What’s the end game?

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may have seen my posts about the MP and M-A... pardon my ignorance... though I remember shooting some film as a kid and taking a dark room class in jr high, I am really a product of the digital age. I dislike the digital workflow and the results I get and want to switch to film to shoot tri x and color slides. I’ve been reading as much as I can, but at this point I am confused. What is the end game, meaning what does one do after they develop their negatives. I’ve read that there are dust issues but that spotting supplies are hard to get, and hard to do on 35mm. I’ve read that home scanners aren’t good enough to make film worthwhile, and that labs these days make poor quality prints. So given that I don’t have a darkroom and enlarger, and given that I cannot keep my film and prints from showing dust, why shoot film? What is the workaround, or is there none? If there is one, is it sustainable in the longterm, or will the supplies/chemicals be gone in 10 years? One allure film has in my view is the physical nature of the media. I worry far too often about the longevity of my digital files. Negatives are great, but what if I can’t make images from them in the future?

[Tom R]

I'm not sure that anyone can answer these questions because no one can predict the future. That being said, perhaps you should ask at least the following questions:

1. Why do you make photographs?
2. What is your "end game?" That is,  what do you hope to do with the photographs that you create? Are you thinking of making a living from photography? Are you interested in "fine arts," etc? and
3. Is "film" an indispensable component required for either (1) or (2)? For instance: Do you think that shooting TriX will make any difference as opposed to using a digital camera and creating "panchromatic" images in Post Processing?

 

Regarding processing differences, I think you mention "spots" ... Why would you "spot" negatives? Actually, I always spotted the final prints because mistakes there cost me a piece of paper (and lost-time) whereas mistakes made on the negative would be catastrophic. Once you've digitized any image on film, removing imperfections is no different for "film" than it is for "digitally produced images."

 

Finally, on the continued availability of film and processing: The demise of film and its processing components have been predicted by many in the past but has yet to manifest themselves ... In the near term, I'd hazard a guess that film and its associated processing will become more expensive, but the "cost" is only relevant once you've answered question (3), above.

 

Of course, I'm certain that others on this forum will have their own observations.

 

T

Edited November 13, 2017 by Tom R

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Csacwp]

I’m drawn to film primarily for the organic rendering I see in it and for the way it renders soft focus. Soft focus is beautiful on film, whereas on digital to me it looks like you missed the focus rather than making an artistic choice.

 

I’m interested in photography from an art perspective. So, for film to truly replace digital in my life, do I need a darkroom? Can one even acquire all the necessary components these days? Or, is there an alternative way to make prints that provides a similar quality?

Edited November 13, 2017 by Csacwp

[01af]

The End Game

[Csacwp]

Very nice photos. I’m not trying to start a debate about the end of film. I guess my question should be what do I do with the negatives if I want high quality prints but don’t have a darkroom. I can afford the camera and some film but not much more. Before anyone tells me to get a cheaper camera, they should know that I already have a full set of M lenses. Edited November 13, 2017 by Csacwp

[Michael Hiles]

Many people - but not all – feel that the end game is a silver print, mounted and framed, on a wall. In my experience, the best silver prints are made in a darkroom in the conventional way. Doing it well is a skill and craft that needs learning and practice. But well worth it, IMO. It need not be complicated or too expensive.

 

A key element is looking at good prints. It is crucial and completely indispensable to learn what a good print looks like. It is fatal to get carried away with the joy of creating an image – shitty prints are simply shitty prints, and it is easy to fall into the trap of self-delusion. You need to understand your goal, and set your sights and standards accordingly high. 

 

A technical alternative is a print made by laser projection onto silver paper. Ilford offers such a service, as do a few other outlets. The process involves a good scan, and adjustments using software such as Photoshop and perhaps Silver Efex Pro (my choices). The file is sent to the service provider on line, and some days later a print is delivered. My experience has been excellent – prints look exactly as they did on my screen. I have used Ilford’s service 2-3 times for prints larger than I can easily do in my darkroom. I suspect I will do so again.

 

Film based photography is alive and well, and will be for the foreseeable future. Films are as good as they have ever been, and paper is of outstanding quality. Particularly B&W, which cannot be replicated entirely satisfactorily in any other way. 

 

Most or all the concerns you list are not real issues. Fairly simple solutions are available for all problems – mainly, there is a learning curve and challenges. But so what – step up and commit to producing the best result possible. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Michael Hiles

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn’t know about the printing service. How do you scan your negatives?

 

As far as setting up a darkroom goes, what would be a great enlarger and lens for 35mm, and how much would it all cost?

[Guest )-(]

Have a look at Craigslist etc. you can probably pick up a complete darkroom setup from someone if you wait long enough, or get it in instalments.

 

You need an enlarger, an enlarging lens, an easel, a focus finder, some trays, a safe-light, some chemicals, some water, some paper.

More than anything, some space to put it in you can make dark.

That's about it, like anything you can make do with a little less, a little more... How much does it cost? Less than a Leica lens, more than a roll of film...

 

My 2c is that film makes a lot more sense when it's a full workflow from loading the roll to drying the print but hybrid solutions abound, no rules.

What do you actually want to end up with? An Instagram stream to die for? Prints on a wall? A bustling Lightroom catalogue? 

What's your 'end game'?

 

Personally I prefer a print to a scan but I don't have the energy or time for colour printing so outsource that or just scan.

 

Dust is dust, get rid of it, embrace it, spot it, whatever, same as a digital sensor.

 

 

This statement - "I’m interested in photography from an art perspective."

Doesn't really gel with this - "I already have a full set of M lenses"

 

Which is it, art or equipment? medium or message? Missed focus is missed focus. I'm sure there's a VCSO filter for it, or a Thambar.

It'll look even softer/worse on a 3x2cm piece of 35mm film imho.

 

Film/digital isn't an either/or thing, why not try an introductory darkroom course again and see if you feel it's worth it?

[Michael Hiles]

Look at HarmonLab (used to be called IlfordLabDirect). They have operations in the UK and USA. There is also an organization in Boston I don't have the link immediately available), and a place called Elevator in Toronto.

 

I have a Canoscan unit that I like (scanners are usually cause for huge controversy). It doesn't get much notice, but I find it very good. I scan everything for cataloguing purposes and sharing in an informal way online. I also play with the scans to see what I need to do to get the best from the negative in my darkroom.

 

If you decide to set up a darkroom, the enlarger I use and recommend is a Leitz focomat 1c. Enlargers are often not too expensive these days - the supply of used equipment is greater than the demand. There are other choices, including a newer Focomat V35, but I personally like the 1c better for a variety of reasons - and it will be cheaper. Ebay has some current listing between $250 - $500. Seems about right.

[michaelwj]

Print. Frame. Wall.

 

Often not my own wall, never sold but given.

 

The end game for me is to create prints that I enjoy looking at, that convey a sense of what it felt like to be somewhere, with someone, to portray a character, a place, a feeling.

 

I use film because I find digital cameras distracting. I work at a computer all day, I don't want to use one for leisure. Although I do scan and print my pictures, I would like to have the time and space to have a darkroom. I suppose I could equally use an M-D instead of a film camera, but not at what they charge. Maybe in a decade or so.

[250swb]

You may have seen my posts about the MP and M-A... pardon my ignorance... though I remember shooting some film as a kid and taking a dark room class in jr high, I am really a product of the digital age. I dislike the digital workflow and the results I get and want to switch to film to shoot tri x and color slides. I’ve been reading as much as I can, but at this point I am confused. What is the end game, meaning what does one do after they develop their negatives. I’ve read that there are dust issues but that spotting supplies are hard to get, and hard to do on 35mm. I’ve read that home scanners aren’t good enough to make film worthwhile, and that labs these days make poor quality prints. So given that I don’t have a darkroom and enlarger, and given that I cannot keep my film and prints from showing dust, why shoot film? What is the workaround, or is there none? If there is one, is it sustainable in the longterm, or will the supplies/chemicals be gone in 10 years? One allure film has in my view is the physical nature of the media. I worry far too often about the longevity of my digital files. Negatives are great, but what if I can’t make images from them in the future?

 

You scan your negatives after processing the film, there is nothing wrong with modern scanners and it is possible to make excellent scans at home, however, scanning is a skill and you often find critics are using the 'Auto' settings and not getting the best quality.

 

All photographic materials from a myriad choice of developers to spotting kits (for prints) are readily available. Indeed it is easier now to get all the kit than it was ten years ago given resurgence in film photography and it becoming a craft industry. The idea all these things could disappear in another ten years is ludicrous. In two hundred years maybe it will be more difficult, but any keen enthusiast will be able to revive the medium just as today photographers are reviving old techniques such as wet collodion or even the school art class favourite of gum bichromate printing. 

[philipus]

To answer your questions, from my perspective naturally:

 

If you opt for a hybrid film workflow - shoot film, then scan and print digitally - I believe it is important to embrace and accept that second step as an intrinsic part of the process. 

 

I scan all my films and I print sometimes, meaning whenever my old and perfectly cabale Epson R1900 isn't clogged up. 

 

There are plenty of good home scanners. The thing with scanners is that you need to decide what you're happy with in terms of quality. There are plenty of Plustek models that offer good enough quality for reasonable money. If you're more adventurous you can also find second-hand Nikon Coolscans for the same as scanners sold today. But you need not spend a great deal on a scanner to get scans which, after a bit of (but not too long a) learning curve, will surpass what you get from labs.

 

If by dust issues you refer to dusts when developing b&w at home, then that can be dealt with. And if you refer to dust when scanning, just make sure you get a scanner with digital ICE, and accept that for silver-based b&w films you'll have to do some dust spotting, but it's not a major undertaking of you've got comparably clean negs.

 

I can't speak to the long-term issues but just hope film will last and shoot it as much as I can.

 

Good luck
Philip

 

 

You may have seen my posts about the MP and M-A... pardon my ignorance... though I remember shooting some film as a kid and taking a dark room class in jr high, I am really a product of the digital age. I dislike the digital workflow and the results I get and want to switch to film to shoot tri x and color slides. I’ve been reading as much as I can, but at this point I am confused. What is the end game, meaning what does one do after they develop their negatives. I’ve read that there are dust issues but that spotting supplies are hard to get, and hard to do on 35mm. I’ve read that home scanners aren’t good enough to make film worthwhile, and that labs these days make poor quality prints. So given that I don’t have a darkroom and enlarger, and given that I cannot keep my film and prints from showing dust, why shoot film? What is the workaround, or is there none? If there is one, is it sustainable in the longterm, or will the supplies/chemicals be gone in 10 years? One allure film has in my view is the physical nature of the media. I worry far too often about the longevity of my digital files. Negatives are great, but what if I can’t make images from them in the future?

[Csacwp]

So for now I could simply scan it and share it online, and one day in the future I could make a darkroom. I currently do not have the space but plan on moving in 8 months.

 

Is there any advantage other than cost to developing the film at home vs having a lab do it?

[M9reno]

Is there any advantage other than cost to developing the film at home vs having a lab do it?

 

Number one advantage (in my opinion):  any mistakes and problems will be caused by nobody but you, and can be corrected by you.

 

I grew tired of getting back less than perfect negatives from labs (and expensive ones at that).

 

The solution for me (for both development and printing in an enclosed space, the latter inside large paper-sized drums) was a Jobo processor: expensive, yet in Leica-world terms, both reasonable and justifiable. 

 

http://www.catlabs.info/product/jobo-cpp3-processor 

[Ko.Fe.]

In our house we have dust for many reasons. Plenty of dust. I have no idea what more dust could be. Living in the dust storm area and keeping windows open?

Anyway, first, fixer with some amount of hardener is preferable. Second, real wetting agent at the end of developing. Third, do not let it dry for too long. With wetting agent it is fast.

Fourth, get big rocket blower and use it after film is in the holder and just before it goes in the scanner. And last one, get LR software to clone out few spots.

 

BTW, enlargers are next to free now, some are very compact, modern chemicals are almost odor free. And it is much more tolerant to dust and scratch.

[Michael Hiles]

Is there any advantage other than cost to developing the film at home vs having a lab do it?

 

Yes.

 

Professional labs generally use one developer for all customers. OK but not optimal. There are certain well-known film – developer combinations that are very successful – Tri-X and HC110 is a famous example. Certain developers have characteristics that some people like – Rodinal tends to produce negatives that have high acutance, giving an impression of great sharpness coarser grain. Other developers promote fine grain. And developers get better – Spur developers from Germany are getting a lot of attention and seem to be terrific.

 

The exception IMO is the B&W chromogenic films – XP2 being my long-term favourite. It is intended to be developed in C41 (colour) chemistry. Professional labs are ideally equipped to do this. 

 

All this assumes that you are aiming for the long-standing goal of photographers since day one – negatives that are sharp, fine-grained, with excellent midrange contrast/tonal separation.

 

Another advantage is that your “lab” and processing process is 15 feet away and available right now – no driving to the lab or waiting. 

 

Processing yourself is generally cheaper. This may not matter since professional lab costs are generally not bank breaking.

 

The counter-argument is that I assume that you want to make pictures – you are not launching a hobby as an amateur chemist. It is easy to lose “focus” and become enamoured with playing with chemistry, a major mistake IMO. 

[Doug A]

I’m drawn to film primarily for the organic rendering I see in it and for the way it renders soft focus. Soft focus is beautiful on film, whereas on digital to me it looks like you missed the focus rather than making an artistic choice.

I agree 100%. With a good film print, especially from a 35mm negative, the grain is always in focus even when the subject is out of focus. It's a different look that recalls the appearance of prints of a different era.

[Doug A]

The one change that did the most to minimize the "dust" on my negatives was switching to distilled water for the entire process, including the wash. (I'm not convinced that a lot of what I thought was dust was not actually particulate contamination.) My developing process for 35mm b&w film is as follows:

 

1.   Wash and dry my hands thoroughly.

2.   Load the film onto a stainless reel in a stainless tank in a clean changing bag*.

3.   Fill graduate #1 with 250ML of a one-shot developing solution using liquid

      developer and distilled water.

4.   Fill graduate #2 with 250ML of distilled water**. 

5.   Fill graduate #3 with 250ML of a one-shot fixer solution using non-hardening

      liquid fixer and distilled water.

6.   Fill graduate #4 with 250ML of distilled water.

7.   Pour developer solution into tank. Process per film and/or developer mfg. info.

8.   Pour out developer. Pour in water in graduate #2. Cap and invert 10 times.

9.   Pour out water. Pour in fixer solution. Process per film and/or fixer mfg. info.

10. Pour out fixer. Pour in water in graduate #4. Cap and invert tank 5 times.

11. Pour out water. Measure 250ML of distilled water into graduate #4. Pour into

      tank. Cap and invert tank 10 times.

12. Pour out water. Measure 250ML of distilled water into graduate #4. Pour into

      tank. Cap and invert tank 20 times.

13. Pour out water***. Remove film from tank. Holding both ends of film firmly,

      snap it hard several times. This will remove most of the water.

14. Attach clips to both ends of film and hang it in the shower stall.

15. Remove film as soon as the clear portion at the bottom feels dry. The time

      will vary enormously depending on the film, the temperature and the humidity.

16. Cut the film into lengths and put in clean envelopes or sleeves.

 

I "scan" my negatives with a digital camera and the film in a glassless negative carrier. Most of the frames in a roll have no visible dust at all. The very few dust specks in the others is easily dealt with in post processing.

 

*   I replace the changing bag annually - not a major expense amortized over 

    50+ rolls of film.

**  I do not use a stop bath.

*** I do not use a wetting agent.

 

[M9reno]

I use distilled water not just to wash, but also to mix every chemical in the process.  And I use wetting agent, also mixed with distilled.  I distill my own water - otherwise, the cost would be prohibitive. 

 

It makes a difference in my case.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doug A]

I use distilled water not just to wash, but also to mix every chemical in the process.  And I use wetting agent, also mixed with distilled.  I distill my own water - otherwise, the cost would be prohibitive. 

 

It makes a difference in my case.

 

Same here. I use nothing but distilled water. My process uses about one and a half liters/quarts, which costs me about 40 cents.

 

I also found that with the distilled water there are never any water marks. Hence no need for a wetting agent.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Doug A