Film scanner, colour film and some beginner questions

Marino

Marino

Messages
489
Name
MARINO
Edit My Images
No
Film gurus could you please share your knowledge,i have a few questions that google can’t answer :popcorn:


im currently shooting film and stopped shooting digital because it makes things complicated. Too many options make things worse for me.

first question is what colour film would you recommend for a beginner? I’ll be shooting at daytime and nighttime with artificial light.

Second question is, should i bother developing colour film on my own or is it not worth it? (I already have the equipment for developing since I develop b&w on my own).

And the last , is it worth getting a film scanner? I would use it for archiving and printing family photos and maybe every once in a while an a4 print. If yes, what would you recommend?

Thx
Marino
 
You haven't said whether it's 35mm or medium/large format, but I'll assume 35mm. There are others here with far greater knowledge than I, but fwiw I'd go for straightforward options like Kodak Gold 200 for daytime and Portra 400 or 800 for nighttime. I don't dev my colour films as I don't shoot a lot of it, but I'm considering doing so the same as you, because I have most/all of the kit already.
For scanning, I'd recommend the Plustek Opticfilm 8200 film scanner, I find it easy to use and it does the job well for 35mm. £270 approx new.
 
Marino said:
first question is what colour film would you recommend for a beginner? I’ll be shooting at daytime and nighttime with artificial light.

Second question is, should i bother developing colour film on my own or is it not worth it? (I already have the equipment for developing since I develop b&w on my own).

And the last , is it worth getting a film scanner? I would use it for archiving and printing family photos and maybe every once in a while an a4 print. If yes, what would you recommend?
Click to expand...

1. If you're a beginner, I'd suggest going cheep. Colour Plus, or the cheapest (fresh) film you can find. Each colour film has it's nuances, but as a beginner (see next answers) you probably want to get the process nailed down before buying a film because of its look. Practising with Portra 400 will get quite expensive.

2. Colour film is more temperature critical and will require different chemistry too, so you will need to spend more time and money. Only you can answer whether this is worth it. Similar to Lindsay, I don't shoot enough colour film to warrant it. Plenty of folks here dev their own colour film though.

3. Again, this is a difficult one. I have a Plustek scanner for 35mm and an Epson V550 for 120. I much prefer the results of home scanning as it allows you to get results that more closely resemble the film. Kodak Gold for example is a really warm film, but if you send your film off and get them to scan it and they just tick an auto white balance button, then the characteristics of the colour emulsion are lost (you can ameliorate this by picking a more expensive/careful lab). Scanning yourself requires quite a bit more work for colour (some people here make this look easy, but I don't think it is!) but the results are worth it. Additionally, scanning yourself allows you to set the resolution depending on whether you're printing or putting them on the internet. It's an expensive job to pay for hi res scans from a lab only to get back pictures you wouldn't print.

No right answers to any of these questions sadly, but I hope it helps.
 
lindsay said:
You haven't said whether it's 35mm or medium/large format, but I'll assume 35mm. There are others here with far greater knowledge than I, but fwiw I'd go for straightforward options like Kodak Gold 200 for daytime and Portra 400 or 800 for nighttime. I don't dev my colour films as I don't shoot a lot of it, but I'm considering doing so the same as you, because I have most/all of the kit already.
For scanning, I'd recommend the Plustek Opticfilm 8200 film scanner, I find it easy to use and it does the job well for 35mm. £270 approx new.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, forgot to mention im shooting 35mm. About the scanner, i know I’m asking too much but if you find the time lindsay i would really appreciate it if you posted a sample image. I’m just curious to see how much i can push the shadows and highlights. I’ve tried the internet but can’t find a raw sample image. I saw alot of these used on ebay.

realspeed said:
i have the Digitnow film scanner which is very good
Click to expand...
Again, is it possible to post a sample image of a negative? I’m sorry if I’m a pain in the @ss, i would like to see the difference between these two models because there’s a significant difference in price.

.
.
.
Harlequin565 said:
…as it allows you to get results that more closely resemble the film. Kodak Gold for example is a really warm film, but if you send your film off and get them to scan it and they just tick an auto white balance button, then the characteristics of the colour emulsion are lost (you can ameliorate this by picking a more expensive/careful lab).
Click to expand...
that really gets me confused because every film on the internet seems to have certain characteristics, like different tint, contrast and colour intensity. With photo editing programs now i can change all these characteristics (unless it’s not the same as a file produced by a digital camera). If that’s true could i change the for example kodak gold to resemble porta? Maybe colour is a different ball game, i should probably get a scanner and get better at b&w first as colour seems to be much more complicated
 
Marino said:
If that’s true could i change the for example kodak gold to resemble porta?
Click to expand...
Yes. Sadly colour film can be just as bad as colour digital unless:
- You get a pro lab to do the scans
- You wet print in colour essentially removing the digital process completely. (This is how it was done in the olden days and how you could see distinct characteristics of different film)
- You take the time to do the scan right. Negative Lab Pro for example, encourages you to scan the negative in as a flat negative. The app then does the conversion to positive for you and tries really hard to retain the characteristics of the colour film, so that the "look" of that film is preserved without needing any further work. It costs extra though and requires extra work. If you just stick a negative in a scanner and let the scan software do the conversion, different scan software will give you different results (and it gets worse as you mess with settings), so it gets very hard to know what's "real". I ended up not being able to tell the difference between Portra 160 and Colour Plus. Some films (Ektar which is heavily saturated, or Kodak Gold which is super warm) are so "unique" that the effect is less pronounced. Also, E6 slide film doesn't have as much of a problem because it's a positive. And don't get me started on cross processing. Scans from a lab were all over the place colour wise when I tried that and home scanning it got me even more confused. For me - only Negative Lab Pro has given me stable results, but that's another step/cost. You can read more on my woes with colour here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...tive-lab-pro-vs-silverfast-vs-filmdev.736055/

@FishyFish also uses it.

Anyway, this is just my opinion though. Films like Portra 400, Lomo 400, Colour Plus, Kodak Pro 100, etc all look the same to my eyes. Gold and Ektar are exceptions with dramatic effects.

I find colour film to be a minefield, and these days is something I've pretty much given up on. Easier for me to shoot digital and apply presets.
Black & white is completely different and the characteristics of the tonal responses, grain, and contrast are much easier to see straight from a standard scan. I don't enjoy post processing, which is probably why black & white is my favourite "genre".
 
@Marino Here's a link to an image on Kodak Colour 200, slightly overexposed but completely sooc, no editing at all. Bear in mind it was taken on a Leica iiia camera so circa 90 years old camera and lens, but I think for a scan with no added clever stuff or editing, it's not a bad starting point for fettling the image?
https://flic.kr/p/2oQEeT3
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oQEeT3
 
Last edited:
I don't want to ruffle feathers but I hate Porta 400.
I just shot my first roll on 120 6X6 and the grain is horrific and I struggled to get the colours right during scanning.
For 35mm I'd recommend Kodak Ektar, yes, it's more expensive, but, the colours/saturation and super fine grain are priceless.
I'll be honest, 35mm is pain to scan which is why I shoot medium format but, if you are prepared to buy a quality scanner, it is possible to get great images.

Is it worth getting a film scanner, 1000% yes. But if you are going to do that you might just as well buy a premium scanner, a quality one at that. As the saying goes, "Buy Cheap, Buy Twice"

Home processing C41 (AKA Colour Negative) is a doddle and very rewarding. All you need is a few basic bits of processing equipment (and some warn water)

FWIW, get a dev tank, a film changing bag, some Cinestill (or what you can get) C41 chemistry, scanner and give it a go.
You'll either be a hero or zero at the end of the day and, let's be honest, in my eyes even if you fail first time, you'll be a hero in my mind.

Just sayin!
 
Last edited:
lindsay said:
@Marino Here's a link to an image on Kodak Colour 200, slightly overexposed but completely sooc, no editing at all. Bear in mind it was taken on a Leica iiia camera so circa 90 years old camera and lens, but I think for a scan with no added clever stuff or editing, it's not a bad starting point for fettling the image?
image on Flickr
Click to expand...

When I try the link it comes up with - Oops! We ran into some problems. :(
 
I have a Plustek scanner, but to me it is slow. (It is a bit old though)

I use a cheap 35mm scanner, and the prints are very good at A4 (haven't got an A3 printer)

I use it for B&W as well, develop B&W film at home, but no space for wet printing.

Don't do enough colour to develop at home any more, so send that for processing, then scan at home
 
One advantage of scanning colour over black and white is that if the scanner comes with Digital ICE or equivalent scratch and dust removing software it will work with colour but won't work with black and white.
 
linky@Marino and others, I had the same, no idea why so need to do some testing of the linking to Flickr, bt I did get it to work finally and have amended the link.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Yes. Sadly colour film can be just as bad as colour digital unless:
- You get a pro lab to do the scans
- You wet print in colour essentially removing the digital process completely. ……………….

……………I find colour film to be a minefield, and these days is something I've pretty much given up on. Easier for me to shoot digital and apply presets.
Black & white is completely different and the characteristics of the tonal responses, grain, and contrast are much easier to see straight from a standard scan. I don't enjoy post processing, which is probably why black & white is my favourite "genre".
Click to expand...
Wet print might be an option as there’s-a darkroom for hire in Belfast, but again my images are not worth hanging.,. So that won’t be anytime soon, at least it motivates me a bit to take good pictures so i can go there and try to make some prints.
Thanks very much for the info, i read the thread and got overwhelmed with information o_O
If the colour can be changed then there’s only two reasons left to choose one film over the another, amount of contrast and grain.
I bought earlier on a 24exposure Kodak gold 200 because I’m a bit impatient to see the results, I’ll see how that goes.
Again thanks very much for taking the time to explain!



@lindsay thank you so much, i fiddled with the file and it looks like it has good potential for editing even though it’s just a .jpeg. I can only assume that a raw file from the scanner will have more flexibility in terms of editing.

@soupdragon yes, i already have the equipment for developing as I develop b&w film on my own. I only need the chemicals for colour. I just wasn’t sure how hard it is to develop colour without messing the negatives. I’ll give it a go anyway it’s not like I’ll mess up my professional photos:geek:
.
.
.
I’ll update with sample images when i get a scanner in case somebody like me is interested about this topic
 
Don't even consider colour developing at home unless you have very accurate temperature control.

Differences of 0.2c will cause colour shifts/grain problems and total inconsistencies.

I use a JOBO CPA-2 with two thermometers.

Here is a link to my photo albums:

Fraser White’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
@Marino the output from the scanner is selectable, it was originally a 15Mb tiff so I exported it as jpg and lower quality to upload it.
 
Well, the Kodak spec calls for a temperature of 37.8 +/- 0.15°C so I assume Kodak will only guarantee correct colour within that range.

I struggle to see colourshifts, etc. so I'm quite happy with using a Paterson tank in the litchen sink as a waterbath and going for an indicated temp of around 38°C on a dial thermometer, so not very accurate.
IMG_8397.jpeg
 
Flighter said:
Well, the Kodak spec calls for a temperature of 37.8 +/- 0.15°C so I assume Kodak will only guarantee correct colour within that range.

I struggle to see colourshifts, etc. so I'm quite happy with using a Paterson tank in the litchen sink as a waterbath and going for an indicated temp of around 38°C on a dial thermometer, so not very accurate.
View attachment 396022
Click to expand...
H'mm when you think about it for 1°c +/- 0.15°c would make a huge difference but for 37.8°c o_O ..... Interesting to see results from kodak showing what difference +/- 0.15°c makes in results
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
HUH! is that a typo?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no typo! I have a thermometer measuring the water bath at 40 deg C ; this gives me developer at 38 deg C.
I measure the temp of the developer before it goes into the drum and when it comes out.
I always warm the tank and film with a pre-soak to prevent a temp shock and problems with the film emulsion

Years of chasing your tail wet printing with filters taught you how accurate temp needed to be so you could use the same filter stacks for the same film and get good results.
 
Last edited:
Not a lot to add, except...

Like Ian @Harlequin565 I don't take much colour film these days. It's expensive in the first place, and I can't face developing it at home (temperature control, lifetime of chems, etc), plus I find it really hard to get good colours from scans. So I send mine off, mostly to Filmdev, who do an excellent job.

If I were using only colour film, I would not bother with a scanner for that reason. However, I use a Plustek 7500i for my 135 black and white stuff (it's an older version of the 8200 that @lindsay mentioned, except it has an added infrared channel for automatic dust spot removal... which is absolutely no use for black and white or Kodachrome films!). I use an Epson V500 for my very occasional 120 film.

One thing that has not been mentioned is scanning software (except insofar as Negative Lab Pro counts for that). For those who mostly use 120, Epson Scan seems to be popular. Othersei, more here seem to use Vuescan Pro than Silverfast. The finacial advantages of Vuescan are less than they were, as you now have to pay a subscription, but you can use it on any scanners you have. Silverfast is tied to one scanner, and there are many versions with different capabilities. It is probably more powerful, but I'm quite happy with Vuescan Pro. One advantage of the latter is that you can scan to Raw, and then re-process those scans later if you find a way to improve the look you get. I don't use that, as it's basically a kind of TIFF file, so much larger than the JPEGs that I save, but some here swear by it.

You can see results from various scanners and software looking through the "Show us yer film images" thread. Beware, @FishyFish is a magician and no-one else seems able to achieve the same results!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top