Film Developing in the UK

swisscheese said:
...worrying, I sent 3 rolls off on Monday and have heard nothing.....
Click to expand...

Give them a bell, if previous conversations with them are anything to go by they will be there until much later than this. The last lot of films i sent, the call came at about 7.30.
 
If you send large letter and the films have burst out of the envelope then you may never see them again :(
 
Following up on my other post about repair shops, I had found a post on 35mmc (a website belonging to a chap called Hamish Gill) that talked not only about a list he'd made of film camera specialist repair shops, but also of a map that Emulsive has made about film processing labs; you can add more entries to their map. I added a couple to their list (but not all from here). However, I also reported most of the labs from the resource thread here to the Cameraventures form (#saveanalogcameras seems to be their hashtag). At the moment, the Emulsive list is more useful, I think.
 
I've just had my scans from Film Dev - my first time. Sent them 2nd class at post office wednesday and had call first thing today that they are ready and payment link being sent. Pretty good with the bank holiday & 2nd class i reckon. didn't realise they called you so wondered who the bloody hell was calling me! Have only had a quick look at work as i shouldn't be downloading them here lol! I know one of the films had quite a few crud shots where i had issues with the camera, but what i've seen is pretty much what i was expecting. £10 for two rolls, plus £3 ish postage .vs. Asda - twice the price as not much other option (that wasnt a faffy pain in the arse anyway). I am too paranoid to chance the 76p method!
 
I'm about to send some Ektar and Portra to FilmDev, and I'm curious about the options people here are using. Looking at the examples on their site, I can't really see much more detail in the extra large compared to the large scans, and medium looks fine for most purposes. Is anyone requesting tiff and do they charge anything extra for this? I'm guessing these would be 8-bit to keep the file sizes down? How about sharpening? - when I used to use High St Frontier minilabs a lot, the sharpening tended to be a bit over-enthusiastic!
 
Hi there, welcome to the nicest bit of the forum. :)

I generally get the medium scans and ask for no sharpening. These are perfectly sufficient for most uses and the negatives arrive a couple of days later. Always very impressed with their service.

Andy
 
Retune said:
I'm about to send some Ektar and Portra to FilmDev, and I'm curious about the options people here are using. Looking at the examples on their site, I can't really see much more detail in the extra large compared to the large scans, and medium looks fine for most purposes. Is anyone requesting tiff and do they charge anything extra for this? I'm guessing these would be 8-bit to keep the file sizes down? How about sharpening? - when I used to use High St Frontier minilabs a lot, the sharpening tended to be a bit over-enthusiastic!
Click to expand...

I always use the medium scans, which at 2000 dpi give you a decent file that can be cropped a bit. Like Andy I request no sharpening after one experience where I thought it was overdone. I've been requesting TIFFs, no extra cost, but I'm not sure the extra space on my computer is worth it; I've only used a couple of them, generally use the JPEGs. The TIFFs are only 8-bit.
 
Thank you both! Lurking here was what convinced me to give FilmDev a try in the first place.
 
There is no way I would want a lab to apply any sharpening to scans - sharpening is best done after images have been re-sized (or not) for a particular export purpose.

Given that a number of people are getting colour neg scans done here and there, it might be quite useful to have some feedback about the scan quality in terms of tonal range - is there any highlight / shadow detail in the negs that's being lost in the scans? This has happened to me and put me off jobbing out scanning. Or don't people examine such things? My feeling is that it shouldn't happen at all. If there's detail present on the neg, it ought to be in range of the scanner? Transparencies might be a different matter.

I have long scanned my own 35mm film with Nikon scanners, including transparencies, so I have some idea of what's possible. But so far I have no means of scanning 120.
 
Some direct comparisons would be interesting from people who have film scanners and are also using UK services like FilmDev. Now that the Nikons are no longer available new, the Plustek 8200 range looks one of the 'least worst' options, and I've seen a brief comparison between an earlier Plustek and Noritsu and Frontier scans, but I suspect the Frontier wasn't set up well: http://forum.mflenses.com/short-scaners-test-noritsu-vs-plustek-vs-frontier-t72784.html
 
Last edited:
It's not just the scanners, it's the software driving them as well. I have a Plustek 7500i and an Epson V500, and have used both Silverfast SE 6 and Vuescan Pro. I can't get colour negatives to come out nearly as well as the labs, running Fuji or Noritsu scanners with their pro software. I think they can also get more punch through the denser parts of the negatives (highlights) and slide film (shadows) than I can, even with multi-exposure on the Plustek.

However, direct comparisons are hard. I did a thread on some Velvia scanning, see https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/velvia-scanning-problems.555546/ and particularly post 32 (IIRC) which shows some direct comparisons of the same shot scanned by me, Photo Express in Hull, and UK Film Lab (now the Canadian Film Lab), which is quite well respected round here. I don't think anyone came out of that comparison particularly well!
 
ChrisR said:
... direct comparisons are hard.
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately. But anecdotal experiences may contribute to the public information store. I don't know how Frontier / Noritsu machines are set up, and whether there's any scope for operator error.
 
ChrisR said:
However, direct comparisons are hard. I did a thread on some Velvia scanning, see https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/velvia-scanning-problems.555546/ and particularly post 32 (IIRC) which shows some direct comparisons of the same shot scanned by me, Photo Express in Hull, and UK Film Lab (now the Canadian Film Lab), which is quite well respected round here. I don't think anyone came out of that comparison particularly well!
Click to expand...

FWIW I've just checked the EXIF info; my scans were Plustek 7500i, Photo Express was Noritsu Koki with EZ controller, and UKFL was Fuji SP-3000.
 
Has anyone else besides me had a problem with commercial (colour) neg scans having highlight &/or shadows clipped?
 
droj said:
Has anyone else besides me had a problem with commercial (colour) neg scans having highlight &/or shadows clipped?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I've had no problems with lab scans and it would seem strange that a lab would be clipping shadows and highlights. Are you sure that you aren't just shooting scenes with very high subject brightness ranges? I know that any time I've thought I've had a problem with a lab, it's usually ended up being my mistake (or I had unreasonable expectations).
 
Last edited:
Specifically I had mf 6x6 rgb scans done and output at 18mb - thus at modest resolution to keep cost within bounds. Yes in some frames there was a high tonal range but my point is, as I said above, that there was highlight detail IN THE NEG that was not present in the scan. Thus I felt that the fault was with the scan rather than my exposure.

In this light I'm reluctant to job out everyday whole-film scanning if the results don't hit the bar. I think I'll have to try an Epson 550 or some such, but if it can't cope with what's there on the film, then there's little point. I just can't afford the mf equivalent of my 35mm Coolscan.
 
droj said:
Yes in some frames there was a high tonal range but my point is, as I said above, that there was highlight detail IN THE NEG that was not present in the scan. Thus I felt that the fault was with the scan rather than my exposure.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that though. Just because you haven't blown out your highlights and you can see that there is detail in the negative, doesn't mean that you can necessarily get all of that detail to show up in a scan or print. If your highlight areas are many zones above the areas where you want shadow detail, for instance, something will have to give and you will either need to sacrifice shadow detail, highlight detail, or control contrast either at the time of exposure (e.g., graduated filter) or in post (e.g., Lightroom graduated filter tool).

If this is indeed what is occurring in your scans, no lab can really help you with this, as labs ordinarily only make global adjustments to scanned images. Issues with subject brightness range require the photographer to make local adjustments to specific areas of the image either at exposure or in post.

The same thing happens in the darkroom where I need to burn in the sky (a local adjustment), because the highlight areas are many zones above other areas of key detail in the photograph, so limited detail would otherwise be visible.

Edit: Oh, also, another thought popped into my head if you weren't seeing highlight detail: Is your monitor calibrated? Compared to the default settings on my Mac, a calibrated screen makes a huge difference in the highlight detail that I can see.
 
Last edited:
Thanks RJ - but the issue remains. My normal workflow through to print, from digital sources and my own 35mm film scans, is fine and without issues. But if the scan has blown highlights compared to the neg, I'm stuck. Maybe the best answer would be to buy an mf film scanner in order to be in control, but they ain't cheap!
 
droj said:
Thanks RJ - but the issue remains. My normal workflow through to print, from digital sources and my own 35mm film scans, is fine and without issues. But if the scan has blown highlights compared to the neg, I'm stuck. Maybe the best answer would be to buy an mf film scanner in order to be in control, but they ain't cheap!
Click to expand...

Right, fair enough, although I do find it difficult to believe that labs would be consistently returning scans with blown highlights. Best of luck in your workflow.
 
It was one occasion, but the implication was that I couldn't rely on the process. And yes the negs in question did have quite a range - for negs, that is, but they weren't slides.
 
I sent 5 rolls of film off to Filmdev on Saturday and received the confirmation email and link to download the scans today. I'm very happy with them, I only ordered the small scans to test the water with because one of the rolls was a test roll whilst another 3 were rolls which had been chucked in with my camera gear waiting to be developed for a good few years.

Having only used local labs previously (Jessops, Max Spielmann e.t.c.) I'm particularly impressed with the results. They're better than I expected, even the out of date and badly stored Fuji Superia. I will definitely be using Filmdev again.
 
I knew one of my rolls today was badly (but variably) under-exposed, due to user error. We discussed and Filmdev agreed to push 3 stops, no extra charge, and almost all frames are usable. In fact, at first glance the blossom colour in some of the under-exposed/pushed frames is better than in some of the properly exposed re-shot frames!
 
I was experimenting developing myself, but I have found that I struggled to balance work, shooting, and then developing. I couldn't get enough shooting in as I preferred partial stand developments.

However, I have now come to the conclusion it is better to get the shots and allow professionals to develop my film. I have tried several places, but actually found a decent snappy snaps that develops, and I scan all my own film. I am happy with this work flow, I can keep it consistent.
 
Got a few films to send off so will give Filmdev a try.

I found a camera with a film still inside (not sure where it's come from and no idea if it's been used!
 
As mentioned elsewhere I have had a problem in the most recent batch of scans from Filmdev, with about 10% of the scans appearing to have a date of 1 January 1904 (which essentially screws up the import into Aperture). I have emailed and spoken with Filmdev about this, and they will investigate more when they re-open after the long weekend. David did tell me that the EXIF data does not come from the scanners, which are set basically "flat", but from the next system in the pipeline, which is a MS-based system that does any tidying, sharpening etc. I'm guessing that somehow this system is putting zero in the date field for some shots, which my Mac is interpreting as a date (1 Jan 1904 is "zero day" for some, possibly all, versions of UNIX). I know @srichards has had a similar problem.

I also took the opportunity to ask if they could split files into folders, one per film, to cut out the manual splitting process I currently have to do after import to Aperture. He said they'd look at that, though it might need to be a special request.
 
I also noticed this, though it wasn't a problem for my workflow. The files with the sensible dates have only basic metadata, and look like they've come from a Fuji scanner via Digital Link tiff conversion (mine were all tiffs). The files with the 1904 date have a bunch of extra EXIF data, and appear to have also gone through Photoshop CC. You can see this in ExifTool, or in Irfanview's Image->Information properties window. Perhaps this will help diagnose the issue. The scans themselves were very nice, and the service was very quick. I'd be happy to use FilmDev again!
 
Incidentally, you should be able to fix the dates with any EXIF editor. I just tried this from the command line with ExifTool, which resets the date on all .tif files in the current directory to the given value (only try this on copies!):

exiftool -datetimeoriginal="2017:05:27 13:37:00" *.tif
 
Retune said:
Incidentally, you should be able to fix the dates with any EXIF editor. I just tried this from the command line with ExifTool, which resets the date on all .tif files in the current directory to the given value (only try this on copies!):

exiftool -datetimeoriginal="2017:05:27 13:37:00" *.tif
Click to expand...

Thanks Retune, for both those comments. I remembered yesterday that I can fix the dates in Aperture, although it's a lengthy process for the 32 files. The times in the proper files are only a second or two apart, so to slot them in the right place you have to be pretty precise!
 
If I use the edit date/time tool in Photos it works fine. I just set the date and it leaves the time. If you order by date then the wrong uns are all at one end.
 
A friend went against my advice because he was impatient and took three rolls of film to be developed at Max Spielmann instead of posting them off to Filmdev. He didn't consider that he doesn't have a laptop with a cd drive so I have just uploaded them from cd to a Dropbox account for him. Having seen the results I'm quite honestly appalled. If I was him I'd be demanding a refund. The scans are terrible, showing signs of excessive dust on some frames and scratches. I definitely wouldn't use them again after seeing those results.

The annoying thing is that as a beginner it is results like this that are likely to discourage him from sticking with film photography.

Example: notice the dust, white artifacts and for some reason just right of center the woman's hand is pixelated. I initially viewed the files on my PC where the majority looked unusable. Having just looked again on my much smaller tablet screen they seem a little better.

Photo03_1.jpg
 
Well what doesn't help IMO, looking at the result, is the camera has a poor lens (or camera shake) and looks like the camera has a light leak seen on the brickwork......the hand is weird as I've never seen that effect even using the cheapest Epson scanner. Anyway if you can't get your money back, all is not lost if you have photoshop as contrast and colours can be improved and you can touch up scratches and spots
Untitled4.jpg
 
excalibur2 said:
Well what doesn't help IMO, looking at the result, is the camera has a poor lens (or camera shake) and looks like the camera has a light leak seen on the brickwork......the hand is weird as I've never seen that effect even using the cheapest Epson scanner. Anyway if you can't get your money back, all is not lost if you have photoshop as contrast and colours can be improved and you can touch up scratches and spots
View attachment 103103
Click to expand...
I think that it is probably camera shake. I have been trying to remind him of the need for fast shutter speeds when he zooms in but he doesn't always remember.
The lens is a manual focus Vivitar 28 -200 mm lens, not amazing but not too bad. Again I have tried to encourage him to buy a good 50mm prime but there's only so much I can do short of buying him one.
I had wondered about the possibility of light leaks, not all of the photos show the same sort of effect though so I couldn't make up my mind on that one.
I appreciate your comments though and I'll have a word about the light seals. He's still very much learning and gets a bit carried away at times without considering the camera settings so some poor results are expected.
 
mdjchat said:
I think that it is probably camera shake. I have been trying to remind him of the need for fast shutter speeds when he zooms in but he doesn't always remember.
The lens is a manual focus Vivitar 28 -200 mm lens, not amazing but not too bad. Again I have tried to encourage him to buy a good 50mm prime but there's only so much I can do short of buying him one.
I had wondered about the possibility of light leaks, not all of the photos show the same sort of effect though so I couldn't make up my mind on that one.
I appreciate your comments though and I'll have a word about the light seals. He's still very much learning and gets a bit carried away at times without considering the camera settings so some poor results are expected.
Click to expand...

Well you could tell your friend:- a rough guide (if not using a tripod\support and doesn't have a steady hand) is to use the minimum shutter speed to the magnification of the zoom e.g. @ 200 mm use 1/250 sec and 100mm @ 1/125..but of course (as you know) at the 28mm end camera shake is not so much of a problem and when he gets more experienced he can make his own rules from exposure, shutter speed and depth of field ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Well you could tell your friend:- a rough guide (if not using a tripod\support and doesn't have a steady hand) is to use the minimum shutter speed to the magnification of the zoom e.g. @ 200 mm use 1/250 sec and 100mm @ 1/125..but of course (as you know) at the 28mm end camera shake is not so much of a problem and when he gets more experienced he can make his own rules from exposure, shutter speed and depth of field ;)
Click to expand...
Haha believe me I have told him that. He takes a while to catch on. I'm sure that he'll get there eventually.
 
mdjchat said:
A friend went against my advice because he was impatient and took three rolls of film to be developed at Max Spielmann instead of posting them off to Filmdev. He didn't consider that he doesn't have a laptop with a cd drive so I have just uploaded them from cd to a Dropbox account for him. Having seen the results I'm quite honestly appalled. If I was him I'd be demanding a refund. The scans are terrible, showing signs of excessive dust on some frames and scratches. I definitely wouldn't use them again after seeing those results.

The annoying thing is that as a beginner it is results like this that are likely to discourage him from sticking with film photography.

Example: notice the dust, white artifacts and for some reason just right of center the woman's hand is pixelated. I initially viewed the files on my PC where the majority looked unusable. Having just looked again on my much smaller tablet screen they seem a little better.

View attachment 103101
Click to expand...

That's taken in Sheffield. Which branch of Max Spielman did they use? I used a couple of branches when I first got back into shooting film but after three sets of bad results from one particular lab, I decided against it being my fault or a dodgy film, and far more likely to be down to the processing (I wonder what volume of film processing they still get, and how experienced the staff are when it comes to doing the work - especially newer members who've weren't with the business when film processing was still prevalent?).

If your friend is in Sheffield (and didn't just take the photo there) then advise them to use Peak Imaging if they want to drop films off in person. I use Peak all the time and they're great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top