mathomas
Well-known
OK, I know the obvious answer is to do them myself. I process my own 35mm (dev/scan), but I don't have a MF film scanner. So, I drop my 120 film at the lab (an independent photo shop) for dev and scan. They do a beautiful job with color, but my B&W results almost always come out "extra-crispy". Sometimes they are so contrasty that I really can't do much with them.
So, what can I do to ameliorate this problem? My MF rigs are both Fujis and have those great, contrasty, sharp Fuji lenses. I have found that the lab generally does a OK job with Delta 400. Am I stuck shooting Delta 400 forever? Are the other emulsions that are fairly low-contrast? Should I get MF camera(s) that have low-contrast lenses? Should I ask the lab to "pull" 1/2 stop? Etc?
Thanks in advance for any ideas (other than buying a MF film scanner
).
Here are a couple of examples from the same day, but different rolls (these were some of the least contrasty scans, and I've worked on these files considerably). The camera is a Fuji GA645Zi.
Delta 400 (more contrasty roll than usual):
Tri-X:
So, what can I do to ameliorate this problem? My MF rigs are both Fujis and have those great, contrasty, sharp Fuji lenses. I have found that the lab generally does a OK job with Delta 400. Am I stuck shooting Delta 400 forever? Are the other emulsions that are fairly low-contrast? Should I get MF camera(s) that have low-contrast lenses? Should I ask the lab to "pull" 1/2 stop? Etc?
Thanks in advance for any ideas (other than buying a MF film scanner
).Here are a couple of examples from the same day, but different rolls (these were some of the least contrasty scans, and I've worked on these files considerably). The camera is a Fuji GA645Zi.
Delta 400 (more contrasty roll than usual):
Tri-X:
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
If what is holding you back is no MF scanner, I'd suggest you get one. The Canon 8800F is pretty cheap, and results can be decent-ish if you use betterscanning holders.
The results from an inexpensive scanner on medium format I find can be pretty good because you can lose half the detail and still have a lot.
You really don't need to get a dedicated scanner for medium format unless you're a pro, in my opinion.
The results from an inexpensive scanner on medium format I find can be pretty good because you can lose half the detail and still have a lot.
You really don't need to get a dedicated scanner for medium format unless you're a pro, in my opinion.
Johnmcd
Well-known
Hi Mathomas,
When I scan B/W negs I always scan as a colour positive to get more DR out of my Scan Multi Pro, then invert in photoshop. I find that gives less contrasty results. Maybe that's their problem?
John
When I scan B/W negs I always scan as a colour positive to get more DR out of my Scan Multi Pro, then invert in photoshop. I find that gives less contrasty results. Maybe that's their problem?
John
Stuart John
Well-known
Maybe they over sharpen them or something. Post a file before you worked on it then we can see what the lab is giving you.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What are the negs like that the lab is developing that produced these scans?
These look like the sort of results I used to get when I first started developing my own black and white film ... I was over developing and over agitating and the highlights and contrast were extreme and difficult to deal with in post no matter how I scanned them!
Here's an example which looks very similar to your problem IMO.
These look like the sort of results I used to get when I first started developing my own black and white film ... I was over developing and over agitating and the highlights and contrast were extreme and difficult to deal with in post no matter how I scanned them!
Here's an example which looks very similar to your problem IMO.
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
instead of talking them into processing it differently, maybe talk them into scanning it differently. I'm sure it's just a checkbox somewhere in their process which is left "on" to "improve" client's material.
Also, does kodak's c41 exist in 120 format? could be an option. Or ilford xp.
Also, does kodak's c41 exist in 120 format? could be an option. Or ilford xp.
umcelinho
Marcelo
probably the lab uses an "auto adjustment" setting. one lab I took some negs to be developed and scanned around here also did the same thing, but they are so clueless on how to use their Coolscan 9000 that I got much, much better scans from my Epson 3200. Which is a true waste of a great scanner. I wonder if they would trade it for the Epson
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
I fully agree on the C8800F. I had one and it did jsut fine on MF.
I would ask them exactly how they are doign the MF for you. Chemicals, time, agitation etc....
You might need to tailor the neg to the developing process if you continue to use them.
What EI are you using for the film? might be worhtwhile to shoot a roll at EI 320 and another at EI 200 and see what you get scan wise.
I would ask them exactly how they are doign the MF for you. Chemicals, time, agitation etc....
You might need to tailor the neg to the developing process if you continue to use them.
What EI are you using for the film? might be worhtwhile to shoot a roll at EI 320 and another at EI 200 and see what you get scan wise.
Mcary
Well-known
Agree!!
Scanners like the Cannon 8800F or the Epson VR500/600 are capable of giving you scan that will produce high quality prints up to 11x14 and OK prints to 16x20 from medium format film. Should you need a top notch scan for something really important you can always have a drum scan done.
Mackinaw
Think Different
These all look over-sharpened to me. Somebody got carried away when post-processing with Photoshop.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Ronald M
Veteran
Order a print so you can tell if they are over developing or over sharpening.
Or you can cut up a reject and scan it in a 35 mm scanner.
I believe monochrome to be a one stop experience. Keep third party out of the process.
In fact that is the way photography is, commercial work is always a surprise.
Or you can cut up a reject and scan it in a 35 mm scanner.
I believe monochrome to be a one stop experience. Keep third party out of the process.
In fact that is the way photography is, commercial work is always a surprise.
nimcod
Established
Id imagine they are setting the contrast to high.
if its a mini lab system..
if they use a fuji machine its in the "tonal settings" menu on their print screen, setting to "soft" will give you a low contrast
if they use a noritsu, then on their printing screen, there is a "dsa" menu which has a contrast control usually -1 or -2 i sufficient to bring the highlights back in that are lost in scanning.
just so you can tell them if they are using machines they dont know their way around so well(most do if you just ask for a low contrast or "neutral" scan they can oblige)
if its a mini lab system..
if they use a fuji machine its in the "tonal settings" menu on their print screen, setting to "soft" will give you a low contrast
if they use a noritsu, then on their printing screen, there is a "dsa" menu which has a contrast control usually -1 or -2 i sufficient to bring the highlights back in that are lost in scanning.
just so you can tell them if they are using machines they dont know their way around so well(most do if you just ask for a low contrast or "neutral" scan they can oblige)
oftheherd
Veteran
You didn't say where you are located or what you are paying for the development and scans. You might want to give Precision Camera and Video a try. I have yet to do so but those here who have speak highly of the.
williams473
Well-known
The Epson V-500 does a great job for me - pretty cheap at $179 U.S., brand new! I shoot mostly 6x6 and 6x7 and scan at 4800dpi - The scanner picks up amazing detail - the amount of tonal range is dependant on how I set the scanner up prior to the scan - make sure to use your histogram to include the full range - looks to me like your lab doesn't know what they are doing - go for the Epson - I'm very happy with the results. I've included a recent scan I did of some TMY2 (Tmax 400.)
Attachments
mathomas
Well-known
Thanks for your thoughts. It's not really a money thing. It's a clutter thing
. I just don't have room for a yet another flatbed (currently I have a multifunction printer/scanner (that scanner is not used for negs of course)). My 35mm scanner is just a little thing from PlusTek. I'm even running out of room for places to tuck that little guy out of the way when it's not in use (I have way too many hobbies and attendant crap).All that being said, I guess at the super cheap price for the V-500 I may just have to suck it up and try it.
mathomas
Well-known
probably the lab uses an "auto adjustment" setting. one lab I took some negs to be developed and scanned around here also did the same thing, but they are so clueless on how to use their Coolscan 9000 that I got much, much better scans from my Epson 3200. Which is a true waste of a great scanner. I wonder if they would trade it for the Epson
Thanks for your responses! I guess I'd call this is a serious amateur shop. They don't have much flexibility in processing, but give me much bigger scans than, say, Ritz would do. Anyway, I've spoken directly with the manager of the processing side of the house, and she swears up and down they don't do any adjustments (even auto, which I kind of doubt). I still specify "no adjustments, no sharpening" on every roll and they come back looking pretty bad.
nimcod, thanks for your very specific hint re settings. They do use a Noritsu, I believe. I'll have to ask how they have the software set up.
mathomas
Well-known
Good idea. I'll post an unmodified one here ASAP. Thanks.
mathomas
Well-known
What are the negs like that the lab is developing that produced these scans?
These look like the sort of results I used to get when I first started developing my own black and white film ... I was over developing and over agitating and the highlights and contrast were extreme and difficult to deal with in post no matter how I scanned them!
Here's an example which looks very similar to your problem IMO.
I need to have a look at the negs. I have to admit, being only 1 year into my return to film, I'm not that great at "interpreting" negs. When I develop my own 35mm, I sometimes think the negs look great hanging up, but they scan poorly.
What you're describing is what I'm dealing with in the scans from the lab. There is a "bathtub histogram" on many of them.
mathomas
Well-known
Funny you mention 400CN/XP2. Before this last shoot I tried to buy some at the shop and they had none in 120 (it does exist, though). I am definitely going to order some from freestyle.com, though. Thanks for the reminder
.mathomas
Well-known
I think they use T-MAX developer, which may explain a lot. Could it explain why I like my Delta 400 results (in general) since Delta is also tabular grain (like T-MAX)?
I shot these rolls at box speed, using the built-in meter of the GA645Zi. They are consistently overexposed, IMO (at least the scans look that way). I'd be afraid to overexpose still more. Though, as I suggested in my original post, I wonder if it's worth having them pull a half-stop.
Thanks for your comments!