Macpod
Established
actually its not that short. but there doesnt seem to be a section on film. A search also didnt yield any results. sorry, im a film noob. Use to think fuji superia 400 is the only film worth using.hahaha
I did some research on the internet. I understand the slide/neg debate to a degree. And to some extent i understand that fuji velvia is for more contrasty vivid colors and sensia is for a more natural look.
then there is the price of development and printing, and the price of film. oh boy....film is fun but i will miss the convinience of digital and the lack of extra expenditures.
And here comes the questions.hahaha.
1: with negatives, as i understand it, the negative(HA HA) aspects are mainly to do with the printing process. Is it fairly true that the processing is pretty predictable and things normally go wrong when the negatives are being printed? If this is the case, could i just develope the negs at the lab and scan the images on my own using a neg scanner from university? could i then use these Jpegs and photoshop them to look like Velvias and grainy black and whites(TRi-X)? theoretically if i can make them look like Velvias on photoshop, i could also print the digital files at the lab accuately.
2: Was i dreaming in the first question? is it impossible to achieve the look of a good slide film with something like a Fuji Reala through photoshop?
3: Is it worth it using Ilford XP2400super? Or is a converted digital file using cheap fuji superias as good? or would i have to use a slide film and convert it to get the same look?
Feel free to ignore or post long winded replies.
cheers
Yihang
I did some research on the internet. I understand the slide/neg debate to a degree. And to some extent i understand that fuji velvia is for more contrasty vivid colors and sensia is for a more natural look.
then there is the price of development and printing, and the price of film. oh boy....film is fun but i will miss the convinience of digital and the lack of extra expenditures.
And here comes the questions.hahaha.
1: with negatives, as i understand it, the negative(HA HA) aspects are mainly to do with the printing process. Is it fairly true that the processing is pretty predictable and things normally go wrong when the negatives are being printed? If this is the case, could i just develope the negs at the lab and scan the images on my own using a neg scanner from university? could i then use these Jpegs and photoshop them to look like Velvias and grainy black and whites(TRi-X)? theoretically if i can make them look like Velvias on photoshop, i could also print the digital files at the lab accuately.
2: Was i dreaming in the first question? is it impossible to achieve the look of a good slide film with something like a Fuji Reala through photoshop?
3: Is it worth it using Ilford XP2400super? Or is a converted digital file using cheap fuji superias as good? or would i have to use a slide film and convert it to get the same look?
Feel free to ignore or post long winded replies.
cheers
Yihang
Finder
Veteran
1. Yes, forget the prints and scan them yourself. I don't know why you want to make them look like anything but what they are. First, you can't. Second, what is wrong with negative film? Yes, you can punch the colors in photoshop, but it won't look like Velvia. It will look like the negative film processed in photoshop.
2. You cannot make slide film look like slide film on a computer monitor. It will look like a digitized image on a monitor. I would worry about making good images than trying to make something look like what it is not.
3. See above.
I hate to be a crab here, but I really think you don't understand the concepts in reproduction. A slide on a light table, an image on a monitor, and a print will not look the same. To try to do that is impossible. What you want is to take a process and get the best quality you can out of it. You can make B&W images from color film, but it is not the same as getting them from B&W film. Using a scanner and photoshop will not be the same as using a chemical darkroom. It is not that one way is better than another. It is simply the process adds qualities to the image that really cannot be reproduced using another process.
Choose the film for its qualities.
2. You cannot make slide film look like slide film on a computer monitor. It will look like a digitized image on a monitor. I would worry about making good images than trying to make something look like what it is not.
3. See above.
I hate to be a crab here, but I really think you don't understand the concepts in reproduction. A slide on a light table, an image on a monitor, and a print will not look the same. To try to do that is impossible. What you want is to take a process and get the best quality you can out of it. You can make B&W images from color film, but it is not the same as getting them from B&W film. Using a scanner and photoshop will not be the same as using a chemical darkroom. It is not that one way is better than another. It is simply the process adds qualities to the image that really cannot be reproduced using another process.
Choose the film for its qualities.
Macpod
Established
thats just what i wanted to find out. I like the 'colors' on velvia, i never got them with prints from negatives. but i havent tried scanning and phtoshopping, if i can get good results from that i will stick with negs for cost reasons.
dont mistaken me for a photoshop geek, i DONT believe that photoshop can recreate everything. i wouldnt have asked the question otherwise. But i have seen alot of good post processing done on photoshop, afterall, its an evolution of the darkroom when you think about it. im all for the darkroom except ill never get one. i have to make do with that i have and thats a computer and a couple decent labs.
i guess the only way to answer my question is to try those films and photoshop to see if i like the results.
one reason for my question was i wanted to bulk order from BH, but wasnt sure if the cost of 20rolls of velvia was justified. I can only get the 50 velvia and 100f here, 100 is not available. i also cant find 1600iso anywhere. Im in shanghai atm. I also wanted to give the sensia a shot.
dont mistaken me for a photoshop geek, i DONT believe that photoshop can recreate everything. i wouldnt have asked the question otherwise. But i have seen alot of good post processing done on photoshop, afterall, its an evolution of the darkroom when you think about it. im all for the darkroom except ill never get one. i have to make do with that i have and thats a computer and a couple decent labs.
i guess the only way to answer my question is to try those films and photoshop to see if i like the results.
one reason for my question was i wanted to bulk order from BH, but wasnt sure if the cost of 20rolls of velvia was justified. I can only get the 50 velvia and 100f here, 100 is not available. i also cant find 1600iso anywhere. Im in shanghai atm. I also wanted to give the sensia a shot.
Ariya
Peter Williams
Macpod said:
I used to think that digital was less expensive than film. Then I realized that eight months after paying $900 for a digital rebel kit that it was only worth $450-$500. That's an easy $400 depreciation which equals $600/year which equals a whole lot of film, processing, and printing. Like the saying goes, pay now or pay later. Both processes use consumables and both have on-going costs. I haven't noticed anything in my experience that would suggest that one is more expensive than the other.
The real question is do you enjoy working with traditional photo processes or do you prefer to work in Photoshop? I have used both and I prefer to develop and print traditionally. Life is short, do what makes you happy.
Peter
nightfly
Well-known
Here's what I think regarding films, scanning and what you can and can't do, I'm sort of reading between the lines of your question, so take it for what it's worth.
Slide film tends to look better than color print film. It is more accurate, has tighter grain and is produced more for the professional than the amateur market. I think even a non-professional Fuji slide film like Sensia is going to give you more of what you are looking for than print film. At least here in the states at a place like B and H it is relatively cheap to purchase though processing is more expensive.
Nothing will look as good as a slide. Not even a print made from that slide directly in an analog manner. But you probably aren't going to bring a screen and projector around with you so scanning and printing slide film is your next best thing.
Nothing is going to look like true black and white film either. Grain is inherintly part of the "look" of black and white film and silver film looks different than chromogenic film. If this look is important to you shoot black and white and develop yourself. The quality of real black and white film comes through in scans and digital prints. You can use sharpening to accentuate the grain if you like.
If you simply want black and white images (rather than the look of black and white film) than I would shoot color and convert to black and white in photoshop. I think it's really the same as chromogenic black and white and you get the option of color if you like.
That being said, if I were more of a color photographer, I'd probably shoot digital as the hassle of having someone else develop my film would take away from the artistic control of the entire process that I get with black and white, though I still prefer manual mechanical cameras.
Slide film tends to look better than color print film. It is more accurate, has tighter grain and is produced more for the professional than the amateur market. I think even a non-professional Fuji slide film like Sensia is going to give you more of what you are looking for than print film. At least here in the states at a place like B and H it is relatively cheap to purchase though processing is more expensive.
Nothing will look as good as a slide. Not even a print made from that slide directly in an analog manner. But you probably aren't going to bring a screen and projector around with you so scanning and printing slide film is your next best thing.
Nothing is going to look like true black and white film either. Grain is inherintly part of the "look" of black and white film and silver film looks different than chromogenic film. If this look is important to you shoot black and white and develop yourself. The quality of real black and white film comes through in scans and digital prints. You can use sharpening to accentuate the grain if you like.
If you simply want black and white images (rather than the look of black and white film) than I would shoot color and convert to black and white in photoshop. I think it's really the same as chromogenic black and white and you get the option of color if you like.
That being said, if I were more of a color photographer, I'd probably shoot digital as the hassle of having someone else develop my film would take away from the artistic control of the entire process that I get with black and white, though I still prefer manual mechanical cameras.
Finder
Veteran
Macpod said:
Bingo!
That's it. Shoot some film and play. The fun is you may find some combinations that really blow your hair back and float your boat.
Macpod
Established
very true. I have never developed in a dark room and in all honesty dont see it happening anytime soon. Maybe if theres a film resurgence at school. but right now theres no film developing classes or clubs at uni.
However. i do like trying different film and using manual cameras.
as far as cost goes. i have to disagree to an extent. the digital market has changed somewhat, the megapixel race is settling down and resale prices have stablised. a NEW pentax DSLR cost 540 with a kit lens, it will not dollars. i would still buy one for 300 in a years time if its in good condition.
But your're right. screw this. im ging out shooting tommorow!
However. i do like trying different film and using manual cameras.
as far as cost goes. i have to disagree to an extent. the digital market has changed somewhat, the megapixel race is settling down and resale prices have stablised. a NEW pentax DSLR cost 540 with a kit lens, it will not dollars. i would still buy one for 300 in a years time if its in good condition.
But your're right. screw this. im ging out shooting tommorow!
Macpod
Established
nightfly said:
You read between the lines well my friend! I wont be buying anymoe chromogenics. And i wil seriously look into b/w development......although im still doubtful ill have the resources.
regarding the digital debate. I thought development didnt alter the colors much, where as printing from negs did. but i suppose its just a question of degree?
i think everyone agrees theres nothing wrong with digital itself. If there was a full frame digital camera that allowed the use of M/LTM lenses and was compact like a RF ill be the first one to jump ship. Only if it was under 2000USD though
preferably 1000........... lets hope the trend of exlectronics coming down continues with RF digitals. be great if voigltander/epson surprise us with something as pioneering as the bessa seriesFinder
Veteran
Every film has its response to color. Some differences are subtle. You certainly can screw up the color in development. You can also make a bad print from a negative. Actually, most negatives are printed badly. Color negative film can make just as good if not better traditional optical prints than slide film. The trouble is there are few who can print color well.
(From a guy that runs a color darkroom.)
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I like shooting with Reala when I shoot 100 speed color. I used to use Provia 100f in 100 speed but now I shoot Reala. The colors are the best I've seen in 35mm color negative, resolution is fabulous, there's more exposure latitude and the processing is way more convenient. Though it's still negative film and in open skies and monochrome subjects, there's still visible grain in my scans where there wouldn't be with Provia 100f. Not less detail mind you, just a bit more grain. But to me, the greater exposure latitude makes the trade worth it.
In Photoshop, there are methods to reduce grain in these areas. It depends on your skill with Photoshop or what noise reducing plug-ins you choose. Of course, Photoshop is just a tool. You get out of it what you put into it. It can simply clean things up or take you all the way from photography into graphic art.
I don't believe grain to be an inherant quality of black white film, it's more inherant to the 35mm format along with the type of film selected. Even then, Microdol-X and D-23 developers can be marvelous to reduce the appearance of grain. And stepping up into medium format, grain becomes less and less of an issue. Why even 4x5 street photography is possible.
In all this, how far you go is up to you.
In Photoshop, there are methods to reduce grain in these areas. It depends on your skill with Photoshop or what noise reducing plug-ins you choose. Of course, Photoshop is just a tool. You get out of it what you put into it. It can simply clean things up or take you all the way from photography into graphic art.
I don't believe grain to be an inherant quality of black white film, it's more inherant to the 35mm format along with the type of film selected. Even then, Microdol-X and D-23 developers can be marvelous to reduce the appearance of grain. And stepping up into medium format, grain becomes less and less of an issue. Why even 4x5 street photography is possible.
In all this, how far you go is up to you.
kmack
do your job, then let go
Macpod said:
For 35mm black and white the needed resources are minimal See The Guerilla Darkroom on Dante Stella's site. (I always get a kick out of that site).
Macpod
Established
kmack said:
fantastic. have to sleep now since its 0120 btu had a quick look and they said no darkroom was needed! thats the biggest hurdle out of the way. enlargers are apparently cheap now days. maybe their are russian made examples?
thanks for all the great info. this forum is great. will introduce myself tommorow when im more coherent.
EDIT: quick newbie question. the guy says a change bag is fine for 'processing' film, since only the action of puting the film into the canister requires darkness. but does one need a dark room for enlargement? he wasnt that clear, but i have a hunch that you do. otherwise no one would have dark rooms
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
Yes. You only need a darkroom for enlarging.
Alternatively a film scanner is nice for a hybrid set up. I've got an Epson 4990 and although it's a flatbed and not optimal for 35mm film, it works pretty well.
I wish I had access to a darkroom, but barring that, develop yourself and scan gets you up and running and you can always print your negs if you get access to a darkroom down the road.
Alternatively a film scanner is nice for a hybrid set up. I've got an Epson 4990 and although it's a flatbed and not optimal for 35mm film, it works pretty well.
I wish I had access to a darkroom, but barring that, develop yourself and scan gets you up and running and you can always print your negs if you get access to a darkroom down the road.
phototone
Well-known
In regards film and scanning. I am more pleased with my prints from my big Epson Ultrachrome 9600 printer driven by a very expensive RIP, than I ever was from my "C" prints made in the darkroom. In regards the film choices. I find that I now prefer (for color) to shoot transparency film to scan, rather than color negative film to scan. It seems that scanners seem to do a better job with transparencies (slides). I have several scanners, I can make an educated opinion regarding their use from my own experiences.
I even prefer scanning b/w negative film and making b/w prints on the Epson. While not exhibiting quite the image "depth" that good fibre-based darkroom prints exhibit, they look very nice, and the upside, for me, is that I can retouch and spot the scanned file once (in Photoshop) and every print is then perfect with no additional work.
I even prefer scanning b/w negative film and making b/w prints on the Epson. While not exhibiting quite the image "depth" that good fibre-based darkroom prints exhibit, they look very nice, and the upside, for me, is that I can retouch and spot the scanned file once (in Photoshop) and every print is then perfect with no additional work.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
nightfly said:
Its great that people in this forum have a more positive, pragmatic attitude towards "hybrid" work. In an other forum, where film still reigns supreme, such ideas are considered heretical and would immediately be shot down.
There is a sort of fanaticism there which finds common ground with religious extremism which shields out all forms of reason...
Jay
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
phototone said:
Trannies do better because no reversal occurs during the digitisation. Negatives need to be reversed to a positive - the software has to decide how to deal with the negative colour image and decide how to render the respective complementary colours in making the positive. Plus, there's the mask as well.
Even "profiles" programmed into the scanning software won't just do things right.
There are so many variables when it comes to colour negatives. The colour dyes in the negative vary between makes. Ditto with their masking.
Processing the film also accounts for a lot of these variations. For instance, a Kodak negative -same type, same batch- when processed in different "C41" brews will yield negatives whose hues and masking won't match. C-41 isn't truly universal. Its universality only goes as far as assuring that a useable colour negative comes out of the processor.
Unlike transparencies, the hues which formin a colour negative don't have to be 100% correct. The colour negative is really an intermediate- a sort of code which holds information for making the print. Even with proper processing, a lot of these variations occur.
Jay
hiwatt
send some talent this way
nightfly said:
It's sad when you realize that Cibachrome is indeed a thing of the past and you won't see it anymore...sigh.... :bang:
JonP
Established
Fairly new here so "Hi everybody" from here in the UK.
OK wrong forum but this is going the direction I'm having problems in, please delete if you need to
I was going to PM this to avoid clutter, but I couldn't, so here I am exposing my ignorance! I'm not bothered about making myself look like an idiot- I do that too often to care!
I'm having troubles scanning Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 25 (now sadly unavailable)
OK my problem, I've chosen these two films as they give the colours I like- I've got the monitor and printer set up so I print what I see, which took a while. Now, scanning with an Epson perfection 4180 photo I find that the slides come out very dark, my guess is out by about 4 stops- what am I doing wrong, any photofiddling I do looses all the depth of colour and contrast- It might be me and lack of know how but a few pointers would be appreciated. I have tried some fiddling at scan-time but seem to loose detail/colour. I know things will change as this thread states, but its the 'feel I'm after if that makes any sense. I tend to scan at 1200dpi with no adjustments as I thought that that could be accomplished after data aquisition. Apologies for the disjointed nature of this message, i write as things pop into my mind!
Thanks is advance
Jon Pitt
a Red r/f fan with a very bad medium format habit on the side!
OK wrong forum but this is going the direction I'm having problems in, please delete if you need to
I was going to PM this to avoid clutter, but I couldn't, so here I am exposing my ignorance! I'm not bothered about making myself look like an idiot- I do that too often to care!
I'm having troubles scanning Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 25 (now sadly unavailable)
OK my problem, I've chosen these two films as they give the colours I like- I've got the monitor and printer set up so I print what I see, which took a while. Now, scanning with an Epson perfection 4180 photo I find that the slides come out very dark, my guess is out by about 4 stops- what am I doing wrong, any photofiddling I do looses all the depth of colour and contrast- It might be me and lack of know how but a few pointers would be appreciated. I have tried some fiddling at scan-time but seem to loose detail/colour. I know things will change as this thread states, but its the 'feel I'm after if that makes any sense. I tend to scan at 1200dpi with no adjustments as I thought that that could be accomplished after data aquisition. Apologies for the disjointed nature of this message, i write as things pop into my mind!
Thanks is advance
Jon Pitt
a Red r/f fan with a very bad medium format habit on the side!
CJP6008
Established
Slide v colour neg - an interesting one. The inability of slides to use the contrast reducing mask used in negs gives them a very S shaped curve, lots of mid tone punch, not a long contrast range. Negatives use many tricks unavailable to the slide, including the orange contrast reducing mask (a weak positive of the image) giving a long straight section to the curve while still achieving good, but not excessive colour saturation. IMHO neg gives a more realistic look and deals better with subtle colours (Kodak slide is better at subtleties , esp skin tones, than Fuji in general. Best try a few.
The previous correspondent who noted that most negs are printed badly is so right. There are very few good colour printers out there - fact. If you shoot digitally and develop your own files for output either at home or the lab, you are a colour printer too. A good deal of the utter garbage produced from digital capture is down to the operator being a useless colour printer. If the equipment is handled well and good files captured a skilled operator/printer can get great results.
Somewhere around 10 per cent of the male population are colour blind. Vision, like most human abilities is a spectrum. At one end are those lucky few with perfect vision, at the other are an unfortunate few who can see no colour. At some point between the two one starts failing colour blind tests. It is possible to pass such tests and not have perfect colour vision.
What does all this mean? Well, there are very few truly great colour printers out there, just as there are very few with ears good enough to tune a concert piano. If you were no good at colour printing in the darkroom, you will still be no good at it on the computer, no matter how well set up your system. The problem is you will not be able to see what is wrong with them while others wince at your prints. With digital, everyone has become their own colour printer, often with disasterous results (even if the user cannot see the problem). Yes they may be better than the junk you got from the local minilab but that is hardly a benchmark of quality. As a friend remarked recently or pros going digital, has made amateurs out of all of them.
On the scanning debate, interestingly legendary London based colour printer Danny Pope scans the (12x16) prints he makes for clients feeling that this gives the result closest to the photographer's vision of the image. Believe me you would be blown away by is printing, so why not scan it - no grain aliasing problems there! Danny has also become involved in developing raw files for clients, or sorting out files they had made a right mess of or been struggling with. His master printer's eyes and a properly calibrated set up easily surpassing anything his clients could achieve.
The bottom line is that printing is printing whether you use a darkroom with negs or trannies or photoshop on a mac. You are either good at it or you are not. The clever bit as a photographer is accepting your limitations. Few pros print their own work. There is a lesson there. Stick to what you are good at!
The previous correspondent who noted that most negs are printed badly is so right. There are very few good colour printers out there - fact. If you shoot digitally and develop your own files for output either at home or the lab, you are a colour printer too. A good deal of the utter garbage produced from digital capture is down to the operator being a useless colour printer. If the equipment is handled well and good files captured a skilled operator/printer can get great results.
Somewhere around 10 per cent of the male population are colour blind. Vision, like most human abilities is a spectrum. At one end are those lucky few with perfect vision, at the other are an unfortunate few who can see no colour. At some point between the two one starts failing colour blind tests. It is possible to pass such tests and not have perfect colour vision.
What does all this mean? Well, there are very few truly great colour printers out there, just as there are very few with ears good enough to tune a concert piano. If you were no good at colour printing in the darkroom, you will still be no good at it on the computer, no matter how well set up your system. The problem is you will not be able to see what is wrong with them while others wince at your prints. With digital, everyone has become their own colour printer, often with disasterous results (even if the user cannot see the problem). Yes they may be better than the junk you got from the local minilab but that is hardly a benchmark of quality. As a friend remarked recently or pros going digital, has made amateurs out of all of them.
On the scanning debate, interestingly legendary London based colour printer Danny Pope scans the (12x16) prints he makes for clients feeling that this gives the result closest to the photographer's vision of the image. Believe me you would be blown away by is printing, so why not scan it - no grain aliasing problems there! Danny has also become involved in developing raw files for clients, or sorting out files they had made a right mess of or been struggling with. His master printer's eyes and a properly calibrated set up easily surpassing anything his clients could achieve.
The bottom line is that printing is printing whether you use a darkroom with negs or trannies or photoshop on a mac. You are either good at it or you are not. The clever bit as a photographer is accepting your limitations. Few pros print their own work. There is a lesson there. Stick to what you are good at!
Ariya
Peter Williams
Macpod said:
All that you really need is a dark room (I use my closet at night with a towel under the door) to load the film in the tanks. Everything else to develop the film can be done in the bathroom or kitchen with the lights on. I did this and then scanned the negatives for a year or so until I could get a darkroom put together. Even now my darkroom is temporary. I just black-out the bathroom and do my printing in there. Once you do it, it becomes relatively simple.