A Development In My Hobby - The Film Journey

First shot is lovely Shaun. I know that the very fact we're on is forum means we are probably moreover into the technical side of things more than most, but don't lose sight of the fact that you've captured a lovely moment in time there.

Pixel peeping with film will put you on a one way road to dissapointment. I'd be chuffed if theY were the results from my first attempt.
 
@Shaun Palmer You shouldn't be disheartened at all!!

Also viewing on my smartphone but the first shot is a lovely capture.....I'd be more than happy with that!!

Second shot looks nice, could maybe be tweaked a bit further but looks like it was an overcast day - so maybe going to lack a little punch/saturation anyway?

Third shot just maybe needs a touch more contrast as suggested above.

Is this your first go at film coming from digital? With film you will get some grain, you will have some softness in places and sometimes you will completely screw it up!!

When I got my first rolls back from Filmdev from my Yashica Mat and Mamiya C330 I went straight into lightroom, and initially felt disappointed too. Trouble is, I was zooming right in at 1:1 like I would with a digital shot, looking for ultimate sharpness, lack of noise, etc. I was looking at them from a digital viewpoint which was the wrong thing to do in my opinion.

Film has it's own character :)

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I’m going to take a bit more time editing then tonight, got a bit late last night lol.

Yeah first roll of film I’ve ever shot lol, I think I’m just so used to seeing digital images on my screen it was a bit of a shock lol, I think like you say, I was analysing them from a digital perspective.

:plus1:

The qualities that make a film shot work are (in part) different from digital, it's an aesthetic thing. You will find that under perfect lightning conditions, using good quality film and shot with good glass that you can get technically excellent results but there are far more things that can effect the final image so there are often disappointments.
Pixel peeping is definitely a bad move. ;)

The bigger the film format the cleaner the results, generally, so medium format produces a cleaner neg that often needs less pp. You do still need to do the basics correctly just as with digital but with a bit of practice you will get better results.
Having said all that I agree with the comments above, they look ok for a first attempt. (y)

Cheers for that :) I actually have a canon 70-200 f4 lens thy works on the film body, cracking lens. I think I’ll take that with me next time with the new film and see how I get on.

First shot is lovely Shaun. I know that the very fact we're on is forum means we are probably moreover into the technical side of things more than most, but don't lose sight of the fact that you've captured a lovely moment in time there.

Pixel peeping with film will put you on a one way road to dissapointment. I'd be chuffed if theY were the results from my first attempt.

Thanks for the feedback :)

I definitely feel a lot more positive about it than I did last night
 
I like the second one a lot. The first is a nice pic, but the skin colours don't look quite right, and there's definitely "noise".
It’s doesnt look too bad when it’s small lol, I think it just looks very grainy/noisy

If you want a comparison, Photo Express will scan 40 35mm shots in cut strips to DVD for £6. They would be what I term "medium resolution" scans, ie around 2000 ppi. I've done comparisons like that a couple of times and it's a revelation. They might even give you 50p off if you tell them your on TP (they do this for process and scan).
 
I like the second one a lot. The first is a nice pic, but the skin colours don't look quite right, and there's definitely "noise".


If you want a comparison, Photo Express will scan 40 35mm shots in cut strips to DVD for £6. They would be what I term "medium resolution" scans, ie around 2000 ppi. I've done comparisons like that a couple of times and it's a revelation. They might even give you 50p off if you tell them your on TP (they do this for process and scan).

Cheers Chris appreciate the feedback. I’m going to have a good play around with the scanner tonight. That might be a good idea actually to compare. I think I’ll do that with my next roll. It’s a better film and I kind of have an idea of what to do now in terms of the development etc so hopefully my next batch of images will be better.

Yeah for some reason on the photo of my wife and son it seemed overly warm, the sun was literally about to set though so was quite a warm light coming through the clouds. I’ll cool it down a bit in PS I think.
 
Last edited:
Had another play around in Lightroom and PS tonight. They look a lot better after a bit of work on them, quite heavy noise reduction, some of them I just can't get quite right though. Picking up some good tips along the way from here though, can't wait to get through the next roll and see what improvements I can make. Thought I'd just drop them in here :)

Film1 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film3 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film4 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film6 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film7 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film8 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film9 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film10 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr
 
Those have got a lot more ‘pop’ to them @Shaun Palmer

I don’t tend to reduce noise too much, as for me it’s part of the look of film, but Dfine in the Google Nik Collection is great for selective noise reduction (if you don’t already have it, thee Nik Collection is a free set of plug-ins for Lightroom & Photoshop).

For some reason they we're unbelievably grainy/noisy before processing. I've either done something not quite right in development, or I now suspect the lens I used is effecting the quality. The second photo is the sharpest/cleanest image out of all of them, and that was the only one taken with a canon 70-200 f4. I'm going to do a bit reading and see what I can get to cover upto 70mm that's better quality than the kit lens but won't break the bank lol
 
Hi Shaun,

not so sure it is the lens combo, here is a scan I did tonight taken years ago (1998) on a fairly cheap compact camera at the time (Tried to show cheap equipment that is poorer than your kit lens!). Film is Kodak Gold (Cheap Kodak film that I developed). Colours are slightly off but no real editing. Scanned on an old Epson Photo 3200:


Colour scan 2 upload
by Fraser Euan White on Talk Photography

I noticed in a previous post you had purchased an aquarium heater to develop at 32 deg C? This is no where near warm enough to get good quality results from Colour film. Your developer needs to be at 37.8 deg.C and kept very, very stable at this. Agitation is also critical for colour. To get decent results you really do need a proper temp. controlled colour processor that provides very consistent agitation.

Advice from the internet:

Most brands of color negative film are processed by the Kodak C-41 color processing system of chemicals. Similar processing chemistry is also offered by aftermarket manufacturers such as Beseler, Unicolor, Photocolor, and Tetenal. The processing steps are identical for all C-41 type processes and include a color developer, bleach, fixer, bleach/fix, final wash, stabilizer, and drying. Provided temperature control can be established (a constant 37.8 degrees centigrade +/- 0.1 degree), this process can be conducted in the laboratory using small daylight developing tanks.


Colour film processing is very temp critical - you may be lucky and get one film right but you will not get the negative density/colour consistent from film to film. This is (used) to be vital as printing in colour required the use of filters in the enlarger and to keep changing the filtration from film to film was very time consuming and costly. It's much easier with scanning but still a PITA correcting colour casts all the time. Variations in temp/agitation will cause errors such as colour casts and poor grain performance.

I used to use a Jobo CPE/2 for all my film processing and found having the water bath a 40 deg. C was perfect to keep the developer at 37.8 deg.

I have just got back into film photography and I'm loving it - unfortunately I sold all my fiml developing kit but have recently purchased a Paterson starter kit. I am/have only considering developing B&W film. Even if I had my colour developing set up from years ago I can't for the life of me see it as being economical with the price you can get colour film developed for these days!

HTH
 
Last edited:
Had another play around in Lightroom and PS tonight. They look a lot better after a bit of work on them, quite heavy noise reduction, some of them I just can't get quite right though. Picking up some good tips along the way from here though, can't wait to get through the next roll and see what improvements I can make. Thought I'd just drop them in here :)

Film1 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film3 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film4 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film6 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film7 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film8 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film9 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

film10 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr

Well I think you have done very well for a beginner (y) IMO Kodak colorplus or Fuji c200 is not the best film for faces (portraiture) and your film shots will never be squeaky clean compared to digi for 35mm..you can't beat medium format or higher for best results using film.
And a lens and shutter speed does have an effect for sharpness if you want to pixel peep, but usually the crappy lenses are from the lesser known makers. Then you have to add in contrast on sunny days compared to dull days and I always remembered what some guy said "there are quite a few crappy shots on the Leica forum" o_O......anyway you probably know all this and just adding for lurker beginners who might be reading this thread.
For me the excitement of dev colour film (and B\W) went years ago and what I do is let the labs do the dev and scanning set at low scan for the cheapest, then any decent shots scan those frames myself at higher dpi scan e.g. 3200dpi.
Anyway film is fun and hope you continue to enjoy it (y)
 
Hi Shaun,

not so sure it is the lens combo, here is a scan I did tonight taken years ago (1998) on a fairly cheap compact camera at the time (Tried to show cheap equipment that is poorer than your kit lens!). Film is Kodak Gold (Cheap Kodak film that I developed). Colours are slightly off but no real editing. Scanned on an old Epson Photo 3200:


Colour scan 2 upload
by Fraser Euan White on Talk Photography

I noticed in a previous post you had purchased an aquarium heater to develop at 32 deg C? This is no where near warm enough to get good quality results from Colour film. Your developer needs to be at 37.8 deg.C and kept very, very stable at this. Agitation is also critical for colour. To get decent results you really do need a proper temp. controlled colour processor that provides very consistent agitation.

Advice from the internet:

Most brands of color negative film are processed by the Kodak C-41 color processing system of chemicals. Similar processing chemistry is also offered by aftermarket manufacturers such as Beseler, Unicolor, Photocolor, and Tetenal. The processing steps are identical for all C-41 type processes and include a color developer, bleach, fixer, bleach/fix, final wash, stabilizer, and drying. Provided temperature control can be established (a constant 37.8 degrees centigrade +/- 0.1 degree), this process can be conducted in the laboratory using small daylight developing tanks.


Colour film processing is very temp critical - you may be lucky and get one film right but you will not get the negative density/colour consistent from film to film. This is (used) to be vital as printing in colour required the use of filters in the enlarger and to keep changing the filtration from film to film was very time consuming and costly. It's much easier with scanning but still a PITA correcting colour casts all the time. Variations in temp/agitation will cause errors such as colour casts and poor grain performance.

I used to use a Jobo CPE/2 for all my film processing and found having the water bath a 40 deg. C was perfect to keep the developer at 37.8 deg.

I have just got back into film photography and I'm loving it - unfortunately I sold all my fiml developing kit but have recently purchased a Paterson starter kit. I am/have only considering developing B&W film. Even if I had my colour developing set up from years ago I can't for the life of me see it as being economical with the price you can get colour film developed for these days!

HTH

Thanks for the input Fraser. I used the ‘alternative’ developing instructions from the tetenal colourtec kit. I think I’ll have a look for a heater that will hold a higher temp and try the normal developing method.

I worked it out at about £1 per roll of film to develop, however that’s if you obtain maximum yield from the chemicals. I juts like the idea of doing it myself though lol, gives me something to do when the little one goes to bed lol.

Well I think you have done very well for a beginner (y) IMO Kodak colorplus or Fuji c200 is not the best film for faces (portraiture) and your film shots will never be squeaky clean compared to digi for 35mm..you can't beat medium format or higher for best results using film.
And a lens and shutter speed does have an effect for sharpness if you want to pixel peep, but usually the crappy lenses are from the lesser known makers. Then you have to add in contrast on sunny days compared to dull days and I always remembered what some guy said "there are quite a few crappy shots on the Leica forum" o_O......anyway you probably know all this and just adding for lurker beginners who might be reading this thread.
For me the excitement of dev colour film (and B\W) went years ago and what I do is let the labs do the dev and scanning set at low scan for the cheapest, then any decent shots scan those frames myself at higher dpi scan e.g. 3200dpi.
Anyway film is fun and hope you continue to enjoy it (y)

Cheers Excalibur. Haha that’s fine add whatever you like, there’s been some fantastic advice brought up in this thread. I have some more film on the way so going to keep going and try to get better lol.
 
Hi Shaun,

not so sure it is the lens combo, here is a scan I did tonight taken years ago (1998) on a fairly cheap compact camera at the time (Tried to show cheap equipment that is poorer than your kit lens!). Film is Kodak Gold (Cheap Kodak film that I developed). Colours are slightly off but no real editing. Scanned on an old Epson Photo 3200:


Colour scan 2 upload
by Fraser Euan White on Talk Photography

I noticed in a previous post you had purchased an aquarium heater to develop at 32 deg C? This is no where near warm enough to get good quality results from Colour film. Your developer needs to be at 37.8 deg.C and kept very, very stable at this. Agitation is also critical for colour. To get decent results you really do need a proper temp. controlled colour processor that provides very consistent agitation.

Advice from the internet:

Most brands of color negative film are processed by the Kodak C-41 color processing system of chemicals. Similar processing chemistry is also offered by aftermarket manufacturers such as Beseler, Unicolor, Photocolor, and Tetenal. The processing steps are identical for all C-41 type processes and include a color developer, bleach, fixer, bleach/fix, final wash, stabilizer, and drying. Provided temperature control can be established (a constant 37.8 degrees centigrade +/- 0.1 degree), this process can be conducted in the laboratory using small daylight developing tanks.


Colour film processing is very temp critical - you may be lucky and get one film right but you will not get the negative density/colour consistent from film to film. This is (used) to be vital as printing in colour required the use of filters in the enlarger and to keep changing the filtration from film to film was very time consuming and costly. It's much easier with scanning but still a PITA correcting colour casts all the time. Variations in temp/agitation will cause errors such as colour casts and poor grain performance.

I used to use a Jobo CPE/2 for all my film processing and found having the water bath a 40 deg. C was perfect to keep the developer at 37.8 deg.

I have just got back into film photography and I'm loving it - unfortunately I sold all my fiml developing kit but have recently purchased a Paterson starter kit. I am/have only considering developing B&W film. Even if I had my colour developing set up from years ago I can't for the life of me see it as being economical with the price you can get colour film developed for these days!

HTH

Very nice indeed. Well done.
 
I'm another that doesn't do social media. Not even flickr after they changed the way photos were displayed for the worse. Except for any photos embedded in threads on this forum, the only place you'll find any of my photos is on ipernity - and no activity for 4 years.
 
I'm another that doesn't do social media. Not even flickr after they changed the way photos were displayed for the worse. Except for any photos embedded in threads on this forum, the only place you'll find any of my photos is on ipernity - and no activity for 4 years.

I’ve just signed up to Flickr for the same reason just to embed photos, havent really explored it any further yet
 
Shaun, to explain (at least partly) the grain issue, do a bit of googling for Grain Aliasing. A low resolution scan of a grainy negative will accentuate the grain noticeably.
 
Shaun, to explain (at least partly) the grain issue, do a bit of googling for Grain Aliasing. A low resolution scan of a grainy negative will accentuate the grain noticeably.

Thanks for that convex. There is some extremely in depth explanations on google lol. I’ve been scanning at 3200dpi, I think I’ll take it up to the maximum optical resolution of 6400 and see how different they look. Anything higher than that uses interpolation I think which I believe degraded the quality a little?
 
Thanks for that convex. There is some extremely in depth explanations on google lol. I’ve been scanning at 3200dpi, I think I’ll take it up to the maximum optical resolution of 6400 and see how different they look. Anything higher than that uses interpolation I think which I believe degraded the quality a little?

Look at tests of your scanner on filmscanner.info, you'll soon see that maximum resolution is nearer to 2000 ppi for most consumer scanners. Scanning at 6400 will make it slower and bigger files, though Vuescan does have an option to scan at higher resolution and then reduce the size by 2 (or 4) that can improve quality. On a Plustek you can do multi-pass for the same reasons.
 
Look at tests of your scanner on filmscanner.info, you'll soon see that maximum resolution is nearer to 2000 ppi for most consumer scanners. Scanning at 6400 will make it slower and bigger files, though Vuescan does have an option to scan at higher resolution and then reduce the size by 2 (or 4) that can improve quality. On a Plustek you can do multi-pass for the same reasons.

Ah cool thanks Chris
 
I think that 28-135 was one of the most versatile lenses Canon ever made, a very useful zoom range to have but from personal experience I found that build-quality tends to let it down. I bought one new in 2001 and after a couple of years of gentle use it developed a fault with the zoom (a definite notch and click while zooming as though something internal was catching) and the estimated cost of repair was more than the cost of a good second-hand replacement! It's the only Canon item that's ever broken on me in over 35 years of owning their stuff. The front lens element housing also tends to have a bit of play in it, particularly when at the 28mm position, but this doesn't seem to noticeably affect the image quality as far as I can tell.

However, as the range is so useful (on a 35mm SLR) I've just bought a used replacement! The zoom on that is just a little bit 'sticky' and the IS becomes a bit noisy if it's pointed upwards and moved around, but it still woks OK. I did a quick comparison test (using a FF 6D) on 'everyday' type photo subjects (taken in good light) and I can't tell much difference between the image quality of the 28-135 and the 24-105 L that I own! However, the build quality of the 24-105 L is in a different league, as is weather resistance, it's a constant f4 and the IS on it is probably good for another two stops too, but it cost a lot more! So treat your new arrival with kid gloves and I hope it's as sharp an example as the one I've just got, have fun and don't forget to post your results too! (y)
 
Last edited:
Is that a coffee cup L lens o_O:D

View attachment 120490

Haha it is I’m just pretending lol. It’s the non is version that unfortunately but I’ve had some cracking images from it.

I think that 28-135 was one of the most versatile lenses Canon ever made, a very useful zoom range to have but from personal experience I found that build-quality tends to let it down. I bought one new in 2001 and after a couple of years of gentle use it developed a fault with the zoom (a definite notch and click while zooming as though something internal was catching) and the estimated cost of repair was more than the cost of a good second-hand replacement! It's the only Canon item that's ever broken on me in over 35 years of owning their stuff. The front lens element housing also tends to have a bit of play in it, particularly when at the 28mm position, but this doesn't seem to noticeably affect the image quality as far as I can tell.

However, as the range is so useful (on a 35mm SLR) I've just bought a used replacement! The zoom on that is just a little bit 'sticky' and the IS becomes a bit noisy if it's pointed upwards and moved around, but it still woks OK. I did a quick comparison test (using a FF 6D) on 'everyday' type photo subjects (taken in good light) and I can't tell much difference between the image quality of the 28-135 and the 24-105 L that I own! However, the build quality of the 24-105 L is in a different league, as is weather resistance, it's a constant f4 and the IS on it is probably good for another two stops too, but it cost a lot more! So treat your new arrival with kid gloves and I hope it's as sharp an example as the one I've just got, have fun and don't forget to post your results too! (y)

I just wanted something half decent to replace the kit lens, good range for walkabout and better quality than the kit. I agree with the build quality, feels very plasticy. However the optics are spot on, very little internal dust so seemed to get a good example. Had it out today, nothing special just general shots around lightwater valley with the little one
 
I think I've ruined my first batch of development chems. Basically I warmed up the tank like normal with water, and when I poured it out it had a purple tinge to it. Poured in the developer, did its thing etc, then when I poured it back out this also had a purple tinge to it. Which I'm guessing isn't right lol

Any ideas anyone?
 
If you mean you gave it a pre-soak with warm plain water, the purple colour could be the result of an anti-halation coating. I don't know about C41, but some B&W films have a soluble coating that's normally rinsed out with plain water before starting development, proper. So far as I'm aware, it doesn't adversely affect the developer. It can take a few cycles to get the rinse water to come out clear, which would explain why your developer has picked up the colour.

What film was it, and did it develop okay?
 
If you mean you gave it a pre-soak with warm plain water, the purple colour could be the result of an anti-halation coating. I don't know about C41, but some B&W films have a soluble coating that's normally rinsed out with plain water before starting development, proper. So far as I'm aware, it doesn't adversely affect the developer. It can take a few cycles to get the rinse water to come out clear, which would explain why your developer has picked up the colour.

What film was it, and did it develop okay?

Yeah it was a pre soak, I never thought to rinse it again, as it isn't a rinse as such, I understood it as just a step to warm the tank and film up. Could be wrong there though it's only my second time developing. It was just a roll of AGFA vista plus 400, negatives look OK as they're drying, I'll scan them in a few hours and see how they look. Just don't like the thought of wasting a one week old set of chems lol
 
Is it the Tmax films that have colour in the dev when they come out? And I had some Rollei film that needed a pre-wash to get the black gunk off.
 
The tmax films used to have a more magenta base colour compared to other kodak films, when I worked in a lab we had a rep from kodak come over from the states because we noticed the prints had a magenta cast in the highlights and a green cast in the shadows. This is going back over twenty years though!
 
Yeah it was a pre soak, I never thought to rinse it again, as it isn't a rinse as such, I understood it as just a step to warm the tank and film up. Could be wrong there though it's only my second time developing. It was just a roll of AGFA vista plus 400, negatives look OK as they're drying, I'll scan them in a few hours and see how they look. Just don't like the thought of wasting a one week old set of chems lol

I'd probably try the chems again, on the understanding that the film might be slightly at risk. (Well, I'd be off googling first to see what I could find out...)
 
Is it the Tmax films that have colour in the dev when they come out? And I had some Rollei film that needed a pre-wash to get the black gunk off.

Some do, some don't. The datasheet should mention it. IIRC, Adox CHS25 (now discontinued) produces blue rinse water.
 
Was this developed at a higher temp. Shaun? The grain is still very prominent in the image which may be a result of far to much sharpening, incorrect exposure at the time of taking the image or development of the negatives.

Have you got sharpening being applied during the scans? If so this needs turning off; it's a little checkbox in the Epson scan software.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top