Jump to content

First Try At Developing Film and Creating Images With a DSLR


RayD28

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I developed my first two rolls of film.  They were shot using an M3, 50mm Summicron DR, HP5+ @ISO 400, and I used a handheld light meter for each shot.  I developed with Ilford DD-X.  

 

My biggest worry was getting the film on the Paterson reels, but I practiced with wasted film and it went excellent.  I had my notes laid out and checklists. I used the Ilford beginner's guide because I wanted a process that is easy and repeatable.

 

I struggled getting the chemicals at 20C -- had to use a pan of ice to get correct temperature.  I used the Massive Developer Chart app on my iPad and used the timer feature.  All went well until the alarm went off to pour out the developer and put in the stop bath.  After I poured the stop bath I meant to hit the continue button on the iPad but I instead hit RESET.  No worries, I followed my notes and just used a timer.  

 

After the final rinse and foto flo, I looked at the film and I was thrilled to see images.  I hung the film in my bathroom to dry about 2:00.  At 3:30 I was on the 'net googling how to dry film faster with a hair dryer but patience finally won and I let them dry overnight.  Today at 5:00 AM I cut the film into strips and started to digitize them with an DSLR.  

 

I used a light pad for illumination and a film holder that is for a scanner.  I used a Nikon D800 with a Nikon 105MM-Macro lens.  I mounted the lens on a tripod with the camera above the light pad that laid horrozontally.  Focused using live-view, bracketed exposures, and used the timer to reduce camera shake.  Getting the film and camera aligned at the proper plan is nearly impossible with this setup.  The images clearly show some shots with parts of the frame out of focus.

 

Here are a couple of images.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great photos! You never get over that feeling hen you first see the images on the film. :)

 

I tried photographing my negatives for a while but was never happy with the results, I eventually bought an Epson V600 scanner and haven't look back since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great photos! You never get over that feeling hen you first see the images on the film. :)

 

I tried photographing my negatives for a while but was never happy with the results, I eventually bought an Epson V600 scanner and haven't look back since.

Mike, I may get a scanner. I've noticed the quality you get from your epson and they are on my watch list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I may get a scanner. I've noticed the quality you get from your epson and they are on my watch list.

 

The quality is excellent and I feel it is great value for money, certainly worth considering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Photographing negatives works well with a few things to consider:

 

+ Use a smaller macro lens than 100 mm if possible - it reduces the distance between negative on the light pad and the lens. Slight discrepancies from a perfect parallel plane between negative and sensor will cause less of an effect. But I also got excellent photos taken with 100 mm focal length macro lens. 

 

+ Use f/11 to compensate for little waves in the negative plane (even if it sits in a holder!)

 

+ Less of an issue with your DSLR but certainly for smaller mirrorless bodies - avoid shutter vibration by reducing ISO number to 50 and longer exposure times of approx. 1 sec. 

 

+ Scanned and photographed negatives often need to be adjusted for higher contrast in post processing. A darkroom print from the negative will always give you more contrast than you will get with from a digitized format of the same negative if kept unprocessed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

+ Less of an issue with your DSLR but certainly for smaller mirrorless bodies - avoid shutter vibration by reducing ISO number to 50 and longer exposure times of approx. 1 sec. 

 

Better yet, some mirrorless cameras - like my Fuji X-E2 - have an electronic shutter and a cordless remote shutter release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better yet, some mirrorless cameras - like my Fuji X-E2 - have an electronic shutter and a cordless remote shutter release.

 

Yes - only that I prefer FF in general, and which has a bit of an advantage to frame 35 mm negatives. Electronic shutter is also a big benefit for this purpose, agreed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photographing negatives works well with a few things to consider:

 

+ Use a smaller macro lens than 100 mm if possible - it reduces the distance between negative on the light pad and the lens. Slight discrepancies from a perfect parallel plane between negative and sensor will cause less of an effect. But I also got excellent photos taken with 100 mm focal length macro lens. 

 

+ Use f/11 to compensate for little waves in the negative plane (even if it sits in a holder!)

 

+ Less of an issue with your DSLR but certainly for smaller mirrorless bodies - avoid shutter vibration by reducing ISO number to 50 and longer exposure times of approx. 1 sec. 

 

+ Scanned and photographed negatives often need to be adjusted for higher contrast in post processing. A darkroom print from the negative will always give you more contrast than you will get with from a digitized format of the same negative if kept unprocessed. 

 

Hi, Martin.  Thanks for the tips.  I'm glad you mentioned f11.  It reminds me that I bracketed using the aperture.  In other words, I set the shutter speed and then bracketed down from f11 to about f5.6.  The next time I'll use f11 as the constant and bracket using the shutter speed.  Should of thought about this before.  

 

Regarding the contrast, I hesitated using Lightroom controls to retouch the photos.  My intention was to just show the negatives turned to positives.  I may send a few negatives off for prints and compare them to unprocessed digital prints.  As for the 105mm vs shorter macro, I am open to alternatives.  When I bought the 105mm it was to serve two purposes, a macro and a short tele.  Since then I got a couple of better teles and a smaller macro sounds good.  

 

Thanks again for your tips.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Martin.  Thanks for the tips.  I'm glad you mentioned f11.  It reminds me that I bracketed using the aperture.  In other words, I set the shutter speed and then bracketed down from f11 to about f5.6.  The next time I'll use f11 as the constant and bracket using the shutter speed.  Should of thought about this before.  

 

Regarding the contrast, I hesitated using Lightroom controls to retouch the photos.  My intention was to just show the negatives turned to positives.  I may send a few negatives off for prints and compare them to unprocessed digital prints.  As for the 105mm vs shorter macro, I am open to alternatives.  When I bought the 105mm it was to serve two purposes, a macro and a short tele.  Since then I got a couple of better teles and a smaller macro sounds good.  

 

Thanks again for your tips.  

 

Appreciate your feedback! One thing to know - and I also didn't know this when I first started digitizing and later scanning negatives - is that you don't get a 1:1 realistic digital image in this process from your negatives. Contrast will be always slightly off in the digital file (too low in contrast). The grain visible in the digital file is always much more visible than in a final print from the negative itself - this is caused by the silver particles which reflect the light and appear much more clear in the digitized image. A silver gelatin print smoothens this out much better that the grain shows up much less than in the digital file. 

 

My point is that you can't expect a "realistic" 1:1 digital file from a digitized negative - there is always a difference which you might want to compensate in PP. I found the most realistic way to see digitized negatives is by applying a S-curve based tonal adjustment curve for brightness and contrast - sometimes just a bit more contrast is enough, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...