Post your B&W Film shots

tuco · 01-10-2018, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by dsmithhfx

Not what I'm seeing here.

I guess the OP needs to open the lab's file and see if R=G=B. Here is what I'm seeing. 100TMX is notorious for a pink in the neg if not fixed and washed well. And if scanned in color mode, perhaps that's what you get. I dunno. Just guessing.

Attached Images

dsmithhfx · 01-10-2018, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by tuco

I guess the OP needs to open the lab's file and see if R=G=B. Here is what I'm seeing. 100TMX is notorious for a pink in the neg if not fixed and washed well. And if scanned in color mode, perhaps that's what you get. I dunno. Just guessing.

Yeah the OP identified scanner as a Fuji Frontier minilab scanner-printer which only does RGB scans AFAIK. Easily corrected in PP assuming it matters (I suppose bad fix/wash does matter, if that's the issue). I find virtually all displays bestow a color cast of some sort so if you correct for it on one display, you're (probably) making it worse on all the others. For example on my work display, grayscale images have a pronounced yellow cast. Also it has excellent shadow detail, but clips highlights -- the opposite of my home display. This is also dependent on environmental lighting.

tuco · 01-10-2018, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by dsmithhfx

... For example on my work display, grayscale images have a pronounced yellow cast. Also it has excellent shadow detail, but clips highlights -- the opposite of my home display. This is also dependent on environmental lighting.

I have an Eizo ColorEdge CG276, 10-bit monitor but OSX does not support a 10-bit color path via the video driver. So it really sucks the company that advertises creativeness only caters to commodity hardware. And I wonder sometimes if color casts like this that I see are a result of that.

Arjay Bee · 01-11-2018, 02:34 AM - **1 Like**

Thanks for the heads up on that color cast - looking at the negs there does seem to be a purplish look to them. I was intending to do a home scan as well as the lab scans are at 72 point and average around 1meg in size so not much good for printing large. I have an old flatbed Canoscan 5200F with negative holder that I have to use with an XP laptop. Possibly its a RGB only scanner as well. Will need to play with settings and see if I can get it to do good B&W at a higher resolution.

My Asus consumer screen doesn't show the pink tinge so I can only take your word for it. The name of the scanner was about the only comment in the image Exif on the supplied CD

Anyway here are a couple more on the same setup:

dsmithhfx · 01-11-2018, 03:13 AM

Quote:

the lab scans are at 72 point and average around 1meg

Apparently jpegs -- what matters are the pixel dimensions, anything north of ~3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan. Yours are clean and sharp, with good tonal range. You may struggle to exceed that on an old flatbed. Ask the lab if they do a higher res, I've gotten much higher from a fuji minilab run until about a year ago out of Fuji Canada's HQ in Mississauga.

Arjay Bee · 01-11-2018, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by dsmithhfx

Apparently jpegs -- what matters are the pixel dimensions, anything north of ~3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan. Yours are clean and sharp, with good tonal range. You may struggle to exceed that on an old flatbed. Ask the lab if they do a higher res, I've gotten much higher from a fuji minilab run until about a year ago out of Fuji Canada's HQ in Mississauga.

Thank you for that - will follow up on the next roll. I am enjoying what I am getting from the T-Max more than the Ilford XPS I was using earlier - could be partly the processing but film stock is major part of that.

Just checked the supplied jpegs 1840 x 1232 and 72ppi so quite small. I am up-rezing to 150ppi and then downsizing to what you see - a little less than 1000pix on longest side if landscape.

dsmithhfx · 01-11-2018, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Arjay Bee

Thank you for that - will follow up on the next roll. I am enjoying what I am getting from the T-Max more than the Ilford XPS I was using earlier - could be partly the processing but film stock is major part of that.

Just checked the supplied jpegs 1840 x 1232 and 72ppi so quite small. I am up-rezing to 150ppi and then downsizing to what you see - a little less than 1000pix on longest side if landscape.

Yeah that's skimpy for anything but web display.

"3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan" -- I should have said for a mini lab scan -- some labs offer much higher res film scanning (e.g. imacon, drum), more expensive of course.

timw4mail · 01-11-2018, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by dsmithhfx

Yeah that's skimpy for anything but web display.

"3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan" -- I should have said for a mini lab scan -- some labs offer much higher res film scanning (e.g. imacon, drum), more expensive of course.

Considering I can get about 6000x4000 out of 35mm with the PrimeFilm XA, 3000x2000 seems rather skimpy. Then again, lab scans are generally done as a do-as-little-as-possible-for-most-profit kind of endeavor.

dsmithhfx · 01-11-2018, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by timw4mail

Considering I can get about 6000x4000 out of 35mm with the PrimeFilm XA, 3000x2000 seems rather skimpy. Then again, lab scans are generally done as a do-as-little-as-possible-for-most-profit kind of endeavor.

I guess you should stick with your XA, then.

tuco · 01-11-2018, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Arjay Bee

My Asus consumer screen doesn't show the pink tinge so I can only take your word for it.

You can open one of the lab's files in an image editor and look at the RGB values. A grey scale image will have R=G=B throughout the image. A color image will have different values as shown in my screen shot. And if it is indeed a true gray scale image, then it would confirm what I was wondering about my monitor and the lack of 10-bit supported driver.

EDIT: The scans you are getting are really nice otherwise. You can just desaturate them to get rid of the pink.

Arjay Bee · 01-11-2018, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by tuco

You can open one of the lab's files in an image editor and look at the RGB values. A grey scale image will have R=G=B throughout the image. A color image will have different values as shown in my screen shot. And if it is indeed a true gray scale image, then it would confirm what I was wondering about my monitor and the lack of 10-bit supported driver.

EDIT: The scans you are getting are really nice otherwise. You can just desaturate them to get rid of the pink.

Thank you again for all the input. I have the Nik software and use that for the conversion of colour images so a gentle application seems to be called for here. Will keep you posted. I was very happy with the image of the seagulls on the limestone that the white wasn't blown out. Film is great. My k3 would have blown the whites badly especially with the blue sky and river.

Again thank you everyone. Will get back to you.

CreationBear · 01-12-2018, 12:03 PM - **2 Likes**

Playing around with a few old files on a rainy morning:

A question for y'all, though...

Right now, I'm dependent on a lab for both developing and scans, so I'm curious as to your recommendations on how to get them the best quality negative to work with. From perusing the Web, I get the impression that the big error with B&W film is underexposure and over development. (I'm seeing a lot of people rate Acros at 80--or even 50 in a contrast-y scene--then develop N-1 or N-2.) Obviously that approach works better with sheets than it does with roll film, but if I shot most of a roll under roughly the same lighting conditions, do you think it would be worth having the lab under develop? Or is that just too high risk for minimal gain?

timw4mail · 01-12-2018, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by CreationBear

Playing around with a few old files on a rainy morning:

A question for y'all, though...

Right now, I'm dependent on a lab for both developing and scans, so I'm curious as to your recommendations on how to get them the best quality negative to work with. From perusing the Web, I get the impression that the big error with B&W film is underexposure and over development. (I'm seeing a lot of people rate Acros at 80--or even 50 in a contrast-y scene--then develop N-1 or N-2.) Obviously that approach works better with sheets than it does with roll film, but if I shot most of a roll under roughly the same lighting conditions, do you think it would be worth having the lab under develop? Or is that just too high risk for minimal gain?

If you want that level of control, it's probably work experimenting with your own development.

CreationBear · 01-12-2018, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by timw4mail

experimenting with your own development.

That's definitely on the horizon, though the prospect of (inevitably) ruining multiple rolls of film gives me pause, considering how little I shoot.

timw4mail · 01-12-2018, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by CreationBear

That's definitely on the horizon, though the prospect of (inevitably) ruining multiple rolls of film gives me pause, considering how little I shoot.

Ask for some junk film from your lab, and practice with that first, especially with opening the canister, and spooling the film onto your reels.

If you still feel nervous, get some cheap somewhat-expired film, and use that roll for a bunch of throwaway shots, and use that as a test.

(And this discussion is making me ponder developing my own film too...like I did in high school)

01-11-2018, 04:57 AM	#6666
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	Originally posted by dsmithhfx Apparently jpegs -- what matters are the pixel dimensions, anything north of ~3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan. Yours are clean and sharp, with good tonal range. You may struggle to exceed that on an old flatbed. Ask the lab if they do a higher res, I've gotten much higher from a fuji minilab run until about a year ago out of Fuji Canada's HQ in Mississauga. Thank you for that - will follow up on the next roll. I am enjoying what I am getting from the T-Max more than the Ilford XPS I was using earlier - could be partly the processing but film stock is major part of that. Just checked the supplied jpegs 1840 x 1232 and 72ppi so quite small. I am up-rezing to 150ppi and then downsizing to what you see - a little less than 1000pix on longest side if landscape. Last edited by Arjay Bee; 01-11-2018 at 05:04 AM.

01-11-2018, 10:33 AM	#6670
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by Arjay Bee My Asus consumer screen doesn't show the pink tinge so I can only take your word for it. You can open one of the lab's files in an image editor and look at the RGB values. A grey scale image will have R=G=B throughout the image. A color image will have different values as shown in my screen shot. And if it is indeed a true gray scale image, then it would confirm what I was wondering about my monitor and the lack of 10-bit supported driver. EDIT: The scans you are getting are really nice otherwise. You can just desaturate them to get rid of the pink. Last edited by tuco; 01-11-2018 at 10:42 AM. Reason: Add info

01-11-2018, 02:24 PM	#6671
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	Originally posted by tuco You can open one of the lab's files in an image editor and look at the RGB values. A grey scale image will have R=G=B throughout the image. A color image will have different values as shown in my screen shot. And if it is indeed a true gray scale image, then it would confirm what I was wondering about my monitor and the lack of 10-bit supported driver. EDIT: The scans you are getting are really nice otherwise. You can just desaturate them to get rid of the pink. Thank you again for all the input. I have the Nik software and use that for the conversion of colour images so a gentle application seems to be called for here. Will keep you posted. I was very happy with the image of the seagulls on the limestone that the white wasn't blown out. Film is great. My k3 would have blown the whites badly especially with the blue sky and river. Again thank you everyone. Will get back to you. Last edited by Arjay Bee; 01-11-2018 at 03:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
58mm Lens Club - Bring your Biotar, your Helios, your Tak 58mm... bring 'em all!	pepperberry farm	Lens Clubs	310	04-14-2024 06:43 AM
Post-Processing The Film Emulation Challenge - Post your Digital Pictures with that Film look	ChristianRock	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	22	07-14-2023 10:20 AM
I'd Print and Hang This - Your Best Film Shots	Eyewanders	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	102	01-09-2020 01:36 PM
Old tech shootout: your MX-1 vs your phone. Is your MX-1 still holding it's own?	MD Optofonik	Pentax Compact Cameras	7	05-16-2019 07:40 PM
Photo Story Time documents: Show me your genre study, your reportage, your photo story... etc.	christophleipzig	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	11	10-15-2011 06:26 AM

01-10-2018, 10:48 AM	#6661
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by dsmithhfx Not what I'm seeing here. I guess the OP needs to open the lab's file and see if R=G=B. Here is what I'm seeing. 100TMX is notorious for a pink in the neg if not fixed and washed well. And if scanned in color mode, perhaps that's what you get. I dunno. Just guessing. Attached Images

01-10-2018, 11:11 AM	#6662
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,153	Originally posted by tuco I guess the OP needs to open the lab's file and see if R=G=B. Here is what I'm seeing. 100TMX is notorious for a pink in the neg if not fixed and washed well. And if scanned in color mode, perhaps that's what you get. I dunno. Just guessing. Yeah the OP identified scanner as a Fuji Frontier minilab scanner-printer which only does RGB scans AFAIK. Easily corrected in PP assuming it matters (I suppose bad fix/wash does matter, if that's the issue). I find virtually all displays bestow a color cast of some sort so if you correct for it on one display, you're (probably) making it worse on all the others. For example on my work display, grayscale images have a pronounced yellow cast. Also it has excellent shadow detail, but clips highlights -- the opposite of my home display. This is also dependent on environmental lighting.

01-10-2018, 11:25 AM	#6663
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by dsmithhfx ... For example on my work display, grayscale images have a pronounced yellow cast. Also it has excellent shadow detail, but clips highlights -- the opposite of my home display. This is also dependent on environmental lighting. I have an Eizo ColorEdge CG276, 10-bit monitor but OSX does not support a 10-bit color path via the video driver. So it really sucks the company that advertises creativeness only caters to commodity hardware. And I wonder sometimes if color casts like this that I see are a result of that.

01-11-2018, 02:34 AM - 1 Like	#6664
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	Thanks for the heads up on that color cast - looking at the negs there does seem to be a purplish look to them. I was intending to do a home scan as well as the lab scans are at 72 point and average around 1meg in size so not much good for printing large. I have an old flatbed Canoscan 5200F with negative holder that I have to use with an XP laptop. Possibly its a RGB only scanner as well. Will need to play with settings and see if I can get it to do good B&W at a higher resolution. My Asus consumer screen doesn't show the pink tinge so I can only take your word for it. The name of the scanner was about the only comment in the image Exif on the supplied CD Anyway here are a couple more on the same setup:

01-11-2018, 03:13 AM	#6665
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,153	Quote: the lab scans are at 72 point and average around 1meg Apparently jpegs -- what matters are the pixel dimensions, anything north of ~3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan. Yours are clean and sharp, with good tonal range. You may struggle to exceed that on an old flatbed. Ask the lab if they do a higher res, I've gotten much higher from a fuji minilab run until about a year ago out of Fuji Canada's HQ in Mississauga.

01-11-2018, 06:47 AM	#6667
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,153	Originally posted by Arjay Bee Thank you for that - will follow up on the next roll. I am enjoying what I am getting from the T-Max more than the Ilford XPS I was using earlier - could be partly the processing but film stock is major part of that. Just checked the supplied jpegs 1840 x 1232 and 72ppi so quite small. I am up-rezing to 150ppi and then downsizing to what you see - a little less than 1000pix on longest side if landscape. Yeah that's skimpy for anything but web display. "3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan" -- I should have said for a mini lab scan -- some labs offer much higher res film scanning (e.g. imacon, drum), more expensive of course.

01-11-2018, 07:47 AM	#6668
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Originally posted by dsmithhfx Yeah that's skimpy for anything but web display. "3,000x2000 is reasonably good for a lab scan" -- I should have said for a mini lab scan -- some labs offer much higher res film scanning (e.g. imacon, drum), more expensive of course. Considering I can get about 6000x4000 out of 35mm with the PrimeFilm XA, 3000x2000 seems rather skimpy. Then again, lab scans are generally done as a do-as-little-as-possible-for-most-profit kind of endeavor.

01-11-2018, 09:18 AM	#6669
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,153	Originally posted by timw4mail Considering I can get about 6000x4000 out of 35mm with the PrimeFilm XA, 3000x2000 seems rather skimpy. Then again, lab scans are generally done as a do-as-little-as-possible-for-most-profit kind of endeavor. I guess you should stick with your XA, then.

01-12-2018, 12:03 PM - 2 Likes	#6672
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	Playing around with a few old files on a rainy morning: A question for y'all, though... Right now, I'm dependent on a lab for both developing and scans, so I'm curious as to your recommendations on how to get them the best quality negative to work with. From perusing the Web, I get the impression that the big error with B&W film is underexposure and over development. (I'm seeing a lot of people rate Acros at 80--or even 50 in a contrast-y scene--then develop N-1 or N-2.) Obviously that approach works better with sheets than it does with roll film, but if I shot most of a roll under roughly the same lighting conditions, do you think it would be worth having the lab under develop? Or is that just too high risk for minimal gain?

01-12-2018, 12:19 PM	#6673
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Originally posted by CreationBear Playing around with a few old files on a rainy morning: A question for y'all, though... Right now, I'm dependent on a lab for both developing and scans, so I'm curious as to your recommendations on how to get them the best quality negative to work with. From perusing the Web, I get the impression that the big error with B&W film is underexposure and over development. (I'm seeing a lot of people rate Acros at 80--or even 50 in a contrast-y scene--then develop N-1 or N-2.) Obviously that approach works better with sheets than it does with roll film, but if I shot most of a roll under roughly the same lighting conditions, do you think it would be worth having the lab under develop? Or is that just too high risk for minimal gain? If you want that level of control, it's probably work experimenting with your own development.

01-12-2018, 12:39 PM	#6674
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	Originally posted by timw4mail experimenting with your own development. That's definitely on the horizon, though the prospect of (inevitably) ruining multiple rolls of film gives me pause, considering how little I shoot.

01-12-2018, 01:36 PM	#6675
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Originally posted by CreationBear That's definitely on the horizon, though the prospect of (inevitably) ruining multiple rolls of film gives me pause, considering how little I shoot. Ask for some junk film from your lab, and practice with that first, especially with opening the canister, and spooling the film onto your reels. If you still feel nervous, get some cheap somewhat-expired film, and use that roll for a bunch of throwaway shots, and use that as a test. (And this discussion is making me ponder developing my own film too...like I did in high school)