Threw out my last film

[Franglais]

This morning I was getting ready for delivery of my new refrigerator, moving stuff out of the old one. I almost forgot - in the butter compartment there were a few rolls of Provia and HP5, all dated 2007-2008.

All gone now.

I still have my enlarger, developing gear and all of my best film cameras. If one day I start with film again it will be to make chemical prints, no chemical processing. But that will be when I have a lot more time than right now.

[wfooshee]

I got myelf on a film nostalgia kick when I found that F4 on fleabay for $155. Camera's perfect, shot 5 rolls of cheap print film, realized film is stupid if you want pics on the computer. Expensive, too.

Still planning on trying some slide film. Back in the day, I shot Kodachrome 64 about 95% of the time, once in a while used some 25. That stuff was purdy!!!

I never used any E-6 slide film except some tungsten Ektachrome 160 film once at a concert. Taking a camera to a concert, that should tell you how long ago that was!

Still, I've been told that Velvia 50 is worth playing with.

I guess what I was looking for was something film did that digital wouldn't. You know, the way certain audiophiles insist their scratchy vinyl is superior to digital music! I guess if all you're after is prints and enlargements, then film works. If you want to play with film and scan it, just shoot digitally. Copying files into the computer is way faster than scanning negatives!

[Axle]

ah! shame about the loss of film!

I personally still love hand processing my b/w film chemically, it does really allow me complete creative control over the final neg, D-76, HC-110, Rodinal depending on how you want the final image to turn out.

As for scanning, yes it's slow, but isn't that what film's about slowing down, being selective making every shot count? So personally, I don't mind that.

Long live film

[wfooshee]

Well, I've never shot B&W film, and I've certainly never invested in my own processing capabilities. Someone once told me that B&W is for artists and journalists, and I am neither.

So color all the way!

[Franglais]

Well, I've never shot B&W film, and I've certainly never invested in my own processing capabilities. Someone once told me that B&W is for artists and journalists, and I am neither.

So color all the way!

Black-and-white allows you to tell the story in a neutral way, without being distracted by the colour in the subject (which may not correspond to what you're trying to say). In black-and-white you're using contrast and texture to make the image.

The sharp grain of a black-and-white film contributes to the look (and beauty) of the image. It's physical presence is a reminder that you are looking at a representation of the subject and not through a window at the subject itself.

Having said that - last night I wanted to post one of my images scanned from black-and-white negative. It looked awful. Dust spots all over the place. If I go back to black-and-white film I'm not going to scan the negatives, I'm going to make a chemical print directly and scan that if I need it.

Colour slides projected are magnificent. However slides are rather difficult to scan or convert into prints.

My scans of colour negative film are not too bad if I'm careful. But images from a DSLR shooting RAW are streets ahead now.

The worst images of all are prints made from colour negative by a minilab. I had several thousand done in the 90's in my basement. Threw them all out a few months ago. They were really ugly.

[wfooshee]

Timely mention of old prints! I was just scanning some for an online reunion and had a horrible time! First, the prints were made on that textured paper, and I never really found a way to get rid of the texture in the scan. Mostly, though, they were all very badly faded, cyan and yellow almost completely gone. Photoshop color balance helped, but natural skin tones were just not possible. Mine were '70s, and negatives no longer exist. (They would have been 126 cartridge strips, though, and wouldn't have fit my scanner anyway.)

As for slides, I've been scanning Dad's slides. He had some 4500 slides on his closet shelf when he passed away a couple of years ago, fortunately 95% Kodachrome. My scanner has an infrared channel for dust removal which helps greatly, although when printed enlarged from the computer the dust is still visible. It makes a really nice screen-sized image, though! My scanner is a Nikon LS-2000, available on eBay for under 400 bucks from a guy that refurbs them, and they're 2700dpi, which comes out to only about 5 megapix on a frame. I've just discovered Vuescan, which seems to be far superior to the Nikon scanning software, which won't run on a 64-bit OS anyway. They're also not quite what you'd call pin-sharp. I haven't yet played with the multi-pass option, which is supposed to help in that regard.

[Franglais]

Timely mention of old prints! I was just scanning some for an online reunion and had a horrible time! First, the prints were made on that textured paper, and I never really found a way to get rid of the texture in the scan. Mostly, though, they were all very badly faded, cyan and yellow almost completely gone. Photoshop color balance helped, but natural skin tones were just not possible. Mine were '70s, and negatives no longer exist. (They would have been 126 cartridge strips, though, and wouldn't have fit my scanner anyway.)

As for slides, I've been scanning Dad's slides. He had some 4500 slides on his closet shelf when he passed away a couple of years ago, fortunately 95% Kodachrome. My scanner has an infrared channel for dust removal which helps greatly, although when printed enlarged from the computer the dust is still visible. It makes a really nice screen-sized image, though! My scanner is a Nikon LS-2000, available on eBay for under 400 bucks from a guy that refurbs them, and they're 2700dpi, which comes out to only about 5 megapix on a frame. I've just discovered Vuescan, which seems to be far superior to the Nikon scanning software, which won't run on a 64-bit OS anyway. They're also not quite what you'd call pin-sharp. I haven't yet played with the multi-pass option, which is supposed to help in that regard.

126 cartridge was almost 35mm film. I think it would fit your scanner, if you can find the negatives. I remember there was an adapter that came with my scanner

I have the Nikon Coolscan IV which tops out at 2900dpi. Enough to resolve black-and-white film grain. I think you should check your scanning settings. I'm getting about 2666x4070 pixels which is 10.35Mpix. Of course much of the detail is lost in grain.

Vuescan seems like a good idea. My Nikon software couldn't do the infra-red-dust-removal thing on Kodachrome but apparently the latest versions of Vuescan have a shot at it (Kodachome is not transparent to infra-red, unlike other colour films)

[wfooshee]

I get about 3730 x 2480, results in about 8.8 Megapix. I was working from memory, remembered the 3-something by 2-something, but not high 3-something by mid 2-something. Oops.

Vuescan is worth investigating. One-time license fee, license allows installation of 4 of your own computers, and includes lifetime updates and upgrades at no additional cost (with the pro license.) As a standalone app it can produce .DNG raw files, or TIFFs, JPEGs, etc. It's also recognized in Photoshop's File Import menu, so you can operate Vuescan from within Photoshop, scan several images, when you click the "Last page" button Vuescan closes and you have all those scans as separate images in Photoshop. I've gotten into the habit of saving those immediately as PSD files and then starting the work.

Vuescan has color tables (for lack of a better word) for numerous film brands and types for finishing during the scan. My only real gripe so far is that it apparently doesn't know how to work the SA-20 strip film module, so I have to scan negatives by laying them in the FH-2 strip film holder and using the MA-20 slide adapter in the scanner. If the negatives are still stored in cans this is a real pain, because they won't lay flat to close the FH-2!

I'll post a dusted/not-dusted comparo for you later when I get home. It does work with Kodachrome, very well although not perfectly.

One thing about the scanner that I'm really liking. Many (OK, most) of the shots my mother took are severely underexposed. I don't think she ever got the hang of setting the f-stop for the flash.... (Dad used the camera outdoors, Mom indoors.) I'm able to get usable images from a lot of those slides, even when they look almost solid black when held up to the light!


EDIT: Adding promised samples: First is a shot of my aunt at her stove in 1954, dusty and IR-cleaned, followed by 1-to-1 crops of her hands and the pan. Finally, the dark image is a slide about how it looks when you hold it up to the light (the scanner software would NOT let me record it as it looks, it always had some level of fix) and finally the dark slide as salvaged by a combination of the Vuescan and Photoshop.











The sharpness of the dust in the uncleaned image tells me that the softness in the slide is not from the scanner.

The train at Christmas was my first Christmas, 1957, and I still have that train, an American Flyer in S-gauge. It runs just fine!

[Greg McCary]

I have a fridge full of Neopan and Trix but for some reason since I bought my Sony a850 it hasn't crossed my mind much to use any.

[Franglais]

I have a fridge full of Neopan and Trix but for some reason since I bought my Sony a850 it hasn't crossed my mind much to use any.

That doesn't surprise me. I don't think that film and digital compete head-on any more. I would only use film if I wanted a specific look to my images.

[Franglais]

Here are a few pictures from the long hot summer of 1975 (on the way to the swimming pool - seasonal touch). Black-and-white film is good for this sort of situation under a burning sun because the colours are all bleached out and film will not burn out highlights the way digital usually does.

This was shot on HP4 developed in Microphen 1+1 on a little Rollei 35. It seems stupid to have pushed this but the film typically stayed in the camera for a couple of weeks doing just about anything so 650 ISO was a good compromise.

BTW these pictures are of course taken in England..

[GB1]

I still have many rolls in my freezer that I'm not using up very fast; the only film I really shoot is 120mm for my Mamiya 645.

I also have a very old roll of infrared and also a roll or two or Kodachrome, just for old times' sake.

G

[wfooshee]

Well, the Kodachrome's no good.... can't get it processed.

(Although Wikipedia says some labs who "specialize in rare processes" can do B&W from Kodachrome. Still there is no actual Kodachrome processing any more.)

[Axle]

Well, the Kodachrome's no good.... can't get it processed.

(Although Wikipedia says some labs who "specialize in rare processes" can do B&W from Kodachrome. Still there is no actual Kodachrome processing any more.)

Film Rescue International, Blue Moon Camera & Machine, and Sharp Photo.

[Luv2bumit]

Nice B&W images!

[PWhite214]

Over the last week I have received over a hundred rolls of various C41, E6 and B&W films. My excuse is they are for the annul road trip to California. Ah, well.... the film should last til Christmas.

Phil

[JesusRamos]

good......