I hope this is an Alt enough question for this forum. I find myself inching back towards film for reasons I don't completely understand. I normally shoot with Canon 1D and 1Ds but have gotten a real yearning for B&W film. Maybe it's cause that's where I started. Picked up an Oly OM-1n and had it refurbished now to do some shooting. I haven't actually processed any B&W film in nearly 40 years so rusty would be an understatement!!
My memory is that the actual exposed roll can be developed by mixing the proper chemicals and then in the dark stripping the roll from its canister placing it into a (can't remember its proper name) vessel with the proper amount of mix and then agitating it for a specified period of time. The developer gets poured out (recycled if my memory is correct), the film washed, and you have a roll of negatives.
My thinking is that at this point I should be able to scan the negatives on my moderately upscale flatbed scanner (it has a film holder) directly in to PS and handle as a digital image from there.
So my questions are (1) how far off is my memory of the development process and (2) is my thought that I can skip the whole enlarger/printing part of the process and go directly digital correct?
Hi Robert
Shorthand -
Developing tank
Don't recycle - temperature is pretty critical as is time (I seem to remember a correlation)
Washing and fixing
There was a product to avoid watermarks too.
Frankly I can't see how you're going to get close to digital without serious effort and dedication. However after 40 years you may have the time but be prepared for a lot of disappointment.
I can't comment on the scanner but my efforts from (old) negatives have been lousy.
1. Mixing receptacles or tanks for all liquids
2. Film Developing Tank
3. Film Reel per format size (35mm, 120, 220, etc. - Hewes stainless steel ones were my favorite)
4. Drying mechanism (either tube blower or drying closet)
5. Timer
6. Thermometer(s)
7. Film changing box/bag in case you don't want to create your own completely dark space
You can recycle many of these chemicals, but I found it's only worth it if you are consistently developing stuff every few days. Stretching into weeks, it didn't work for me. Make sure your fix isn't exhausted, too. "Ongoing slow development" of un-fixed silver halides on your film, is very bad for archiving ;-)
Check Freestyle Photographic in Los Angeles, they are very dedicated to film photography methodologies.
I have been shooting a lot film too - mostly 6x6 and 645. It requires a lot of time and patience and digital is an easier choice for most workflow. But film still has it's place for me - everyone is different in their tastes.
FWIW I never develop my own film, LA still has some good film labs that are easily reached, have decent operating hours and $6 for a developed roll of 120 B+W isn't bad. I can keep my price per frame of 6x6 at about $1. Filling my small ap'tm't with photo-stank chemicals doesn't work from a toxicity or available space standpoint.
Scanning is a whole other ball of wax, though.
Lastly, I don't think Fred Miranda isn't the best place for inquiring about traditional film-based photography. Try Photo.net or some other stuff that is more analogue-focused.
Best of luck! I have to say, I do love film and some new films out there are great, but for 35mm there's not much compelling reason for me to shoot that format much, unless it's to get some specific look that's baked-in from either the camera choice (I don't have a full-frame digital) or film choice.
Any paid gig is digital all the way, sometimes with some film tossed in for the above reasons.
- In the dark, strip the film from the canister and wind onto a developing reel.
- Place reel in developing tank and put cover on the tank, now you can turn on the light.
- Ideally get developer and the tank to the same temperature in a bath.
- Put developer in the tank, develop based on temperature, agitate as directed (too little you get uneven development, too much the negative will be less sharp).
- Pour out developer (do not recycle, this is a waste of your time and money as reused developer stinks).
- Pour in stop, agitate, pour out stop (some processes don't need stop and go straight to fixer)
- Pour in fixer (this is critical), agitate let sit specified time, after this you no longer need the film in darkness so you can take the top off the tank if you want.
- Wash, often with Photoflo solution
- Hang to dry
I to wonder why on earth you'd want to do this again
Definitely get a book, should be plenty at the library or available for like $0.05 used on Amazon. You should be able to get the necessary tools essentially for free at any photo swap meet, you just can give the stuff away any more. You are going to need insanely fine grain films to keep up with digital. Also, you may find that the modern T-max films while having fine grain have lots of other issues that can make them a bit inferior to other options especially in a tiny format like 35mm. While you are wasting your time you might as well explore alternative developers, there are some great books on homemade developers that are in many ways superior to the standard D76 approach. I'm sure there must be entire forums somewhere dedicated to hold-outs that still do this sort of thing.
1. Dev
2. Water stop
3. Fix
4. Wash
5. Final wash with Photoflo
You can skip on the stop bath - water works fine as long as you have longer developing times (> 5 mins). I use the Ilford method of washing which cuts down on the time/water you need to wash with. You can also skip on Hypo clear if you choose.
If you have a light tight bathroom/closet (towel under the door?) you can skip the changing bag. You will also need:
1. developing tank + reels
2. Timer, thermometer, containers for mixing chems - these can all be photo specific items or just crap you buy at the store, it doesn't matter. Just don't use them for food afterwards.
As far as drying, take a coat hanger and bend it to make a straight piece with two hooks on either side. Hang it over your shower curtain rod. If you have film drying clips, then use those. Otherwise just use some bent paper clips to hook over the hanger and through the sprocket holes of the film. Wooden clothes pins at the bottom of the film will weight it down enough to dry properly. If you want, run the shower on hot for a couple minutes before to keep some of the dust down. Let it hang for a couple hours and you are good to go.
I'd get liquid fixer for ease of use. Don't pour the used fixer down the drain - silver is bad. I use XTOL as it's easy to mix and relatively benign, but some really like liquid devs for ease of mixing. Check out apug.org for all you might want to know.
I scan with a Nikon Coolscan V. I don't find it that difficult to get excellent scans from it. Some people use Epson V700/V750s and like the results - they are a bit softer than negative scanners, but suitable for web/8x10s.
I think it's essential to understand the reasons why you want to shoot film before you get too involved, otherwise it can be a frustrating experience with no real benefit. If its image quality that you're after (the photography forum type of image quality ie I-stick-my-nose-on-corner-crops-until-get-crosseyed) I'd say stick with digital, unless you're planning on shooting medium format or bigger and spend some serious $ on scanning. Film has the type of image quality which is harder to explain with words (or crops).
The main reason that made me use film whenever I get the chance is the sheer pleasure of using unbelievably nice cameras with no digital equivalent. The likes of Mamiya 6&7, all large format, OM, Hexar AF, Fuji rangefinders and various panoramic cameras, Contax G1&G2, Norita 66 with the crazy shallow dof and others. You can get one of each, a decent scanner and a mountain of consumables for the price of a top of the line DSLR kit and never need to upgrade again.
The other reason is that I am hopeless with colour management and I much prefer Kodak and Fuji's packaged solutions rather than me struggling with photoshop sliders to make my colours "pop" and invariably ending up with results that look "interesting" today but horrid a month later.
If developing for scanning, Diafine is a very good 2-part developer that you CAN recycle almost indefinitely... time and temperature don't matter very much either with Diafine and it gives excellent results for scanning IMO.
It works better with some films than others, but it's very popular with Tri-X. ISO ratings change a bit when using Diafine as well.
For film, check out Freestyle's products, which are rebranded and MUCH MUCH cheaper. http://freestylephoto.biz/
Wow, it is all coming back to me now. I'm starting to remember the smell
Thanks all for the tips and reminders. Oosty, sirimiri, kwalsh, and kidtexas you all give me more detail but that's mostly what I was remembering. Your listing of the process lets me know I'd have to basically start all over as I've forgotten most everything. Willfredo, Sam, aoluain the links are great. Just what I needed. Aoluain, your last link is a great step by step.
Spyro, I believe your food for thought is arresting. Nostalgia isn't enough. "The past ain't ever what it used to be." My conception of IQ doesn't have much to do with pixel peeping. It is deeply involved in how an image feels to me, how well it captures the moment, the light, the sense of the time/place of the shutter release. I've been looking around and seeing things like very nice 2 1/4 square Mamiyas with 80mm lenses for about $400 USD and I'm seriously questioning why I'd bother with a tiny 35mm negative.
I sit here playing with this OM-1n and it's nice, but truth be told even a entry level DLSR blows it away in capability. What I always wanted was a Hassalblad or a Leica - actually a large format rangefinder - love RF cameras - or something with a really big negative. I fear I maybe slipping off into the path to photographic madness here. I have this near life long belief that a large B&W negative (2.25 minimum, 6x6 great!) of an exceptional image can produce a print beyond the capacity of any other format. Has my brain been fried by too much Ansel Adams?
Why not pick up a Hasselblad system then? You can get a 501cm + 80mm lens in great shape for $1200ish. Or an SWC. Or a classic Rolleiflex 2.8F for about $1000. Or a Mamiya 7.
I'm thinking of picking up a MF camera, but I need to sort a couple more things before I do. However, I don't think it would replace 35mm for me. The portability of 35mm systems is hard to beat. I also personally like the way 35mm B&W looks printed at 8x10 or 11x14. Before you discount 35mm, have you tried some of the newer (color) films out there? Some great stuff is available nowadays. If you don't have the need to print every picture at 30x40", and modest sized prints are sufficient (8x10, 11x14), 35mm is some good stuff.
What sort of films are you talking about? I'm not conversant with color film at all anymore. Also, how difficult is it to get color developed? When I was last around color film the temperatures and timings involved made self-development too challenging for me.
Kodak: Ektar 100, any of the new Portras. Ektar 100 came out in the last year. Portra 400 NC is on its third iteration with a recent update, while the rest of the Portra line was update about 2-3 years ago. Portra 800 is on its third iteration I think, though it didn't get an edge code change from version 2 to 3.
Depending on when you stopped shooting film, you might have never shot on the 2nd version of these films, and most likely have not used 400NC-3 or Ektar. 160NC and 400NC are GREAT for skin tones and keeping some detail in the highlights. Grain has been reduced in these films every iteration. Ektar has remarkably small grain and a lot of saturation - reds and skies look great.
I'm not as well versed in Fuji films, but I believe they have been updated recently too. 800Z is reasonably new for example.
Throw in some MF, and between Ektar 100, Portra 800, and some slow and fast B&W film, and you've got quite a range you can explore
As far as developing, a lot of people get C41 done at Target/Walmart/Costco for about $2/roll, and a CD of low res scans. Sometimes you can get those for another $1 or so, sometimes its $4ish more, depending on the store. I personally mail my film out to photoworkssf.com, who does dev and scan for about $9/roll (they do a great job), though I'm going to try out northcoastphoto.com next. The Targets and Walmarts where I live no longer develop onsite, and CVS scratches my stuff up too much.
I don't know. Maybe I have low standards. Like I said, I have little utility for 20x30 and 30x40 prints. I can't afford the frames and don't have the wall space for them.
Well, I can remember Kodachrome - seemed like it took bout 2 months to get anything back to the rather isolated ranch in Colorado I grew up on. It was like Xmas cause I'd pretty much forgotten I'd even taken the pictures by the time the got back By university days (late 60s) I was into black and white with an old Leica IIIc I'd inherited from and uncle (maybe he got it in Germany after the war?). Agfa 24 comes to mind. It seems like Fuji was "something new and great" at the time. There was quite a bit of huffing and puffing among the artsy types about "what it all meant."
In perusing ebay for medium format camera I'm seeing Bronica at very reasonable prices, the Pentax 67 without a lens also affordable. Mamiya 6s are fairly rare but doable, the 645 are cheap. The Fuji 645 looks like a cheap way to get into MF. I've been reading various forums and sites on MF but could use some input from folks as to a good starting place.
