Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => Topic started by: GrainTrain on April 27, 2017, 08:38:00 AM
-
After a few years of procrastinating I finally bit the bullet and got myself set up to develop b&w at home. Last year around this time I bought a large quantity of Kentmere 400 at an extremely low price and didn't really get around to shooting much at all due to the outrageous cost of having it developed at a lab in my area. I've been itching to get out and take more photos and this happened to be my solution. I was very interested in trying out Rodinal but sadly I am unable to get it in Canada. I ended up with Ilfotec HC, here are some scans from my first home-dev'd roll. I'm not exactly ecstatic about how the scans came out, but it could very well be the fact that I opted for a $75 scanner (or far more likely, my own ineptitude). At the end of the day, I'm quite satisfied with the relaxing process and of course; that proud feeling of seeing the images. Tips? Tricks? Any insight at all is very welcome!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4171/33454993964_b027a08f9f_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SYiA9L)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/SYiA9L) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2882/34296603805_8ce010a4b4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UfF4rg)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/UfF4rg) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2818/34256257926_a0c0648f71_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Uc7h1E)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/Uc7h1E) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4167/34256115126_7efbe18557_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Uc6xyA)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/Uc6xyA) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4182/34256293346_e5ef9e6549_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Uc7sxm)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/Uc7sxm) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4163/34139170272_ee173d7f42_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U1LaW1)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/U1LaW1) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2836/34296576675_647f8e0b19_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UfEVnv)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/UfEVnv) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2865/33454961784_54dc5ca98a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SYiqzW)Kentmere400 | Canon P + 50mm 1.8 (https://flic.kr/p/SYiqzW) by Scott Hayward (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127560417@N08/), on Flickr
-
I am by no means a 'good' scanner, but one thing I have learned is that flatbed scanners have a little rectangle of glass that is the 'calibration area'. If there is a speck of dust on there when it calibrates, it will cause perfectly straight lines to show up across the length of your photo. So I always have a microfiber or polishing cloth handy and I give the glass a wipe before I put the film down. It looks like you are well on your way to getting great results with your own dev/scan lab. Caffenol and/or parodinal will get you closer to the Rodinal look if that is what you are going for. Keep up the good work!
-
Are these straight from the scanner ? hope you don't mind i took one into Photoshop and only adjusted the levels
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Competitions/Miscellaneous/i-TXRNZm7/0/5138a811/L/33454993964_b027a08f9f_z-L.jpg)
-
Are these straight from the scanner ? hope you don't mind i took one into Photoshop and only adjusted the levels
They are indeed straight from the scanner. I don't mind at all, that looks far better! I'll try fiddling around with the levels in photoshop, I hadn't really considered that for whatever odd reason.
-
I am by no means a 'good' scanner, but one thing I have learned is that flatbed scanners have a little rectangle of glass that is the 'calibration area'. If there is a speck of dust on there when it calibrates, it will cause perfectly straight lines to show up across the length of your photo. So I always have a microfiber or polishing cloth handy and I give the glass a wipe before I put the film down. It looks like you are well on your way to getting great results with your own dev/scan lab. Caffenol and/or parodinal will get you closer to the Rodinal look if that is what you are going for. Keep up the good work!
This is good to know, I wasn't sure if those lines could have been scratches or something I had done wrong during development. Thanks for the tip!
-
Are these straight from the scanner ? hope you don't mind i took one into Photoshop and only adjusted the levels
They are indeed straight from the scanner. I don't mind at all, that looks far better! I'll try fiddling around with the levels in photoshop, I hadn't really considered that for whatever odd reason.
It's only the same as we do in the darkroom
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
-
I am by no means a 'good' scanner, but one thing I have learned is that flatbed scanners have a little rectangle of glass that is the 'calibration area'. If there is a speck of dust on there when it calibrates, it will cause perfectly straight lines to show up across the length of your photo. So I always have a microfiber or polishing cloth handy and I give the glass a wipe before I put the film down. It looks like you are well on your way to getting great results with your own dev/scan lab. Caffenol and/or parodinal will get you closer to the Rodinal look if that is what you are going for. Keep up the good work!
This is good to know, I wasn't sure if those lines could have been scratches or something I had done wrong during development. Thanks for the tip!
Most people go for a flat looking scan, try dialing up white point
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to the wonderful and sometimes frustrating world of home developing.
Your first go looks pretty good and as others have mentioned, PS goes a long way to getting a final result you are happy with.
Just stick with it is my best advice and keep making photos and souping your own work.
Welcome!
-
How do the negatives look? Under- or over-developed and scanning becomes more difficult. If they're good, then try setting black and white points on the histogram in your scanning software before the scan. That will get as wide a range of tones as possible out of the negative; right now you're sacrificing some tonality that is very hard to get back (impossible, really, but you can sort of fake it by post-processing tricky, but why bother when you can just get what's actually there?). Developing and scanning are both skills that are easy to learn but tough to master.
-
How do the negatives look? Under- or over-developed and scanning becomes more difficult. If they're good, then try setting black and white points on the histogram in your scanning software before the scan. That will get as wide a range of tones as possible out of the negative; right now you're sacrificing some tonality that is very hard to get back (impossible, really, but you can sort of fake it by post-processing tricky, but why bother when you can just get what's actually there?). Developing and scanning are both skills that are easy to learn but tough to master.
The negatives do look a bit less 'reflective' than everything I had sent to a lab. I'm no expert but if I had to guess that probably means they are underdeveloped. I still need to continue to fiddle around with settings on Epson Scan before I figure everything out as well, like you said, it' not something you master over night!
-
How do the negatives look? Under- or over-developed and scanning becomes more difficult. If they're good, then try setting black and white points on the histogram in your scanning software before the scan. That will get as wide a range of tones as possible out of the negative; right now you're sacrificing some tonality that is very hard to get back (impossible, really, but you can sort of fake it by post-processing tricky, but why bother when you can just get what's actually there?). Developing and scanning are both skills that are easy to learn but tough to master.
The negatives do look a bit less 'reflective' than everything I had sent to a lab. I'm no expert but if I had to guess that probably means they are underdeveloped. I still need to continue to fiddle around with settings on Epson Scan before I figure everything out as well, like you said, it' not something you master over night!
Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's under-exposure or under-development. Look at the edge markings - they will be a more reliable guide than the images.
-
How do the negatives look? Under- or over-developed and scanning becomes more difficult. If they're good, then try setting black and white points on the histogram in your scanning software before the scan. That will get as wide a range of tones as possible out of the negative; right now you're sacrificing some tonality that is very hard to get back (impossible, really, but you can sort of fake it by post-processing tricky, but why bother when you can just get what's actually there?). Developing and scanning are both skills that are easy to learn but tough to master.
The negatives do look a bit less 'reflective' than everything I had sent to a lab. I'm no expert but if I had to guess that probably means they are underdeveloped. I still need to continue to fiddle around with settings on Epson Scan before I figure everything out as well, like you said, it' not something you master over night!
Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's under-exposure or under-development. Look at the edge markings - they will be a more reliable guide than the images.
In that case, it would seem I'm under-exposing a fair number of my images. This quite likely has to do with the fact that my educated guessing of exposure is a little bit off.
-
In that case, it would seem I'm under-exposing a fair number of my images. This quite likely has to do with the fact that my educated guessing of exposure is a little bit off.
Under-exposed or under-developed (thin) negs are easier to scan than over-exposed ones. They will be a bit more grainy, but in general there is still detail in those shadows that the scanner will see.
-
In that case, it would seem I'm under-exposing a fair number of my images. This quite likely has to do with the fact that my educated guessing of exposure is a little bit off.
Under-exposed or under-developed (thin) negs are easier to scan than over-exposed ones. They will be a bit more grainy, but in general there is still detail in those shadows that the scanner will see.
I ended up confusing myself by trying to figure out whether or not I did something wrong during development. Reading your reply I am now realizing that I definitely over-exposed. Looking at the negatives again my highlights are very dark, which makes sense seeing as, in the scans they come out more grey than white (scanner can't get enough light through). Does that make any sense or am I getting even further off track? I appreciate everyones input, I'm probably making things much more complicated than they need to be ;D
-
I appreciate everyones input, I'm probably making things much more complicated than they need to be ;D
This is the regular situation when you start doing something new. And - as we say here - many roads lead to Rome. Everyone has to find his own workflow, and it can be quite different depending on the used gear and own taste. I.e. I prefer quite contrasty negs, I`m convinced that they contain more information than flat ones and they are easier for me to edit to the desired result. All scanner devices can handle rather dense negs, only transparencies can be a problem for some.
Getting the final picture needs some steps from exposure to the final edit, and each one affects the image quality. Play a lot with settings, try to disable all automatics in your scanner software. Post processing the scans is almost always a must. First and most important step imho is to learn to read a histogramm and work with the curves tool in your editing software. You don`t need Photoshop, there are other good and free progs.
If you like grain, you will like Kentmere 400 (APX 400 new is the same but rebranded) in Caffenol-C:
http://caffenol.blogspot.de/2016/08/apx-new-emulsion.html (http://caffenol.blogspot.de/2016/08/apx-new-emulsion.html)
And if you want to see the grain in its full beauty, you will probably look for a better resolving scanner. Your Epson flatbed(?) is exhausted with 35mm film at max. 2000 x 3000 pix, probably less. But first steps first ....
Or do just the opposite ;-)
-
How do the negatives look? Under- or over-developed and scanning becomes more difficult. If they're good, then try setting black and white points on the histogram in your scanning software before the scan. That will get as wide a range of tones as possible out of the negative; right now you're sacrificing some tonality that is very hard to get back (impossible, really, but you can sort of fake it by post-processing tricky, but why bother when you can just get what's actually there?). Developing and scanning are both skills that are easy to learn but tough to master.
The negatives do look a bit less 'reflective' than everything I had sent to a lab. I'm no expert but if I had to guess that probably means they are underdeveloped. I still need to continue to fiddle around with settings on Epson Scan before I figure everything out as well, like you said, it' not something you master over night!
Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's under-exposure or under-development. Look at the edge markings - they will be a more reliable guide than the images.
In that case, it would seem I'm under-exposing a fair number of my images. This quite likely has to do with the fact that my educated guessing of exposure is a little bit off.
When I took that shot into PS the histogram was to the left
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
-
One thing I find a bit annoying with Epson Scan is that the auto exposure doesn't use the entire output range.
What I almost always do is open the histo panel and see if I can maximize things.
Also scanning with a high bit depth helps a lot to makes tones smoother. But it sometimes works fine with 8 bit per pixel. It really depends on the negatives.