Jump to content

A Journey into Film


MJ_2003

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, after many digital years (M9, MM and now M10) I have decided to try out analog. I picked up an M7 and shot my first roll of HP5 over the weekend. I had it developed at a reasonable high end lab and had them do a basic scan.

 

Here is one of the shots. As a complete beginner I have no idea if this looks ok or not; not talking about composition here.

 

Looks very grainy and dark to me? It was a cloudy afternoon and from memory I was at f8 and 250 with the current 75mm 'cron and on manual exp.

 

Anyhow I was hoping those of you more used to looking at scanned film negatives might comment, thanks in advance.

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having your negatives scanned at a lab makes sense for trying out if film suits you at all. Looks decent for a batch work. However:

 

Once you want to exert more control over the results, you most propably will have to do the scans yourself. The type of scanner hardware, software and presets (standard, automatic, on a film-by-film basis or on an individual image-by-image basis ) etc. all have a huge influence on the result and may drastically alter the impression you get from the very same negative. The lighting under the roof might have been a bit difficult, but different scanning parameters might have rendered more greytone separation in the shady areas. The gradation is also critically dependent on developer type, dilution, temperature, timing etc.

 

Many labs do their scans as an alternative to contact prints of old, thus they use moderate scan resolutions and highly compressed jpeg files which will limit your postprocessiong options.

 

I cannot give a definite comment on resolution, true grain vs pseudo-grain etc. in a

 

<<<<<<<

I don't know, what the heck happened, but this is the second time that my post is being truncated in the middle. Now I have to write it for the third time on this invonvenient iPad...

>>>>>

 

(cnd) ... in a 500 KB forum upload.

 

HP5 is a bit more grainy than other ISO 400 films but it can give you beautiful greytone separation. In different forums on the internet there are dozens of discussions on which film to prefer (e.g. HP5 vs. TriX vs. TMax) but nobody ever seems to agree on a single point ;-) They all have their pros and cons. This being said, in your image, the skin and the guitar do look a bit grainy, even for HP5. But then, some developers increase graininess while others diminish it's visual impact. Few batch labs use individually matched developers for individual films, but then, HP5 is rather common.

 

I would perhaps suggest that you use a more finely grained film next time (eg ISO 60-125) to more easily differentiate between film and scan properties.

 

If your lab staff is cordial, you might visit them at a less busy hour and chat them up on their workflow, standard developer and further suggestions.

 

Do you have any information on scan resolution, file type and file size etc.?

 

For sure, do continue your (re-)discovery of film, it is definitely rewarding on many levels!

 

Kind regards

Mathias

Edited by schattenundlicht
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks OK to me but it is very difficult to tell without a bigger photo. That film is an ISO 400 film and there's typically a big difference in perceived grain size between such films and ISO 100 films. And of course the developer used will affect the results, too. Developing yourself will allow you to find the combination of film and developer you like the best. And scanning yourself is also recommended as it gives you the best control of the result.

 

Don't let such things put you off though; grain is probably the aspect of film photography that makes the images seem more alive than boring, flat and structure-less digital photos. And please post your results in the I Like Film thread, where there is an immense amount of film experience and friendly photographers who are always ready to help.

 

br

Philip

 

Hi, after many digital years (M9, MM and now M10) I have decided to try out analog. I picked up an M7 and shot my first roll of HP5 over the weekend. I had it developed at a reasonable high end lab and had them do a basic scan.

 

Here is one of the shots. As a complete beginner I have no idea if this looks ok or not; not talking about composition here.

 

Looks very grainy and dark to me? It was a cloudy afternoon and from memory I was at f8 and 250 with the current 75mm 'cron and on manual exp.

 

Anyhow I was hoping those of you more used to looking at scanned film negatives might comment, thanks in advance.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having your negatives scanned at a lab makes sense for trying out if film suits you at all. Looks decent for a batch work. However:

 

Once you want to exert more control over the results, you most propably will have to do the scans yourself. The type of scanner hardware, software and presets (standard, automatic, on a film-by-film basis or on an individual image-by-image basis ) etc. all have a huge influence on the result and may drastically alter the impression you get from the very same negative. The lighting under the roof might have been a bit difficult, but different scanning parameters might have rendered more greytone separation in the shady areas. The gradation is also critically dependent on developer type, dilution, temperature, timing etc.

 

Many labs do their scans as an alternative to contact prints of old, thus they use moderate scan resolutions and highly compressed jpeg files which will limit your postprocessiong options.

 

I cannot give a definite comment on resolution, true grain vs pseudo-grain etc. in a

 

<<<<<<<

I don't know, what the heck happened, but this is the second time that my post is being truncated in the middle. Now I have to write it for the third time on this invonvenient iPad...

>>>>>

 

(cnd) ... in a 500 KB forum upload.

 

HP5 is a bit more grainy than other ISO 400 films but it can give you beautiful greytone separation. In different forums on the internet there are dozens of discussions on which film to prefer (e.g. HP5 vs. TriX vs. TMax) but nobody ever seems to agree on a single point ;-) They all have their pros and cons. This being said, in your image, the skin and the guitar do look a bit grainy, even for HP5. But then, some developers increase graininess while others diminish it's visual impact. Few batch labs use individually matched developers for individual films, but then, HP5 is rather common.

 

I would perhaps suggest that you use a more finely grained film next time (eg ISO 60-125) to more easily differentiate between film and scan properties.

 

If your lab staff is cordial, you might visit them at a less busy hour and chat them up on their workflow, standard developer and further suggestions.

 

Do you have any information on scan resolution, file type and file size etc.?

 

For sure, do continue your (re-)discovery of film, it is definitely rewarding on many levels!

 

Kind regards

Mathias

 

Hi Mathias

 

Thank you for your comments, they are much appreciated. The scan was JPG with a file size of around 16MB, I don't have the resolution to hand but they quoted 72 ppi which I realise isn't much use without the picture dimensions.

 

It is certainly my intention to do my own processing and scanning as I imagine that is all part of the experience and the fun and I am looking into the necessary equipment. I am going to try FP4 next and see how that goes but again a lot of the intrigue in film is seeing how all the various films work out.

 

I do need to concentrate on my exposures though as with the M10 I am quite lazy since the DNG files are so flexible for shadow and highlight manipulation in post. I am hoping that having to concentrate much more on getting things right when actually shooting the M7 will have a knock on benefit for the M10.

 

I will say it is very exciting starting out with film, I have so much to learn.

 

Thanks again for your post, Mark

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks OK to me but it is very difficult to tell without a bigger photo. That film is an ISO 400 film and there's typically a big difference in perceived grain size between such films and ISO 100 films. And of course the developer used will affect the results, too. Developing yourself will allow you to find the combination of film and developer you like the best. And scanning yourself is also recommended as it gives you the best control of the result.

 

Don't let such things put you off though; grain is probably the aspect of film photography that makes the images seem more alive than boring, flat and structure-less digital photos. And please post your results in the I Like Film thread, where there is an immense amount of film experience and friendly photographers who are always ready to help.

 

br

Philip

 

Hi Philip

 

Thank you for your comments, they are much appreciated. As I said above I will definitely process and scan my self in time and it hasn't put me off but rather highlighted how much I have to learn, and that is a good thing. Once I have some half decent results I will post in the thread you mentioned.

 

Thanks again, Mark

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathias

 

Thank you for your comments, they are much appreciated. The scan was JPG with a file size of around 16MB, I don't have the resolution to hand but they quoted 72 ppi which I realise isn't much use without the picture dimensions.

 

It is certainly my intention to do my own processing and scanning as I imagine that is all part of the experience and the fun and I am looking into the necessary equipment. I am going to try FP4 next and see how that goes but again a lot of the intrigue in film is seeing how all the various films work out.

 

I do need to concentrate on my exposures though as with the M10 I am quite lazy since the DNG files are so flexible for shadow and highlight manipulation in post. I am hoping that having to concentrate much more on getting things right when actually shooting the M7 will have a knock on benefit for the M10.

 

I will say it is very exciting starting out with film, I have so much to learn.

 

Thanks again for your post, Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

16 MB JPEG in b/w seems to be an OK file size (not too much compression, and I guess not too little resolution, but this is largely guesswork on my side). The dpi value has to be related to putative print size specified when the file was created/ saved; it does not help to determine the number of image pixels without the second parameter given.

 

I would like to allay your worries with regard to nailing exposure. FP4 or HP5 (or TriX for that matter) are nearly as forgiving as raw capture. The 'modern' flat-grain films (TMax etc.) generally are a bit more touchy in that respect. You should, however, bear in mind that, while in digital capture blowing the highlights is very easy and often unrecoverable, in b/w film it is easy to lose dark graytone separation. Thus the old adage "expose to the right" (of the histogram/ zone system) is even more important in film, because, generally speaking, b/w negative film has a lot of highlight latitude but it is rather common to see 'drowned' blacks. You will get the hang of it after a few rolls of film, I am sure!

 

I rediscovered film for myself rather recently and I gave myself a little assignement: When going outdoors with my M7, I shot two photos of each subject. The first photo by just guessing exposure according to the modified sunny sixteen rule, setting time/ aperture before looking through the viewfinder. The second photo as metering in camera would suggest. Of course, if both matched, I skipped the second shot. It was very instructive: Very often, my M7 and me agreed; when they did not, the difference tended to be small and bridgeable by the film's latitude and scanning parameters. This exercise should not encourage sloppy exposure, but it will free your mind towards the more important aesthetic aspects of photography :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Mathias

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Mark,

 

16 MB JPEG in b/w seems to be an OK file size (not too much compression, and I guess not too little resolution, but this is largely guesswork on my side). The dpi value has to be related to putative print size specified when the file was created/ saved; it does not help to determine the number of image pixels without the second parameter given.

 

I would like to allay your worries with regard to nailing exposure. FP4 or HP5 (or TriX for that matter) are nearly as forgiving as raw capture. The 'modern' flat-grain films (TMax etc.) generally are a bit more touchy in that respect. You should, however, bear in mind that, while in digital capture blowing the highlights is very easy and often unrecoverable, in b/w film it is easy to lose dark graytone separation. Thus the old adage "expose to the right" (of the histogram/ zone system) is even more important in film, because, generally speaking, b/w negative film has a lot of highlight latitude but it is rather common to see 'drowned' blacks. You will get the hang of it after a few rolls of film, I am sure!

 

I rediscovered film for myself rather recently and I gave myself a little assignement: When going outdoors with my M7, I shot two photos of each subject. The first photo by just guessing exposure according to the modified sunny sixteen rule, setting time/ aperture before looking through the viewfinder. The second photo as metering in camera would suggest. Of course, if both matched, I skipped the second shot. It was very instructive: Very often, my M7 and me agreed; when they did not, the difference tended to be small and bridgeable by the film's latitude and scanning parameters. This exercise should not encourage sloppy exposure, but it will free your mind towards the more important aesthetic aspects of photography :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Mathias

 

Hi Mathias

 

Thanks again for your very helpful and insightful thoughts. I very much like the suggestion of taking two pictures each time and will definitely try that.

 

Kind regards, Mark

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not appear to be grain, but simply a poor resolution scan possibly with thoughtless sharpening. I will bet we can pull a much better scan from it. In all, so far so good!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall - that looks like what I would expect as a decent "base" scan from 35mm HP5. It is about what I got from HP5 using a fairly high-end (but not ultimate) scanner - Nikon 5000ED.

 

Heck, it looks like some pictures I got from HP5 just printing them in the darkroom. ;)

 

But there are so many variables in using film, processing film and scanning. Especially with B&W film. whose processes are much more variable than the very constrained and automated processes for color negs and slides. And far more so than in digital capture - just two different animals.

 

The developer chemical used can make a big change in the grain structure and "obviousness." Wouldn't hurt to find out which developer your lab uses. A lot of the old "made for commercial machine processing - one size fits all" developers like Kodak DK-50 have been discontinued. D-76 (which my local lab uses in their machine: Ilford's equivalent is ID-11) is a general purpose developer that is "pretty good" by most measures (film speed, grain, resolution) - but there are also specific developers to maximize one of those features at the expense of the others - fine-grain developers (Microdol-X), high-acutance (sharpness) developers, full-film-speed developers (Ilford DDX, Kodak TMax Developer).

 

The scanner type makes a difference. The Nikon has a very sharp lens, but uses LED lights, that tend to render "hard" crispy grain. Other scanners (Minolta was one) used a backlit illumination panel with a softer light that de-emphasized grain. Most scanning software can be set to either automatically sharpen all scans during capture - or not (I prefer "not" so I can control sharpening myself). There is also an effect called "grain aliasing" if the scanner resolution is approximately equal to the size of the film grains, that also tends to make pictures look grainier when scanned: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

 

That being said, don't expect scanned 35mm grain to be anything like digital noise from a modern sensor at the same ISO - to match the "noise/grain" of, say, the M10 at ISO 400, you will need to use 35mm film of about ISO 50 (or 4x5 film of ISO 800). Especially with "old-tech" films like HP5/FP4/PanF. The Delta/TMax/ACROS films have somewhat finer grain inherently, but at the cost of less latitude in exposure and development.

 

B&W silver film tends to be grainiest/noisiest in the highlights, whereas color (dye-based) films (or the XP2 film mentioned by Michael) and digital images are noisiest in the shadows. This is just a function of the microscopic structure of films, and the physics of turning light into data (digital) or specks of metal (B&W film). Or "rephotographing" a piece of film with a scanner to make a digital image of the film, penetrating the film with light, with all of the physics of shining light through a sea of silver particles or dye clouds.

 

In my "film Leica scanned" era - 2001-2005, I pretty much stuck with Ilford Pan F ISO 50, partly to avoid grain, and partly to be able to use apertures wider than f/11 in bright sun.

 

You have to accept film for what it does, as its own medium.

 

Getting back to your picture, it seems to me to be more "contrasty" than "dark," as such. Whether that is due to the original exposure, the processing, or the scanning technique, I can't tell without seeing the actual film. The caucasian skin tones under a shadowing roof look about right for brightness, as do the bright areas (sky and signs). The shadows in the speakers and trees look a little dark and thin, but again, that could be the scanning, or the contrasty 75 Summicron, or exposure, or the developing - or the scanning. There may be more in those shadows that careful scanning can bring out.

 

Below - an image on ISO 50 Ilford Pan F, Leica M4-2, no ttl meter, exposure estimated - 1/250 @ about f/5.6-8, 35mm Leica Summicron v.4, scanned myself with my Nikon scanner (after 10 years of scanning experience), resized to be about the same as yours:

 

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!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also shot a lot of HP5+ 400 film with My M7, and I saw similar results after scanning the negatives with my Plustek 8200 Ai scanner. As mentioned above, the film development is critical to suppress too much of grain formation. Also scanning will always show up more grain in the final digital photo due to reflection of the scanner light at the silver grain particles which will therefore appear more severe than in any kind of darkroom print directly from this negative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi to everyone kind enough to post here,

 

Thank you all so much for taking the time to help out a film newbie. The reason I haven't been replying is that I have been out shooting, developing and scanning.

 

Since that first roll I have shot some Ektar 100, some more HP5 and some FP4.

 

The Ektar and the FP4 I had developed at a lab and then scanned myself with the Plustek 8200. The HP5 I developed myself with a Paterson kit and Ilford chemicals (Ilfosol 3) and then scanned.

 

So far I am so happy with the process and the results. Developing my first roll was definitely a special (and at times quite scary) occasion!

 

So far with the scanning I am not doing any corrections in SilverFast just scanning at 300 ppi for an A2 print which puts the scanner at the limit of 7200.I then take the scan to LR for global corrections and PS for spot and scratch removal and other local adjustments. I know SF has spot/scratch correction but I quite enjoy doing it in PS and think I get better results. I may well look into SF more and decide that I should be doing more corrections pre-scan but for the time being I feel more comfortable in LR/PS.

 

I am really happy with the Ektar results, taken in Bilbao and San Sebastian on sunny days with a little cloud cover, the 100 speed was ok. The FP4 seemed over exposed throughout the roll but that could be me with the camera or the lab, not the scans. The HP5, which I developed, looks much better than the example above and I was pretty happy.

 

So where to next? I am going to try some Delta 100 as for my taste at the moment I am preferring a less grainy look but that is probably as I haven't found the right subject for the 400 B&W yet. I have some Tri-X 400 to try out and more HP5. On the colour side I will stick to the Ektar for the moment as I like it but may well try the Superia for a comparison.

 

Someone mentioned XP2 and I will certainly try that at some stage but for the moment I prefer to shoot B&W film that I can develop myself; the colour chemistry process looks too daunting at the moment!

 

So as I said I am pretty hyped by it all. The only very small frustration I have is finding I have a less appropriate film in the camera that I would like and wishing I could just switch rolls mid use! Something I am sure I will get over.

 

If people would like I can post some samples although at 500k limit it makes it very hard to see anything. Let me know which is the appropriate forum for that.

 

Again many many thanks to all of you who have contributed so positively to my journey into film, Mark

Edited by MJ_2003
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned XP2 and I will certainly try that at some stage but for the moment I prefer to shoot B&W film that I can develop myself; the colour chemistry process looks too daunting at the moment!

 

I'll climb briefly back on my hobby horse and point out once again that XP2 can be developed very nicely in B&W developers, especially good in HC-110. I stirred up a small hornet's nest at APUG by saying so (link) a few months back.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll climb briefly back on my hobby horse and point out once again that XP2 can be developed very nicely in B&W developers, especially good in HC-110. I stirred up a small hornet's nest at APUG by saying so (link) a few months back.

 

Hi Chris, that is very interesting, thanks. I will definitely look into that then as the properties of XP2 which you mention sound good.

 

Regards, Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll climb briefly back on my hobby horse and point out once again that XP2 can be developed very nicely in B&W developers, especially good in HC-110. I stirred up a small hornet's nest at APUG by saying so (link) a few months back.

It is a while since I used XP2, but when I tried it out with Rodinal (1:100, stand-dev for 1 hour with a reversal at 30mins) the result was quite pleasing.  Cannot post directly here as it was with my Rolleicord!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, it is nice to see how another film Leica shooter is emerging with great progress.

 

Developing at home is the way! Even C-41 is not what difficult or to be more correct different from BW. Some C-41 kits are developer and Blix only, just like developer and fix for BW film.

 

If you have some little space, I recommend to get small, simple  darkroom enlarger and try 8x10 prints. The difference from scans is worth it. Especially if grain is concern. Here is very big difference between scans and wet prints. Scans brings grain up, wet prints are less grainy from traditional enlarger a.k.a with condenser head.

 

The Tri-X is the holly grain film. People like to use it because of the grain. But I'm not. To get less grain rate HP5+ as ISO200 film. Delta 100 is very flat film, IMO. Kodak 100 TMAX is more pricey but it is not flat film and if you will rate it as 50, it will looks next to digital (no grain and great contrast). 

 

Best regards, Kostya. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, it is nice to see how another film Leica shooter is emerging with great progress.

 

Developing at home is the way! Even C-41 is not what difficult or to be more correct different from BW. Some C-41 kits are developer and Blix only, just like developer and fix for BW film.

 

If you have some little space, I recommend to get small, simple  darkroom enlarger and try 8x10 prints. The difference from scans is worth it. Especially if grain is concern. Here is very big difference between scans and wet prints. Scans brings grain up, wet prints are less grainy from traditional enlarger a.k.a with condenser head.

 

The Tri-X is the holly grain film. People like to use it because of the grain. But I'm not. To get less grain rate HP5+ as ISO200 film. Delta 100 is very flat film, IMO. Kodak 100 TMAX is more pricey but it is not flat film and if you will rate it as 50, it will looks next to digital (no grain and great contrast). 

 

Best regards, Kostya. 

 

I 100% agree with all statements therein from my own personal experience with scanning, darkroom printing, and film differences!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So as I said I am pretty hyped by it all. The only very small frustration I have is finding I have a less appropriate film in the camera that I would like and wishing I could just switch rolls mid use! Something I am sure I will get over.

 

This can be easily solved buy purchasing another camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...