Return to film.

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As one or two of you know I have recently acquired an R6; a return to film after far too many years away. I also got hold of a Summicron 50mm (and shortly afterwards a 35-70 f4). When I got the camera the dealer threw in a couple of rolls of Neopan 400 so I am using them - one roll per lens. I just got the first set of prints back - processed, and scanned, by the dealer as I have yet to recover enough financially to get a scanner.

 

The shots below are posted here rather than in the photo forums as I want comments - not so much on the lack of artistic merit but on the technical side. Frankly I found the results straight from the disc somewhat disappointing - quite grainy and to my eye far too contrasty. I won't even comment on the prints provided. Is the graininess the result of the film, the processing or the scanning, or even a combination?

 

Any constructive and helpful comments will be very gratefully received. Film recommendations? Reasonably priced processing location (London UK)?

 

R6, Summicron 50mm, Neopan 400, commercial processing and scanning, plus some work in Lightroom to make them more acceptable.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope to be posting the results from the second reel fairly soon - using a different location to do the processing.

 

Thanks for looking.

[hlockwood]

I like the shots. Focus on the first one seems a bit soft, and, indeed, they appear to be excessively grainy.

 

Since there may be a problem with the processing/printing/scanning, have you given any thought to switching to C41 (Ilford XP2 or Kodak BW400cn) where processing and printing are possibly more under control? That may apply to the scanning step as well. Just a thought.

 

I have been quite pleased shooting XP2 at ISO320, and a properly exposed negative scans nicely on my Nikon 4000ED.

 

Looking forward to seeing the next batch.

 

Harry

 

As one or two of you know I have recently acquired an R6; a return to film after far too many years away. I also got hold of a Summicron 50mm (and shortly afterwards a 35-70 f4). When I got the camera the dealer threw in a couple of rolls of Neopan 400 so I am using them - one roll per lens. I just got the first set of prints back - processed, and scanned, by the dealer as I have yet to recover enough financially to get a scanner.

 

The shots below are posted here rather than in the photo forums as I want comments - not so much on the lack of artistic merit but on the technical side. Frankly I found the results straight from the disc somewhat disappointing - quite grainy and to my eye far too contrasty. I won't even comment on the prints provided. Is the graininess the result of the film, the processing or the scanning, or even a combination?

 

Any constructive and helpful comments will be very gratefully received. Film recommendations? Reasonably priced processing location (London UK)?

 

R6, Summicron 50mm, Neopan 400, commercial processing and scanning, plus some work in Lightroom to make them more acceptable.

 

SNIP

 

I hope to be posting the results from the second reel fairly soon - using a different location to do the processing.

 

Thanks for looking.

[bill]

I agree with Harry - that grain seems excessive, and the contrast a bit "soot and whitewash". The front of the Eurostar almost looks reticulated - poorly developed? How frustrating!

 

Get yourself some Kodak 400CN. It's what I use in my IIIc. I have it developed at the local Sainsburys - 1 hour, to disc, with 6x4 prints, index card and index in the CD jewel case, text sent to my 'phone when they are ready - usually about 45 mins, before I have even finished the shopping - and all for £8.00. I'm only going to post one example, but bear in mind that this is also at 400...

 

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!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[spylaw4]

Thanks for the comments so far.

Bill - nice clean result - is it intentionally a little bit sepia tinged (to my eye)?

[klaush]

I like your pictures. But yes, too much grain - effect of development.

I use Neopan 400, development in Kodak D-76 1+1, fine grain, good film, good combination of film / developer.

 

Regards

Klaus.

[spylaw4]

Thanks Klaus - I"m not set up to do my own development - a long way down the road I think, although I used to do it more years ago than I care to remember. I'll see what the next process company makes of the other roll - more advanced set up I hope!

[Mark Antony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Might be the processing, Neopan is normally quite fine grained

 

If you look at the Rollei 35 review here I have a 100% crop to show the grain.

(I dev in Rodinal Special)

 

Photo Utopia: Rollei 35 mini review

Mark

[bill]

Thanks for the comments so far.

Bill - nice clean result - is it intentionally a little bit sepia tinged (to my eye)?

 

Sorry Brian, yes it is. I like to add a little toning - I think it adds something.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[boilerdoc]

If you are going to have your filmed processed at a lab then use the Ilford XP2 Super or the Kodak T400CN /Portra 400B&W- both superb and easily processed by your lab. Forget silver films (generally speaking) unless you do them yourself - which i highly encourage.

Steve

[Photoskeptic]

Brian, I mostly use Delta 100 which scans beautifully and of course, no grain. Your post is interesting because I sat down and figured what it would cost if all my shooting was film versus digital. My M8 was over $5k with accessories. I average about a thousand frames a year in digital which works out to roughly $850 (equivalent) in film and processing. If the M8 doesn't last past six years, I'll be on the short end of the stick. BTW, I still shoot film and always carry an M3 as backup. But the question of film versus digital is very valid. Now I know there are those who click off 10K of images in a very short while. My hypothesis doesn't apply to them. I do mostly landscape photography and I'm very careful with my shooting and still don't waste shots. My film training is just too ingrained, I suppose.

Anyway, good luck and keep shooting.

[Rolo]

Brian,

 

I'm with the school that suggest you try another film. XP2 would be good. I fear that the silver 400's can be very disappointing if not processed correctly and you really don't need another disappointment at this sensitive "what have I done? time.

 

There's no doubt that your film suffered abuse. You will get much better images than that if you convert colour film in Photoshop.

 

When all said and done, 35mm film doesn't give smooth digital images.

 

Rolo

[Rolo]

Brian, I mostly use Delta 100 which ..... landscape photography and I'm very careful with my shooting and still don't waste shots.

 

I like they way you're looking at it. Replacing film with digital save money, but looking at the cost of replacing digital with film does not give the same answer for 99.9999% of users.

 

I shot weddings all the time with 12 rolls of film and often took two home unused. I now shoot up to 1200 frames which is 34 rolls. Are my savings growing the more I press the trigger ?

 

Doh ?

 

Rolo

[Photoskeptic]

Rolo, I bet you just love processing 1200 digital files

[Mark Antony]

B

When all said and done, 35mm film doesn't give smooth digital images.

Rolo

 

It can do with good technique and the right (slow) film:

 

XP2 is probably better if you like that smooth mid-tonal look, and if you come from the digital world the 'grainless' (what everyone used to call XP1 when it first appeared) films will be easier on your eye.

 

personally I don't feel digital or film really replace each other as both have a different feel, it's easier to mimic film with digital than vice versa, but like butter vs. margarine I can nearly always tell a film image 'in the flesh' so to speak.

[Mark Antony]

I shot weddings all the time with 12 rolls of film and often took two home unused. I now shoot up to 1200 frames which is 34 rolls. Are my savings growing the more I press the trigger ?

Doh ?

Rolo

 

Interestingly enough, I started shooting weddings with a C330 and 3 rolls taking one as a spare!

 

Later when I passed my apprenticeship I was let loose on the 8-10 rolls jobs with a 'blad.

I remember dropping the film off to the Lab Saturday eve, they would be ready Thursday 4pm.

I'm not sure now if the weddings I take are any better, but I too shoot much more, and spend large amounts of time 'tweeking' images.

BTW I ran the Lab so could come in Early Sunday to process my films if I wanted too.

[ejd]

I think that both the way the film is developed and the way it is scanned can have a big effect on the grain. Depending on the resolution at which you scan, the scanning process can really emphasise the grain. It can make the film look even grainier.

 

It seems to me that scanning b/w negatives as colour slides and then inverting the scans in Photoshop gives smoother looking scans than scanning them as b/w negatives.

 

This is taken with tri-x at 320 and developed in Rodinal. The picture is nothing special, but the grain is fairly muted.

 

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!

 

In your images, Brian, the scans may have been sharpened, and that can also bring up the grain a great deal, depending on the settings.

[Kent10D]

Brian,

 

I have to say that even though the processing might have been better, I still like the look of your images.

 

Personally, I like the grain in B&W, and appreciate grainy film images as much for what is not reproduced as the the details that are. Sort of a micro-pointillistic approach I suppose. In addition to the characteristic tonal scale of film, I find that film images seem to "breathe" better than digital images (more open? ... don't really know how to express it in words), probably because of the grain, even though the grain might be so fine that you're not consciously aware of it. If I was after a smooth, totally connected look I'd just use my M8 all the time for color as well as B&W, but I usually end up grabbing my M6 loaded with Tri-X or HP5+ when B&W is the intended outcome.

 

Anyway, welcome back to film, and enjoy the grain! Experimenting with various films and processing methods can be loads of fun.

 

Cheers.

[rob_x2004]

This is very interesting. Number of people have posted similar. Im still struggling with it.

 

It doesnt look like grain to me, more like noise from scanning silver film or around the grain.

 

I also doubt the film has been processed badly. Sure it will not be as finely matched to your needs as individually tailored processing. I should imagine the lab develops off the manufacturers data sheets, and which really are just a guide. They will probably print fine using enlarger, which doesnt help you now I know.

 

I dont know how many others have had to, but I had to change my film processing so that I could scan more effectively. I tend now to underdevelop slightly.

 

I wonder how much experience the lab has in scanning b&w, they probably dial in generic settings. Most people looking for scans would be bringing in c41.

 

If you are getting someone else to develop and scan, why not use a colour film? It would make life easier all round, till you find your feet?

 

The other thing affecting the images is how you process. My files straight off the scanner look very flat and cranky. They also look very different depending on the application I use to view them, Corel, Photoshop, operating system slideshows, previews all handle the "viewed size" differently, and in some instances makes postprocessing a challenge. Viewed at pixel level, or once resampled it is more what you see is what you get, which, really is why a lot of postprocessing should be done at the end use size.

 

Would be interesting to see some crops of 100% view. What are the pixel dimensions and file size of the original scans?

[Rolo]

Rolo, I bet you just love processing 1200 digital files

 

Well, I don't process them fully. I present them, almost as shot with a little colour tweaking and 25 - 40% discard rate. The B&G then select the 100 'ish wanted for their album and their guests.

 

Nevertheless, it's a tough task and I've just invested heavily in computer gear and camera gear to speed things up and avoid frustrating bottle necks.

 

Rolo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rob_x2004]

I think you have also hit upon why aftermarket scan programs are so popular.

Dial in your Silverfast or Vuescan and it takes you a long way in the direction of post processing.

If you saw what actually came from your scanner you would probably have a heart attack and give up.

 

ps Why not mail the negs to one of the flash hot forum members and see what they can get out of them? Be an interesting exercise. Only take five minutes.