rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Share #1 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Film noob here. I've only shot digital so far and this is my first roll of developed negatives. I used Tri-X 400 in my M6, developed in New55 Monobath and scanned with a flatbed scanner; Canon 9000F II. I'm just not happy. I think (though I don't know) that it's a combination of lots of grain but mostly the scan is just "not quite sharp" not quite in focus. I scanned both using the film holders, and then going against the glass, and got better results against the glass with no holder. I'm also guessing that the Monobath developing is pretty grain-enhancing....true? In any case, here is a shot from my first roll. Any comments and suggestions to guide me are more than welcome. Edited August 20, 2015 by rpavich Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Hi rpavich, Take a look here Well...not happy with my results right out of the gate. Unsharp and lots of grain.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted August 20, 2015 Share #2 Posted August 20, 2015 Is the grain itself sharp in the scans? If not, then you might need to look at the scanning technique (experiment more with the film holders, etc.). If it is then it may be you have been using too low a shutter speed than is ideal for light levels (have you any results taken outside in stronger light?). Either way, it may be that you have unrealistic expectations of what a scanned neg looks like at 100% (you describe yourself as a "film noob" so I'm assuming you haven't scanned film before). As somebody (I think it was Alexander Tufte) in this forum once wrote: a scanned negative at 100% looks like shit but looks beautiful when printed, with digital it is the other way around. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted August 20, 2015 Share #3 Posted August 20, 2015 That looks pretty good to me! Don't be fooled into thinking you can compare Tri-X to digital at 100% resolution - well, you can, but you will see a big difference and it is supposed to be there. I haven't used the New55 product, but my homemade version actually softens grain. This is Plus-X from the monobath (but not a Leica shot so just a link). Are the vertical stripes on the back of the monitor the infamous surge marks that this monobath is famous for? It can be fun trying to avoid them. I'm not familiar with your scanner, but if it was sharper against the glass than in the carrier it must be a focus issue. With smaller formats of film, it is harder to get satisfactory results from flatbed scanners, and if the bug bites you it will be worth looking at a film scanner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwpics Posted August 20, 2015 Share #4 Posted August 20, 2015 Film is a whole different ball game to digital. The image looks pretty good to me, but you have to expect grain I am afraid whatever your technique. I would not want to scan film on a flatbed scanner, I think you are on a loser to start with, and even with a dedicated film scanner you are going to see grain because film HAS grain, simple as that. You could try a chromogenic (C41) film, but even then there will be some limited grain and the results from a flatbed scanner will not be great compared to digital. I am working my way though films I have taken over many years, and I would not want to go back to film now I am shooting digital. Gerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted August 20, 2015 Share #5 Posted August 20, 2015 Film is different like the others have said before me when digitalizing the scanner is very important of course, but also the way you scan and the post processing. Here are a few articles by me with some examples (colour negatives) and a link to my flickr page with also quite some black and white film. Article about the Leica M-A with samples: http://jipvankuijk.nl/leica-m-a-typ-127/ Article about scanning film with Nikon Cool Scan 4000: http://jipvankuijk.nl/scanning-film-nikon-coolscan-4000/ My flickr album with analog photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157635480749609 As a few starter tips I'd advise, try exposing for the shadows, so basically over exposing your photos a little. This gives better results with Negative films... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 20, 2015 Share #6 Posted August 20, 2015 I also think this looks good especially for a first attempt! Most people aren't used to seeing film images anymore - we are conditioned to (usually over processed over sharpened) digital images. If there is a weak link in your chain it would be the scanning. I would have thought that you would be better using the film holders and following the instructions. Check settings and maybe look at alternative software options. Dedicated film scanners will give better results than flatbeds, but that said I use an Epson flatbed and get good results with it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Is the grain itself sharp in the scans? If not, then you might need to look at the scanning technique (experiment more with the film holders, etc.). If it is then it may be you have been using too low a shutter speed than is ideal for light levels (have you any results taken outside in stronger light?). Either way, it may be that you have unrealistic expectations of what a scanned neg looks like at 100% (you describe yourself as a "film noob" so I'm assuming you haven't scanned film before). As somebody (I think it was Alexander Tufte) in this forum once wrote: a scanned negative at 100% looks like shit but looks beautiful when printed, with digital it is the other way around. This is exactly the kind of answer that helps me. Yes..I'm a noob, I do think that I have some unrealistic expectations because of it. And I've never scanned film before (nor developed it or anything.) Thanks very much, this is encouraging. That looks pretty good to me! Don't be fooled into thinking you can compare Tri-X to digital at 100% resolution - well, you can, but you will see a big difference and it is supposed to be there. I haven't used the New55 product, but my homemade version actually softens grain. This is Plus-X from the monobath (but not a Leica shot so just a link). Are the vertical stripes on the back of the monitor the infamous surge marks that this monobath is famous for? It can be fun trying to avoid them. I'm not familiar with your scanner, but if it was sharper against the glass than in the carrier it must be a focus issue. With smaller formats of film, it is harder to get satisfactory results from flatbed scanners, and if the bug bites you it will be worth looking at a film scanner. Again..thanks very much. Yes, I was expecting digital at 100% resolution. I think that there is a slight focus issue but mainly, it's probably my expectations combined with the monobath and such. I ordered a film scanner this morning just to compare. Film is a whole different ball game to digital. The image looks pretty good to me, but you have to expect grain I am afraid whatever your technique. I would not want to scan film on a flatbed scanner, I think you are on a loser to start with, and even with a dedicated film scanner you are going to see grain because film HAS grain, simple as that. You could try a chromogenic (C41) film, but even then there will be some limited grain and the results from a flatbed scanner will not be great compared to digital. I am working my way though films I have taken over many years, and I would not want to go back to film now I am shooting digital. Gerry That looks like the situation. I need to change my mindset. Film is different like the others have said before me when digitalizing the scanner is very important of course, but also the way you scan and the post processing. Here are a few articles by me with some examples (colour negatives) and a link to my flickr page with also quite some black and white film. Article about the Leica M-A with samples: http://jipvankuijk.nl/leica-m-a-typ-127/ Article about scanning film with Nikon Cool Scan 4000: http://jipvankuijk.nl/scanning-film-nikon-coolscan-4000/ My flickr album with analog photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157635480749609 As a few starter tips I'd advise, try exposing for the shadows, so basically over exposing your photos a little. This gives better results with Negative films... Thanks very much...I do tend to underexpose because of digital. Thanks very much for the links. Edited August 20, 2015 by rpavich Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted August 20, 2015 I also think this looks good especially for a first attempt! Most people aren't used to seeing film images anymore - we are conditioned to (usually over processed over sharpened) digital images. If there is a weak link in your chain it would be the scanning. I would have thought that you would be better using the film holders and following the instructions. Check settings and maybe look at alternative software options. Dedicated film scanners will give better results than flatbeds, but that said I use an Epson flatbed and get good results with it. I think that describes me, not used to what film looks like. I did follow the instructions at first and only after that improvised. It really only got marginally better doing that though. I'm using VueScan which seems pretty good. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted August 20, 2015 I'll tell you what I AM very glad about though...that I got through the development process with some usable negatives! That was pretty thrilling in and of itself. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted August 20, 2015 FWIW: here is another one. This is me in my office. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted August 20, 2015 Share #11 Posted August 20, 2015 Post processing is different with film 'files' too. Etc. etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 20, 2015 Share #12 Posted August 20, 2015 You can try finer grain film/developers too - Ilford FP4 used to be my main stock but I must admit I tend to prefer a bit more grain these days. I guess becuase it looks more obviously like film! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #13 Posted August 20, 2015 You can try finer grain film/developers too - Ilford FP4 used to be my main stock but I must admit I tend to prefer a bit more grain these days. I guess becuase it looks more obviously like film! That's also what I was wondering. Thanks for the help. I think I also had to sleep on it a bit too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 20, 2015 Share #14 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) For me, film is meant to be printed. The wonderful nuances achieved by various film/paper/development/print/display materials and techniques are lost on the screen for the most part. One needs to see the print to judge.....I've scanned some of my negs that made wonderful prints, but which lost the 'magic' on screen, despite decent scanning, etc. (BTW, those scans produced better prints than screen shots.) It's all about the total workflow, from camera to display. My end product....film or digital...is the print; if it were a screen shot, I'd opt for an all digital workflow and be done with it. My darkrooms served to produce some beautiful silver prints, but the benefit of digital is much more control and flexibility in the back end of the workflow, while scanning film introduces other variables and various limitations. My 2 cents....others clearly differ in their experience, philosophy and approach. YMMV. Jeff Edited August 20, 2015 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted August 20, 2015 Share #15 Posted August 20, 2015 BW films scans will always be more grainy that what the film truly is. That's just a fact and you have to get over it. The rendering of your scanned tri-x appears normal to me. As for the sharpness, this does appear to be an issue. It is either with your scan, your camera/lens, or you... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) BW films scans will always be more grainy that what the film truly is. That's just a fact and you have to get over it. The rendering of your scanned tri-x appears normal to me. As for the sharpness, this does appear to be an issue. It is either with your scan, your camera/lens, or you... Thanks for chiming in....appreciated. I'm learning that I have to modify my expectations. Being that this was my first roll..the sharpness issue could be any of those three variables, I'll try eliminating them as I can. Edited August 20, 2015 by rpavich Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 20, 2015 Share #17 Posted August 20, 2015 Repeating others for emphasis - the grain is mushy, the scan isn't as good as it could be. You might also have some camera/subject movement there. I would not use the monobath. Never had great luck with such. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #18 Posted August 20, 2015 Repeating others for emphasis - the grain is mushy, the scan isn't as good as it could be. You might also have some camera/subject movement there. I would not use the monobath. Never had great luck with such. Thanks, I'll explore other developers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted August 20, 2015 Share #19 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) If I did not wet print, I would not bother shooting black and white film but that is just me, I find the differences in the resulting prints to be enormous. Also, while I like the grain in Tri-X, it was just not quite as sharp as I would have liked. So I use Tmax 400 and find it is one of the sharpest films I have ever used and the grain is nearly as tight as Delta 100. I push it to 800, it is nearly the only film I shoot in my Leica cameras. Tmax 400 is so good I use it in 35, 120 and 4x5. Edited August 20, 2015 by Ai_Print Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted August 20, 2015 If I did not wet print, I would not bother shooting black and white film but that is just me, I find the differences in the resulting prints to be enormous. Also, while I like the grain in Tri-X, it was just not quite as sharp as I would have liked. So I use Tmax 400 and find it is about the sharpest film I have ever used and the grain is nearly as tight as Delta 100. I push it to 800, it is nearly the only film I shoot in my Leica cameras. Interesting, thanks for the information. I'm learning a lot this morning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.