Color Negatives

[JeremyLangford]

Do most of you guys develop and enlarge color negatives in your own darkroom as well as black and white negatives, or is color too complicated for most people?

 

[FrankS]

With B+W film developing there is much opportunity for creative and practical adjustments. With colour neg film developing, it simply has to be done the prescribed way. In light of this, and with the low cost of commercial colour film developing, there is little point, IMO, of doing it at home.

 

[JeremyLangford]

So is it cheaper to have it done by a company?

Do most people get the color negs developed by a company and then just take the negatives home to enlarge them themselves?

 

[rogue_designer]

color enlargers can be tricky. The price is higher, and there is no such thing as a safelight. You need different, more expensive, and more temperture (and age) sensitive chemistry.

I usually have a lab process my color fim and then I scan the negs.

I think it's more feasible to process your own color negs, than your own color prints.

 

[erikhaugsby]

I have a lab process my film, then I scan it (with my Coolscan V ED). Much higher quality than lab prints, and in the long run cheaper.

 

[Santafecino]

I don't see much point in processing my own color film. The process is fixed (C-41, E-6); one cannot usefully vary the development time (much) or any other stage. If you do, the characteristic curves of the three layers will cross.

(except that some people say you can push color film--but does it really work, or do you just make a mess of lousy images?)

 

[navilluspm]

I do like Erik. I get my negs developed at Walmart for $1.76 plus tax and the then scan them on my film scanner for photoshoping and printing.

Now E-6 processing is a different matter. I do not personally do this processing, but I do hear that, with the right kit and when processed in mass, it can be some what cheaper for people than having a lab do it. From what I hear (this is not from experience) Kodak makes a good 6 bath home processing kit for slide film. Some day, when I have more time and money and shoot more Velvia, maybe I will try it.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Ok. I understand that you guys like the quality and grain better in film vs. digital. But to me it seems silly to pay a lab to process film, and then scan it to your computer, instead of shooting with a digital SLR or RF, and adding grain if needed.

Is there some reason I'm missing, that makes getting a lab to develop your film and then scanning it, better than a digital when it comes to the finished picture?

I guess its just the fact that you guys want to stick to rangefinders, and we all know how expensive the digital RFs are.

 

[navilluspm]

Read this link and you will understand why I do it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm

 

[navilluspm]

And this is also another interesting article from Ken on the Olympus 35 Trip against a Canon 5D

http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

 

[FrankS]

Try B+W ! 🙂

 

[rogue_designer]

Is there some reason I'm missing, that makes getting a lab to develop your film and then scanning it, better than a digital when it comes to the finished picture?

Digital sensors don't have the contrast latitude of the better print films (being closer, but still slightly inferior to the latitude of good slide films).

Also, for the most part, I don't use 35mm color. In color, I mostly shoot 6x7cm or 4x5 inch and it will be a long time yet until digital sensors truly match the quality I can get when these are scanned well.

 

[aad]

Ok. I understand that you guys like the quality and grain better in film vs. digital. But to me it seems silly to pay a lab to process film, and then scan it to your computer, instead of shooting with a digital SLR or RF, and adding grain if needed.

Is there some reason I'm missing, that makes getting a lab to develop your film and then scanning it, better than a digital when it comes to the finished picture?

I guess its just the fact that you guys want to stick to rangefinders, and we all know how expensive the digital RFs are.

Besides the Ken Rockwell links, I prefer my film workflow results. They look better. Plus my negatives are true photo-graphs, and that is important to me for personal reasons.

Besides, I have yet to use a digital camera that I like.

 

[Photog9001]

... and with the low cost of commercial colour film developing, there is little point, IMO, of doing it at home.

how i wish this was true in my part of the universe...

 

[Finder]

I have my color negs processed in a lab and then I print myself at home. You can make such better prints yourself. You have color as well as dodge and burn controls.

I use a Jobo CPP 2 processor for prints up to 20x24. I also contact all my negs. Viewing filters and lights are very important. I also print using two color enlargers as it is easier to process two test prints in the Jobo at the same time. This makes the whole process go along nicely.

The neat thing is you can also do B&W in a color darkroom. 🙂

 

[DavidH]

Ok. I understand that you guys like the quality and grain better in film vs. digital. But to me it seems silly to pay a lab to process film, and then scan it to your computer, instead of shooting with a digital SLR or RF, and adding grain if needed.

Is there some reason I'm missing, that makes getting a lab to develop your film and then scanning it, better than a digital when it comes to the finished picture?

It's not grain but the look and the latitude - a digital sensor has nowhere near the range of negative film - whites blow out and blacks are crushed. Every shot becomes a nasty compromise. Shooting neg film and scanning gives fantastic color and a look I love. Some of my commercial work is done in digital purely for the turnaround times. Long lens wildlife and extreme macro I also do in digital. Everything else is color neg film.

When digital stills cameras give me 12 stops of light as standard then I'll dump color film. And to be honest I have no idea why they aren't there already...the Sony HDCAM TV cameras easily give 11 stops and with the right lens combo can handle more - up to 13 stops. They use CCD chips. Digi SLRs are pathetic in comparison. Sorry, pet rant of mine 😉

Here in the US - lab processing is so cheap, widely available and convenient that processing your own C41 gives no real advantage that I can see. I scan the negs as always and finish in Photoshop.

 

[Finder]

the Sony HDCAM TV cameras easily give 11 stops and with the right lens combo can handle more - up to 13 stops.

Can you give me a link to this? I am interested.

 

[sam_m]

Ok. I understand that you guys like the quality and grain better in film vs. digital. But to me it seems silly to pay a lab to process film, and then scan it to your computer, instead of shooting with a digital SLR or RF, and adding grain if needed.

Is there some reason I'm missing, that makes getting a lab to develop your film and then scanning it, better than a digital when it comes to the finished picture?

I guess its just the fact that you guys want to stick to rangefinders, and we all know how expensive the digital RFs are.

I greatly prefer the interface and ergonomics of simple film cameras like my m6 and equally my nikon fe2. Only the bare essential controls: focus, set exposure, trip the shutter.

For me, the technical qualities of the resulting photographs are secondary to the pleasure I get from using the camera itself. I think that if tomorrow, film of every type were to disappear, I would have to use digital, but I would still go out on occasion with my m6 or fe2, empty of film, and snap away. They are just such elegant, satisfying and robust pieces of machinery.

Also, show me a digital camera with a viewfinder that compares in eye relief, clarity and size to an m or an f?? Maybe the new d3 will bring back that long lost feature, but there's no way I'm carrying that brick around anywhere!

<end rant>

 

[JeremyLangford]

Man does this stink.

Let me just tell you guys what I have been planning to do until I just learned about film having a greater contrast latitude.

My plan was to buy a 5d, and add grain myself to pictures in photoshop to make them look as close to film as I can (I have a photoshop plugin thats made to simulate film grain). I thought this would do just as good a job as your guys' RFs, and at a ridiculously lower price. All would have to do is buy the 5d and lenses and then Im through spending money. I just shoot in RAW, edit colors on my computer, (I have Adobe Lightroom) add grain, and any ones I like, I could send to walgreens to get printed.

I thought this was a great plan. To be honest, I though I was outsmarting you guys in a way. Guess not.

 

[cmedin]

A 5D would do the job of a film RF at a 'ridiculously lower price'?