boy_lah
Discovering RF
hi, been lurking here a while now but this is my first post.
i've recently starting shooting film again and been using my local independent lab here in SW London to develop & scan my pix (no prints).
All the pix seems lovely except a tad on the high contrast side. Everything is very black or very white. I don't get that grey tones that i see from other people's pix. Initially i though it may be the film i've been using so i tried different ones (Delta, FP4+ and TMAX, also ASA100 and 400). Subtle differences aside, i'm pretty much getting the same thing. Pls check out my Flickr page for samples
My local lab uses Rodinal @ 25(?) whatever that means and scans using the minilab.
On one ocassion he had to re-scan a pix for me using his Epson flatbed and i got very different results - and that got me thinking.
The 'grey' faded looking one is from the Epson flatbed. The high contrast one is from the minilab. Neither has been digitally retouched (just resize). Neither is that great but the difference in output is what intrigued me.
So...my questions are:
- what do you think of the high contrast pix (and those on my flickr)? is this normal?
- am i'm missing out on the benefits of different film characteristics since diff films seems the same with this lab?
- should I should try a different lab?
- finally, can anyone in UK recommend a good mail order lab or one in town/SW London for B&W as well as C41 colour negs?
thanks in advance
i've recently starting shooting film again and been using my local independent lab here in SW London to develop & scan my pix (no prints).
All the pix seems lovely except a tad on the high contrast side. Everything is very black or very white. I don't get that grey tones that i see from other people's pix. Initially i though it may be the film i've been using so i tried different ones (Delta, FP4+ and TMAX, also ASA100 and 400). Subtle differences aside, i'm pretty much getting the same thing. Pls check out my Flickr page for samples
My local lab uses Rodinal @ 25(?) whatever that means and scans using the minilab.
On one ocassion he had to re-scan a pix for me using his Epson flatbed and i got very different results - and that got me thinking.
The 'grey' faded looking one is from the Epson flatbed. The high contrast one is from the minilab. Neither has been digitally retouched (just resize). Neither is that great but the difference in output is what intrigued me.
So...my questions are:
- what do you think of the high contrast pix (and those on my flickr)? is this normal?
- am i'm missing out on the benefits of different film characteristics since diff films seems the same with this lab?
- should I should try a different lab?
- finally, can anyone in UK recommend a good mail order lab or one in town/SW London for B&W as well as C41 colour negs?
thanks in advance
Attachments
Last edited:
nightlight
Well-known
If you can afford it, get a scanner. I am not saying that all lab scans are done poorly (although my experience with a number of them has not been great) but having control over the whole chain is more satisfying, I think.
For good labs that offer scanning, I can think of Metro or Genesis Imaging.
Good luck!
For good labs that offer scanning, I can think of Metro or Genesis Imaging.
Good luck!
dmr
Registered Abuser
I almost always have lab scans done on negatives, but if I want a nice print for presentation I will re-scan myself.
I can occasionally get an acceptable 8x10 from a lab scan, but that's about the limit of those things.
I've also observed that lab scans will be contrasty. They do a lot of processing when they scan on the mini-labs, everything from levels (where you get the excess contrast) to sharpening, which sometimes introduces artifact, to an ICE type dust/scratch removal thing.
As to a different lab, if you find a lab that uses less automation on their scanner, you may get better results. A minilab at a real photo shop will probably give you better results than one in a drug store or department store.
I can occasionally get an acceptable 8x10 from a lab scan, but that's about the limit of those things.
I've also observed that lab scans will be contrasty. They do a lot of processing when they scan on the mini-labs, everything from levels (where you get the excess contrast) to sharpening, which sometimes introduces artifact, to an ICE type dust/scratch removal thing.
As to a different lab, if you find a lab that uses less automation on their scanner, you may get better results. A minilab at a real photo shop will probably give you better results than one in a drug store or department store.
thomaswchapman@btint
Newbie
Hi, I process black and white my self and scan useing a nikon coolscan v. For c41 isend it to www.peak-imaging.co.uk based in sheffield, they are excelant and they offer a range of scanning services.
I hope this helps,
Tom
I hope this helps,
Tom
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Thanks everyone. I had a look at peak, metro & genesis labs - on quick review they're high end stuff. At £2-3 per film & £15+ per develop & scan, this hobby is going to get expensive very quickly. I currently pay £8-10 per develop & scan at my local which makes a 36 ~£10-12 per go. Not cheap but reasonable. I don't blow up my prints, mainly 6x4s and on the web for sharing so i don't need the best quality, just good quality.
Other than developing my own (no time, baby) or buying a scanner (again, time maybe a problem) I was hoping someone could suggest a good 'reasonable' priced developer. I maybe dreaming.
So...is the concensus something the matter with the scanning?
Other than developing my own (no time, baby) or buying a scanner (again, time maybe a problem) I was hoping someone could suggest a good 'reasonable' priced developer. I maybe dreaming.
So...is the concensus something the matter with the scanning?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Maybe you want to reconsider doing your own development. I really doesn't take that much time, although it is a bit messy, with dripping chemicals and all that. I started doing it because the only 'professional' lab around here made such a mess of it. Try to get Diafine, it's easy and you'll get decent result with just about any film, and fantastic results with traditional fast emulsions like Tri-X and HP5+.
At the Dutch department stores HEMA you can still have your B/W negs developed for very little money. The results are frankly very good, but they don't do pushing. I don't know if you can find similar service in the UK?
I agree that it is the scanning what gives you trouble. It looks like they do an auto contrast step in post processing. As said, I develop in Diafine and scenes with not that much contrast look flat when scanned. But if you scan 16 bits (like I do with my Nikon Coolscan) you can control contrast beautifully in Photoshop and such. It's like having RAW files of your negs, only better.
That having said, developing & scanning B/W is easy, but the post processing will eat up your time, dealing with dust especially. I am very happy with my own handiwork these days, but it eats up a lot of time. For me that's not a problem, because it's a hobby and I take pleasure in it.
At the Dutch department stores HEMA you can still have your B/W negs developed for very little money. The results are frankly very good, but they don't do pushing. I don't know if you can find similar service in the UK?
I agree that it is the scanning what gives you trouble. It looks like they do an auto contrast step in post processing. As said, I develop in Diafine and scenes with not that much contrast look flat when scanned. But if you scan 16 bits (like I do with my Nikon Coolscan) you can control contrast beautifully in Photoshop and such. It's like having RAW files of your negs, only better.
That having said, developing & scanning B/W is easy, but the post processing will eat up your time, dealing with dust especially. I am very happy with my own handiwork these days, but it eats up a lot of time. For me that's not a problem, because it's a hobby and I take pleasure in it.
ChrisN
Striving
boy_lah said:
To answer your question, yes, that lab scan is terrible. The epson scan you show is much better. It might appear "flat", but that is exactly what you want as a starting point for adjusting it to your preference in Photoshop (or similar editing program). You can take a low-contrast image and turn it into a high-contrast image, but you can't go the other way.
If you don't have the time to develop and scan yourself, finding a good pro lab is difficult and expensive - going digital may be a better option.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Ronald - thanks for the advice. I live in flat in London and have a young baby. Going into developing is NOT an option. Perhaps when i move to a house/when baby bigger. ; )
Chris - I gather as much. I know my local lab very well. The owner is a photog himself and encourages me to continue with film. I shall have a chat with him and see if he can turn off the auto adjustment when scanning. If so, then given my options and overall good service/price/promity to me I will continue to use them.
I came 'back' from digital ironically because I spent so much time on post processing. Film outsources much of the post processing which is great - until that is you want more control/don't like what they do. Oh well...what can you do.
Chris - I gather as much. I know my local lab very well. The owner is a photog himself and encourages me to continue with film. I shall have a chat with him and see if he can turn off the auto adjustment when scanning. If so, then given my options and overall good service/price/promity to me I will continue to use them.
I came 'back' from digital ironically because I spent so much time on post processing. Film outsources much of the post processing which is great - until that is you want more control/don't like what they do. Oh well...what can you do.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Hmmm...any tips on a good scanner (new or used). Maybe that's the compromise.
Any thoughts on make/models? Plustek seems to keep coming up. anyone tried those?
Any thoughts on make/models? Plustek seems to keep coming up. anyone tried those?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
XP2 scans easiest because there is no Callier effect -- and anyone you trust can process it. Plustek should see through the Dmax of XP2 easily enough but may struggle with conventional films unless they are processed for less time than usual.
I'm delighted with my KonicaMinolta scanner -- the last model they made -- but of course the company gave up the photography market.
Despite your professed antipathy to developing your own, you might also care to look at
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps howdoi.html
which deals with developing and even turning the loo into a darkroom.
What are your objections? Having the chemicals in the house? Nowhere to dry the film? I'm not saying you're wrong: just that it may be easier than you think, and that it takes less time to dev your own film than to go to the lab to drop the film off and pick it up.
Cheers,
R.
I'm delighted with my KonicaMinolta scanner -- the last model they made -- but of course the company gave up the photography market.
Despite your professed antipathy to developing your own, you might also care to look at
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps howdoi.html
which deals with developing and even turning the loo into a darkroom.
What are your objections? Having the chemicals in the house? Nowhere to dry the film? I'm not saying you're wrong: just that it may be easier than you think, and that it takes less time to dev your own film than to go to the lab to drop the film off and pick it up.
Cheers,
R.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
I agree with Roger here. For home development you need nothing more than a few bottles, a tank and a changing bag. No darkroom needed, very inexpensive. Got most of my stuff used from a camera show.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Why not try developing? Essentially it's the space/smell/chemicals. My loo is tiny, trying to find a corner to store chemicals and work with it is 'ambitious'. I will however look into developing when i move home next 18months. A garage or shed maybe the answer. 
In the meantime I will see if my very nice local minilab would be willing to turn down/off the auto tweaks when scanning my pix. If not, I may consider a scanner. I current shoot B&W films but have used C41 B&W in the past. I found C41 B&W very convinient and the higher latitude is great but it lacked contrast. But will digital these days it maybe my answer. Shooting C41 B&W and then process it in Photoshop.
Thanks for all the replies guys.
In the meantime I will see if my very nice local minilab would be willing to turn down/off the auto tweaks when scanning my pix. If not, I may consider a scanner. I current shoot B&W films but have used C41 B&W in the past. I found C41 B&W very convinient and the higher latitude is great but it lacked contrast. But will digital these days it maybe my answer. Shooting C41 B&W and then process it in Photoshop.
Thanks for all the replies guys.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Any other tips on a scanner is welcomed. Brand / model either new or used.
kully
Happy Snapper
I keep all my developing stuff in one carrier bag - takes minutes to get ready and then put it all back again. Sure, you will feel it's all too much at the beggining but stick with it and it becomes very rewarding, I'm actually looking forward to developing some rolls tomorrow morning before going to work
imush
Well-known
I live in a relatively small flat in New York, and have 3 little kids in house. My only concern about the children is that they wake up in the morning earlier than I do, and can ruin the film hung up to dry in the bathroom out of curiousity. The chemicals, tank, reels, changing bag etc. all fit into one box that is stored in a closet. There are no toxic fumes from any of the widely used b&w developers or fixers.
I use no stop bath, no archival wash, just Rodinal or DD-X, TF-4 fixer, and photo-flo. Vinegar in your kitchen poses a greater danger to children than any of these.
I use no stop bath, no archival wash, just Rodinal or DD-X, TF-4 fixer, and photo-flo. Vinegar in your kitchen poses a greater danger to children than any of these.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
thanks everyone. I have just started corresponding with someone in London that develops himeself. I may just have to get him to show me what's involved.
@ US$20 a pop just to dev + scan that's pricy. And at my current rate (just got back to film recently) I'll probably shoot 20-30 rolls a year. That's $600!!! Of course I may shoot more if it's not this expensive.
As for scanner, if i go down developing then that is the natural next step - besides getting labs to scan individual film costs more than getting them to scan whilst developing!
Will buy some XP2 and/or Kodak C41 B&W to try next. I used them ages ago but found the contrast lacking. But now with PS, it maybe a good cheaper alternative.
I shall report back if/when i eventually try developing. In the meantime, here's a few pix from my flickr that i like the scans from my local lab:
@ US$20 a pop just to dev + scan that's pricy. And at my current rate (just got back to film recently) I'll probably shoot 20-30 rolls a year. That's $600!!! Of course I may shoot more if it's not this expensive.
As for scanner, if i go down developing then that is the natural next step - besides getting labs to scan individual film costs more than getting them to scan whilst developing!
Will buy some XP2 and/or Kodak C41 B&W to try next. I used them ages ago but found the contrast lacking. But now with PS, it maybe a good cheaper alternative.
I shall report back if/when i eventually try developing. In the meantime, here's a few pix from my flickr that i like the scans from my local lab:
Last edited: