. I'm thinking mainly but not completely in B&W.

Agree completely re. blown highlights with digital - my main beef.
Disagree entirely about 'blocked shadows' - I have retrieved far more detail processing underexposed areas in digital files than I ever accomplished with film ... YMMV

 

[Joe P]

miktec,

Thus far, I have succeeded in finally getting the goddamn thing recognised by Nikon 4.2 and Vuescan a few times and even got to the point where it responded to the 'Preview' command with a slight spring into action ... but as to getting an actual scan, not a chance in hell it seems.

I occasionally have that issue with my Nikon scanner. I don't know what causes it, but turning the scanner off then on again and completely closing VueScan then reopening it usually fixes the problem.

Joe

 

[eternumviti]

miktec,



I occasionally have that issue with my Nikon scanner. I don't know what causes it, but turning the scanner off then on again and completely closing VueScan then reopening it usually fixes the problem.

Joe

You sometimes have to do it several times, and in various orders of switching off/on. Rebooting the computer also sometimes needs to be part of the 'getting vuescan to recognise the existence of your scanner' algorithm.

 

[eternumviti]

Agree completely re. blown highlights with digital - my main beef.
Disagree entirely about 'blocked shadows' - I have retrieved far more detail processing underexposed areas in digital files than I ever accomplished with film ... YMMV

Oh, I agree regarding the retrieval of blocked shadows in digital, most particularly if you are using raw. However, when the shadows are permitted to block in B&W digital work - often through poor processing or the use of jpeg - those blocked areas are really ugly. In film you can let the shadows go and they still have a certain quality, a distinct richness, with a subtly graduated falloff. Look at prints by Paul Hart or McCullin, or indeed any number of classic film photographers.

I actually like blocked shadows, but not in digital photos.

 

[miktec]

You sometimes have to do it several times, and in various orders of switching off/on. Rebooting the computer also sometimes needs to be part of the 'getting vuescan to recognise the existence of your scanner' algorithm.

Yep - have tried the 'IT Crowd' solution many, many times in succession in various sequences suggested by Nikon, Vuescan and others. I have also narrowed down the Firewire cables 'most likely to succeed' from a dozen or so to two - one 400/400 (for the old Mac) and one 400/800 for the newer.

Problem is that in the few times it has managed to get to the point of pressing 'Preview', both programmes invariably fail to recognise the scanner at all after restart - so the whole process starts again.

I found this to be the best diagnostic resource for Nikon scanners:
http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Nikon_4000_5000_diagnostics_troubleshooting.htm

His guide would seem to indicate a problem with one of the surface mounted communications chips (specifically the one in blue) - a repair I wouldn't even dream of attempting with my soldering skills.

Another, less obvious, problem is matching software versions to Mac models and OS iterations. With Nikon that is a very narrow window but Vuescan has a substantial list of iterations to try out (I have downloaded them all)

https://www.hamrick.com/alternate-versions.html

The multiplication of possible permutations (computer, OS, software, cables, adapters, weather, mood, etc.) is, quite frankly, doing my shed in ;¬>

 

[miktec]

I am currently waiting for a response from someone who seems to be the only person capable and willing to repair these things in the UK (and as a consequence is probably snowed under) ...

Hoorah !!
I have a response .... the Nikon can go in for a service/repair - in approx 3 months time

... so over the last week I have built myself a gizmo for doing all the 120 and 35mm stuff - and it works superly duperly !!!

 

[idomybest]

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.

If you want fast digital files of 35mm you can use an old enlarger - (I use a LPL 6700 and invert the head 180 degrees - please note I may have been lucky and this would not be possible with some other enlargers) and a mirrorless camera, make an adaptor tube to fit the camera to the enlarging lens and the enlarging head and you are all set. Set the camera to manual, focus the image with the enlarger rack and pinion and click away using the enlargers neg carriers to quickly move to the next frame....once the focus is set it doesn't change much - I use a loop for critical focus on the camera screen.
Takes a fraction of a second and produces raw files that you can digitally develop to your requirements. (You can also use the enlarger for enlarging should you get the urge!)