To PP or keep as is?...

Again?!... Is it because of my question initially or how the conversation ends up?
.................I was told you don't PP in film... obviously asking this question i know now that's not true and it really is personal choice

I had presumed the same as you Trace...that you weren't meant to do processing in film.... and, found it hard to make my final image look how 'I' wanted it...as well as keeping the no PP'ing in mind......
Now though, I try and stick to how I want the end image to look, and if that involves quite a bit of adjusting, then that's what I do...
Take this image..... it did not look like this out of the roll, nor did it look, at the time, how I wanted the end result to look
Taken with the Mamiya..... on HP5(I think) scanned on the V500...and, I feel I got close to how I pictured it in my head at the time(and it may well be too much processing for some).... this had a fair bit of selective contrast adjustment, as well as dodging and burning done to it in Lightroom(but still less than I had been doing with digital)




And the original scanned negative.....
 
Lee, a huge part of scanning is adjusting the settings when you actually scan so you're creating a file that's full of useful information. The software you're driving your V500 with will allow you to make contrast adjustments when you scan which can dramatically cut down on the amount of time you need to spend post-processing. To draw an analogy a good scan is a bit like taking a well exposed frame on a digital camera, the more right it is when you do it the less you need to do afterwards. A quick tweak to the settings when scanning that frame would have given a result much more like your edited version straight out of the scanner. :)
 
As much as that's terrible and totally unacceptable for any service you're paying for, it does illustrate why I use decent labs for devving and do all my own scanning!
(y)

Of course you are right in that you can't beat a good lab, but the regular Asda girls do a better job (although rare to get perfect results) but being retired I have the time for touching up and PP, and can't be bothered waiting days for dev and\or scanning and there is a chance of film getting lost in the post.
 
Lee, a huge part of scanning is adjusting the settings when you actually scan so you're creating a file that's full of useful information. The software you're driving your V500 with will allow you to make contrast adjustments when you scan which can dramatically cut down on the amount of time you need to spend post-processing. To draw an analogy a good scan is a bit like taking a well exposed frame on a digital camera, the more right it is when you do it the less you need to do afterwards. A quick tweak to the settings when scanning that frame would have given a result much more like your edited version straight out of the scanner. :)
Ha I wish I had known that then :LOL:...that was my first attempt at scanning.... and it has taken me a while to work out how to use the scanner.
When I have time, I'll re scan that image, now that I know more of what I'm supposed to do, and make the adjustments 'in scanner' and see how it comes out
 
Now this is where i don't have a clue, if i got that back i would assume i had done something wrong or something... can someone tell me what you mean or what has happened?


Sorry didn't tag or quote this was for @excalibur2 photo and @PMN comment

Please explain T as it's common in threads to wander off in different directions and add some humour.
 
I'm lucky that my asda guys are quite good.. This is an asda dev and scan - never had it done elsewhere yet (everything I've shot in the past month or so has been test rolls through cameras so more interested in seeing if it works than getting the best scanned results) but it looks good to me :D In the new year though, I plan on working a lot more with black and white so can then dev my own (and send colour away) and hopefully a V500 is in the pipeline :)


Colin - Portra
by Toni Darling Photos, on Flickr

Well I too think Tesco and Asda are good, and often joke with the regular girls that I must be their best customer as over 3 years have spent with Tesco\Asda (mainly Asda) at least £300
 
Do you have any examples of a completely uncorrectable colour cast? I've had some that have been real pains to correct but I've never had anything I absolutely haven't been able to get at least somewhere near right!

Nothing that I can quickly lay my hands on - they don't exist in scanned form. I was referring to what you can correct at scan time, rather than looking at what you might achieve aferwards in Photoshop, and had in mind the problems with colour casts that occur with mixed light sources, some types of fluorescent lighting and crossed curves when the light colour is extreme and gives problems at the shoulder and toe of the curve (in different directions). The same thing can happen in digital - Martin Evening describes how to fix different colour casts in highlights and shadows (meaning different casts in both) in his book on Photoshop.
 
Please explain T as it's common in threads to wander off in different directions and add some humour.


Ok what i was trying to say was, you can look at that photo and know that you had someone different/newbie scanning your images, how? if your normal people would have been there, how different would that photo be? what would have changed?.... I guess it's because i've just started with film, i don't know a thing so if i get photos back and they don't look right i always assume i've messed up.... does that make sense?

@Solo man Thank you! seeing your before and after images may actually help me in my head lol!... i really like that original too btw!
 
Yup I'm aware of problems from different colour temperatures (and it's usually worse on digital), it can be great if used purposely for effect but it's something I usually try and avoid! It thought you were talking about colour casts that appear when you scan certain types of film like Ektar, etc. :)
 
Sorry for any confusion! I can post some scans that are very "off" - here's one from Ardnamurchan on Fuji NPS160.

View attachment 1399
 
Ok what i was trying to say was, you can look at that photo and know that you had someone different/newbie scanning your images, how? if your normal people would have been there, how different would that photo be? what would have changed?

Sorry, I foolishly went off talking about something without actually explaining what I was talking about! Brian's scan is covered with hair and other stuff that shouldn't be there, it also seems to have had some very heavy noise reduction processing (or something similar) but I'm not sure whether that's just how Asda process their images!
 
Sorry, I foolishly went off talking about something without actually explaining what I was talking about! Brian's scan is covered with hair and other stuff that shouldn't be there, it also seems to have had some very heavy noise reduction processing (or something similar) but I'm not sure whether that's just how Asda process their images!


Thanks Paul, combined with what you said originally that makes more sense.:D
 
I know its a bit weird but I actually quite like dust spotting my negs in PS, I zoom in really close and spend ages with the clone tool getting rid of every last bit of dust. OCD? probably.:bonk:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
Ok what i was trying to say was, you can look at that photo and know that you had someone different/newbie scanning your images, how? if your normal people would have been there, how different would that photo be? what would have changed?.... I guess it's because i've just started with film, i don't know a thing so if i get photos back and they don't look right i always assume i've messed up.... does that make sense?

Well T I don't know if you are a complete newbie as you have been using a digital camera but anyway just in case you might have been just a snapper before and have now got more involved in photography by using film, you might be interested in the following:- it's difficult to mess up film unless the exposure was completely wrong or a cock up in dev or the film was old and stored somewhere hot...Anyway the important thing as an amateur is that your shots please you first (maybe your family and close friends as well) and even mistakes can look nice. The difficult bit is to take\produce shots that everyone likes :eek:
 
Last edited:
Well T I don't know if you are a complete newbie as you have been using a digital camera but anyway just in case you might have been just a snapper before and have now got more involved in photography by using film, you might be interested in the following:- it's difficult to mess up film unless the exposure was completely wrong or a cock up in dev or the film was old and stored somewhere hot...Anyway the important thing as an amateur is that your shots please you first (maybe your family and close friends as well) and even mistakes can look nice. The difficult bit is to take\produce shots that everyone likes :eek:


Yes i totally agree we have to please ourselves, i know we all see things different and are never going to please everyone.. as for the newbie bit, yes obviously to film i am and yes i have come from digital so not a photography newbie, i think my problem is and more than likely my own fault for not reading and learning, so alot of technical stuff goes over my head.
 
Hmm, yeah that does look kind of interesting! Are you using the Epsonscan software and are you using any manual adjustments or just letting the scanner do it's thing automatically?

I'm using VueScan. That was scanned using the wrong profile for the film - it was only a moment's work to correct when I saw the result (I always use the VueScan option to save the raw scan so I don't need to rescan to correct simple things like this. All I need to do is to change the settings and let it reprocess the same scan data).

I normally use the same settings for black and white, but do tweak them on an individual negative basis. Since I'm usually scanning 5x4, there aren't any film strips to worry about.

Some of these "wrong 'uns" actually give a very pleasing result.
 
Last edited:
I don't do much with mine - usually only what I could, like someone else said, do in the dark room. Playing with contrast, dodging and burning and the likes. Not much at all.

For some reason I tend to allow myself a little more PP leeway when dealing with scanned film negatives than scanned transparencies (or prints for that matter).

Go figure... :)
 
Hello 007 :D I think my main reason for asking was purely being a newbie to film i didn't want to make basic pp changes and then everyone shout at me. I was told you don't PP in film... obviously asking this question i know now that's not true and it really is personal choice

No idea who told you that. :) Why not? Once it's scanned, it's a digital image. You can do what you want with it, just as with a digitally captured image.
 
No idea who told you that. :) Why not? Once it's scanned, it's a digital image. You can do what you want with it, just as with a digitally captured image.


It was a member here on TP... I'm just glad i asked the question now, i've learn't quite a few things from these threads and seen that nobody shouts at me ( yet):D
 
It was a member here on TP... I'm just glad i asked the question now, i've learn't quite a few things from these threads and seen that nobody shouts at me ( yet):D

oops....hope it wasn't me. I do fall into the minimal PP camp, and feel I shouldn't perform excessive PP on film. But thats not a cant, and I certainly wouldn't want to dictate to someone what they can and cant do, or shout at them if they did something that doesn't gel with my opinion.
 
That's a ridiculous, snobbish, and prescriptive view. Did the person also think the world was flat by any chance? :)

Once scanned... it's a digital image, and you treat it essentially like any other digital file. You do what's appropriate for the work.

Images have always been manipulated.. heavily. You'd be amazed what Ansel Adams did to his images, and he's the archetypal Master in his field. He just didn't use a computer.. that's all... but they were massively altered from reality.

Many of these film purists were never actually active when film was a big deal anyway... they're just jumping on an anti-culture bandwagon. Don't get me started on the Lomo/Lubitel crowd either :)

Film.. digital.... all the same thing really... just a recording medium that captures a focused image. I could even argue, and academically justify saying that a film image IS digital :)

Exposed silver halide crystals in development are turned into silver, and non-exposed crystals are removed in the fixing process, resulting in a collection, or clumps of black “grains” on a clear negative base. Therefore the entire image is not continuous in tone as many would have us believe at all. It is in fact, made up exclusively from black and white, with no intermediate tones. The appearance of continuity, like the digital image, is a result of these grains being so small, and so plentiful, that the eye can not resolve them individually, so an area of dense crystals appears very dark, or black, an area where the crystals are more evenly spread appears grey, and an area where there are few appears white, or very light grey. In essence, a black and white negative is a digital image, in exactly the same way an electronically derived image is. The difference that an analogue image has these crystals distributed randomly, whereas the digital image’s pixels are uniform, and arranged in a grid. As Graham Saxby writes,

“Although silver metal is shiny, the texture of the grains causes the light to be reflected back and forth until it has all been absorbed, so the grains look black. On a microscopic scale, therefore, a photographic image is a binary device: Light either passes unimpeded or is blocked completely. However, as the grains are in general too small to be seen with the unaided eye, the image appears in varying shades of grey, depending on the number of grains in a given area” (Graham Saxby, 2002. The Science of Imaging: An Introduction, p. 63)

So essentially.... such distinctions between what you should, and shouldn't do with film are just so much hot air.
 
oops....hope it wasn't me. I do fall into the minimal PP camp, and feel I shouldn't perform excessive PP on film. But thats not a cant, and I certainly wouldn't want to dictate to someone what they can and cant do, or shout at them if they did something that doesn't gel with my opinion.

Gosh no it wasn't you Steve, i totally get what you are saying and i came into film wanting to keep PP to a minimum and concentrate on taking my time shooting etc, i was just under the impression you couldn't/shouldn't do anything, it was one of those things i was initially to scared to ask but i'm glad i did, i've heard some interesting views :D
 
Interesting stuff.

The only thing I'd like to add is that children lose their sense of creativity by being told what not to do.

It's why I deliberately do anything, within the bounds of law and reason, that I'm told I can't do.

@Steve For a man not into pp you did a damn fine job of the Man Ray process. I'm guessing you mean something different though.

@Pookeyhead It's very rare that I disagree with you, but I'm slightly troubled by your dismissal of the "Lomo/Lubitel" crowd.

Is there, perhaps, some counter-culture type thing going on there I'm not aware of? I've no idea.
 
That's a ridiculous, snobbish, and prescriptive view. Did the person also think the world was flat by any chance? :)

Eh?....what do you mean implying the world's not flat....thats dangerous talk; people could get careless and fall of the edge.

I can see what you are saying David, but if it's all JUST about the image/final outcome why bother shooting film in the first place (unless you are going large format).

I would suggest that none of my film cameras can compete with my D800E for any type of photo I take, so if it was just about the image I would never use my film cameras at all. But I enjoy using film, so for me it isn't just about the final image, it's about the process too.
 
Interesting stuff.

The only thing I'd like to add is that children lose their sense of creativity by being told what not to do.

It's why I deliberately do anything, within the bounds of law and reason, that I'm told I can't do.

@Steve For a man not into pp you did a damn fine job of the Man Ray process. I'm guessing you mean something different though.

@Pookeyhead It's very rare that I disagree with you, but I'm slightly troubled by your dismissal of the "Lomo/Lubitel" crowd.

Is there, perhaps, some counter-culture type thing going on there I'm not aware of? I've no idea.

Good point Simon...for me I am happy to do any pp at all I can achieve in the darkroom on film, and I'm having lots of fun with things like the Man Ray work and now getting into chemigrams and other stuff. But it always comes back to enjoyment from the process for me with film, and the chance to use lovely old cameras and the like.

If it's just about the image and final result I will use digital and then anything goes in photoshop. I just don't understand shooting the limitations on film to then rectify it's shortcomings in photoshop...just shoot digital instead.
 
The great thing about photography is we can all follow any path or method we choose.

I absolutely love using film. It inspires and motivates me in a way that using digital just doesn't. Up to that point I think we're in total agreement. Where we differ, perhaps, is that I'll then do whatever I want with the digitised scanned image.

Funnily enough, I very rarely do. I enjoy the challenge of getting it as right as possible with minimal pp. But If I want to photoshop the bejasus out of it, I will.
 
Last edited:
The great thing about photography is we can all follow any path or method we choose.

I absolutely love using film. It inspires and motivates me in a way that using digital just doesn't. Up to that point I think we're in total agreement. Where we differ, perhaps, is that I'll then do whatever I want with the digitised scanned image.

Funnily enough, I very rarely do. I enjoy the challenge of getting it as right as possible with minimal pp. But If I want to photoshop the bejasus out of it, I will.

Actually that approach makes perfect sense to me. And on reflection, I am probably imposing unnecessary restrictions on myself.

Is it too late to teach an old dog new tricks? :)
 
@Pookeyhead It's very rare that I disagree with you, but I'm slightly troubled by your dismissal of the "Lomo/Lubitel" crowd.

Is there, perhaps, some counter-culture type thing going on

there I'm not aware of? I've no idea.

I really don't want to start an argument.. but it's because they're most interested in the aesthetic effects of the system than they are the images they shoot. In itself... not a terrible thing.. we all choose gear, film types, printing papers, and all manner of things for their aesthetic effects.. it's just that it's all about the same lo-fi effects for so many and all that stuff just looks the same after a while. Just my opinion. Each to their own.

Eh?....what do you mean implying the world's not flat....thats dangerous talk; people could get careless and fall of the edge.

:)

I can see what you are saying David, but if it's all JUST about the image/final outcome why bother shooting film in the first place (unless you are going large format).

Because sometimes it's the right tool for the job. Film is essentially imperfect.. each one with it's own characteristics... so sometimes a certain film gives results best suited to your subject. Also... unless you are talking about high end medium format gear... most digital cameras can't yet get close to a decent 6x7 transparency for detail. 5x4 shoudl be obvious therefore :)


I would suggest that none of my film cameras can compete with my D800E for any type of photo I take, so if it was just about the image I would never use my film cameras at all. But I enjoy using film, so for me it isn't just about the final image, it's about the process too.

Do you shoot 6x7? It beats the D800E if scanned correctly. Most people who use film scan with relatively low end flatbeds... is that the case? 35mm film is of course not as good as the D800E, no.
 
They're just opinions, peeps are detailing what is important to them, Pooky's POV is no more valid than you're own.

Some things in this thread I agree with, some I don't, just try not to confuse fact with opinion and make your own mind up.
 
That's a ridiculous, snobbish, and prescriptive view. Did the person also think the world was flat by any chance? :)

Once scanned... it's a digital image, and you treat it essentially like any other digital file. You do what's appropriate for the work.

Images have always been manipulated.. heavily. You'd be amazed what Ansel Adams did to his images, and he's the archetypal Master in his field. He just didn't use a computer.. that's all... but they were massively altered from reality.

Many of these film purists were never actually active when film was a big deal anyway... they're just jumping on an anti-culture bandwagon. Don't get me started on the Lomo/Lubitel crowd either :)

Film.. digital.... all the same thing really... just a recording medium that captures a focused image. I could even argue, and academically justify saying that a film image IS digital :)

Exposed silver halide crystals in development are turned into silver, and non-exposed crystals are removed in the fixing process, resulting in a collection, or clumps of black “grains” on a clear negative base. Therefore the entire image is not continuous in tone as many would have us believe at all. It is in fact, made up exclusively from black and white, with no intermediate tones. The appearance of continuity, like the digital image, is a result of these grains being so small, and so plentiful, that the eye can not resolve them individually, so an area of dense crystals appears very dark, or black, an area where the crystals are more evenly spread appears grey, and an area where there are few appears white, or very light grey. In essence, a black and white negative is a digital image, in exactly the same way an electronically derived image is. The difference that an analogue image has these crystals distributed randomly, whereas the digital image’s pixels are uniform, and arranged in a grid. As Graham Saxby writes,

“Although silver metal is shiny, the texture of the grains causes the light to be reflected back and forth until it has all been absorbed, so the grains look black. On a microscopic scale, therefore, a photographic image is a binary device: Light either passes unimpeded or is blocked completely. However, as the grains are in general too small to be seen with the unaided eye, the image appears in varying shades of grey, depending on the number of grains in a given area” (Graham Saxby, 2002. The Science of Imaging: An Introduction, p. 63)

So essentially.... such distinctions between what you should, and shouldn't do with film are just so much hot air.


Thank you....I think i need to read more, i got the basics of the exposed silver halide crystals, although i don't yet understand it all i'm curious, i'm sure i've learn't more bits and pieces in my short time in F&C than i have in general
 
Crikey David, I only asked. Thanks for explaining your point though.

If I'm honest, the "they" word does tend to pique my self righteous indignation.

Now I'm off to ebay to buy a Holga.;)
 
Do you shoot 6x7? It beats the D800E if scanned correctly. Most people who use film scan with relatively low end flatbeds... is that the case? 35mm film is of course not as good as the D800E, no.

I shoot 6x6 but am scanning using a V500 so it can't compete with better scanners. Although for my purposes the V500 is more than adequate as I dont print large enough to need the extra detail; A3 is as big as I go.

But even if a 6x7 film camera can provide more detail, would you really favour using it over the D800E, and add on the extra complicated stages of film development and scanning to the workflow?
 
I have a Holga :)
 
V500 is decent enough yes. Maybe I'm spoilt... I have access to a Flextight X2. Using that, 6x7 is markedly better than the D800.


[edit]

Sorry for double post.... no idea how I did that.
 
Back
Top