Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2010, 01:26 PM   #1
Junior Member
imfinetoday's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 43
prints from 35mm film

So as of late, I've been shooting some film. I don't know any darkroom techniques, so I just take mine to my local camera store. Anyways... The last 2 rolls I developed I had scanned to a CD. It seems that scanning captures more of the raw features of film. So, if I want to keep that same 'rawness' that the scanning produces, should I print them from the digital file or directly from the film?

08-10-2010, 02:20 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
The minilab setup uses the scans to print from. This is why the pixel dimensions are what they are - divide by about 300 and you get the size of the usual print.

If you're talking about traditional 'real' printing, that's another matter.
08-10-2010, 02:29 PM   #3
Junior Member
imfinetoday's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 43
Original Poster
Sooooo If the minilab were to print a 4x6 picture from the negative, it should look the exact same as the jpg on the cd? color, grain, etc?
08-10-2010, 09:57 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Steinback's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: GTA, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,673
If you take the negative back the shop will probably just re-scan it and print from the new scan. In my experience prints often come back quite a bit darker than digital files viewed on a screen, but that and things like colour balance will depend on how your monitor is set up and on the printer.

08-11-2010, 08:39 AM   #5
Junior Member
imfinetoday's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 43
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Steinback Quote
If you take the negative back the shop will probably just re-scan it and print from the new scan. In my experience prints often come back quite a bit darker than digital files viewed on a screen, but that and things like colour balance will depend on how your monitor is set up and on the printer.
so places today don't truly print from the negative? it's actually scanned in digitally, then printed?
08-11-2010, 08:44 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
Bingo, yes.

The printing process requirements I think also affect the scan settings, apart from the bitmap size: I believe color balances and exposure *should be* adjusted to the printer characteristics, in a well maintained mini lab. For example, while it was still in business, one minilab I used had Agfa equipment. Their scans were consistently highly saturated, probably to compensate for a print process with less saturation.

Of course the operators most minilab setups don't really care or know they can care about these things
08-12-2010, 09:31 PM   #7
New Member
Jmaster5's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 17
QuoteOriginally posted by imfinetoday Quote
So as of late, I've been shooting some film. I don't know any darkroom techniques, so I just take mine to my local camera store. Anyways... The last 2 rolls I developed I had scanned to a CD. It seems that scanning captures more of the raw features of film. So, if I want to keep that same 'rawness' that the scanning produces, should I print them from the digital file or directly from the film?
You could get an inexpensive film scanner like the Epson or Canoscan and scan your own negatives - you wont be displeased and you will have complete control.
08-17-2010, 08:58 AM   #8
Junior Member
imfinetoday's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 43
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jmaster5 Quote
You could get an inexpensive film scanner like the Epson or Canoscan and scan your own negatives - you wont be displeased and you will have complete control.
That is actually what I plan on doing. will also save me a lot of money in the long run!

09-28-2010, 06:14 PM   #9
New Member
Jmaster5's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 17
Ms Bev

K1000 FUJIFILM Neopan 400 - processed with Rodinal
Attached Images
   
09-28-2010, 09:00 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 638
Jmaster,

I would explore metering more. You've exposed for the background, leaving the Jeep almost black.

In time, you'll learn how to compensate for differences in what the camera thinks is the correct exposure and what YOU think is the correct exposure.

I'm just down 85 a piece from you in Salisbury, by the way.
09-29-2010, 08:21 AM   #11
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by brofkand Quote
I would explore metering more. You've exposed for the background, leaving the Jeep almost black.
To be fair, that's a no-win situation without some fill-light in there. At least the pics he got have a bit of drama.
09-29-2010, 10:26 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
...although, some of the jeep shadow may be recoverable (assuming this was a scanner auto exposure), i.e. be at least in part a function of the scan, in addition to original exposure
09-29-2010, 12:46 PM   #13
New Member
Jmaster5's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 17
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
...although, some of the jeep shadow may be recoverable (assuming this was a scanner auto exposure), i.e. be at least in part a function of the scan, in addition to original exposure
Hi Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was looking to bring out the light behind the Jeep more so to make her eyes look more round and beautiful but I might have went too far, or it was the Rodinal I used which can be pretty high on contrast if not handled carefully (which I probably did not) OR the scanner which I used the Canoscan 8800F and no post processing. I went back and looked at my negative and I think it might be the scanner but I cant be sure unless I scan it again maybe using the software. I usually have all the correcting software turned off. hmm - I like the Rodinal but since I started using the Kodak Tmax mix I think I prefer it more to the Rodinal it might have come out better with the Tmax.
09-29-2010, 01:59 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 638
Rodinal is amazing with low-speed film, but with higher speed film I've noticed I don't get the results I like. It makes grain more noticeable, which sometimes isn't the look I want. It's a developer capable of producing amazingly sharp negatives, which also enhances grain.

I use D-76 for higher speed film (400+) and Rodinal for lower film (200-). I love the look of Fuji Acros developed in Rodinal, pushed slightly to ISO 125 or 150. Great contrast and sharpness.
09-30-2010, 04:04 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 392
Cool car. You should try a wet print, at least in order to determine your personal preference. Its impossible to show what they look like from scans as scanners' D-ranges are too small. Detail is sublime, as there are no pixels. It keeps you off the computer, and it means you have a permanent print (provide you wash it). Aesthetically, I find making prints of my new baby very satisfying, bringing me closer in the whole process, making it feel a little bit more like an art. However, I am also using a digital to placate family who want military mug shot documentation.

All you need is a tank for processing (3), an enlarger (5) with lens (15) and timer (free, its part of the enlarger), and a print drum (15) with some rollers (10) and washer (5). Prices are in brackets, enlarger lens is a Nikkor 50/2.8, which cleans the floor with any scanner. Its all I have (no trays, but development of prints is to finality) and the drum is a (Jobo 2830) a life saver, meaning I don't have to work in the dark, there is less smell, and the processing is quicker. I don't muck around with contrast after having established the settings for a roll, I just print everything the same, and rely on my ME exposure meter being consistent. It takes about an hour to process the film (clearing the purple dye from Tmax is a pain) and about 15 minutes for 4 prints. (The Jobo does 4 5x7's at the same time) To get going, I got hold of Hicks and Schultz black and white book which covers the essentials. Its good fun, but I've not tried colour and that looks more tricky. I'm simplifying a little here...but its all quite intuitive, and I have found loads of help online, in clusters of afficionados, like Apug.

I just got rid of my scanner, as I found I could identify potential prints more easily from the negatives on a lightbox, which is also a good idea. Scanning takes a long time to do correctly, and my hit rate is so poor (maybe only 4-8 shots at best per roll of 39 frames are keepers for me) that scanning for me makes little sense. If I need to document stuff, I shoot digital, if I am looking for an arty print, its film and I process and print it. Family appear to like homemade prints as presents, at least so they pretend.

Give wet printing a try...its not advertised as the next big thing as there is no money in it, no "conspicuous consumption" or obsolescence designed in. And if you want more sharpness, some of this kit will process larger negatives at a later date...I can smell a 645 or 67 on the horizon.

Last edited by whojammyflip; 09-30-2010 at 04:22 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
film, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for a 35mm film camera:))) russ_toma Welcomes and Introductions 3 05-07-2010 05:28 PM
Finger prints on film? NecroticSoldier Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 02-26-2010 11:08 PM
35MM Film Format Community EyeSpy Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 02-11-2010 09:28 PM
Who Process/Scan/Prints Your Film? k100d Pentax Film SLR Discussion 14 09-04-2009 08:56 PM
35mm film Dr_who Post Your Photos! 1 06-19-2009 04:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top