[LesDMess]

You are more limited in scanning technology dynamic range than in the film dynamic range, although there are ways around that as well like scanning with multiple exposures or using a modern digital to do the scans.

That's correct. In this example I scanned a relatively contrasty slide film - Fuji Velvia 100 (RVP100), at baseline exposure, +1 and +2 using the Analog Gain in Nikonscan and merged the three using HDR. I also compare the results to just using Shadows tool on the baseline 0 scan.



Obviously a bit more work using three scan exposures s + HDR compared to just 1 scan and Shadows/Highlights tool. They look distinctively different.

[LesDMess]

This information could be a good start on revitalizing the film industry, and raise interest in the old more manual film SLRs. Of course a decrease in some of the costs for film and processing would also be a big help.

By no means am I the first to know this fact. I recall seeing a review of Kodak chromogenic b&w film (I think BW400CN?) in a 70's Modern Photography where it was stated it had near endless overexposure characteristic. So I started testing film in this manner just so I would know what I can expect from it. More important with slide film which I have found to be much narrower - easier to blowout the highlights like digi.

Film prices is what it is but I am glad I have a local processing lab - Bay Photo, that will process color negatives in less then an hour depending on workload. Saves postage and I really appreciate the convenience and turnaround times.

[stephen_G]

Just my $0.02....

I love Kodak Tri-X. I love it for its slightly darker contrast over Illford HP5. Unfortunately, Kodak Tri-X has become very expensive, and HP5 is starting to become a new go-to film for me. Nothing wrong with HP5...I just like Kodak better...but I'm liking it less the more its price goes up. Illford FP4 is an absolutely wonderful lower speed B&W film. For "around" the 100 ASA speed mark, I think its the best all purpose B&W film you can get. Of course, with FP4...be careful of low light situations...

For color.. the consumer grade Kodak Gold 200, and Ultramax 400 are strong performers. I've used Ektar 100.. it's great but expensive; Portra is wonderful, but the same caveat. They are "nicer" than the consumer grade films, but at a cost.

If your getting back in the swing of things, IMHO, try Illford HP5 for B&W, and Kodak Ultramax 400 for color. I don't think you'll be disappointed with those two film stocks as a jumping off point.

Thanks for the advice, I've just bought some Kodak Ultramax 400 for my return to film photography after a long break. Hoping for good results.

---------- Post added 12-22-21 at 06:36 AM ----------

I highly recommend shooting black and white and processing it yourself at home. Its basically easy to do now with apps like Massive Dev Chart. You get this instant feedback, and if you buy a camera its super cheap to shoot a test roll. I recommend Ilford FP4 or HP5 at box speed with D76 or XTOL chemicals. Other highly recommended stocks are Fuji Acros II, Portra 400 if you want to do color, and I love Kodak Gold and Fuji C200 drugstore film. Unfortunately the costs of drugstore film have skyrocketed so now its not such a good deal as its pretty much as expensive or more expensive than the previous films mentioned.

Thanks for your advice.

---------- Post added 12-22-21 at 06:38 AM ----------

FP4 is a lot more expensive than I'd like it to be, I recommend maybe Fomapan 200 as a cheaper alternative. HP5 is worth it just because it's so flexible and pretty much catches a scene no matter how challenging it is. Acros and Portra are also really expensive! Worth it maybe, but a pain to pay for.

Thanks for your advice.

---------- Post added 12-22-21 at 06:46 AM ----------

If you're coming from digi back to film, one thing to keep in mind is that most all color negatives and b&w film have near endless overexposure latitude specially compared to digi - even RAW.
As you can see from these results, Kodak Portra 400 can be overexposed by 10 stops and still recoverable with simple post work of white balance and levels while RAW digi cannot even achieve +3.



I didn't expect Kodak Ektar 100 to go as far since it is a more contrasty film but I was wrong.

Knowing this, I came upon this scene that my camera suggested a 1/60 shutter speed but I figure I needed 2 seconds in order to achieve a smoother water flow. Knowing the Fuji 100 can handle this much overexposure, I shot it at 2 seconds confident I can use the results with no problems. Normal processing at box speed.



Although the film may have captured a very wide latitude scene, you may need to apply some post work to bring out the detail. For instance in this scene using Kodak Ektar 100, I had to use the Shadows tool to bring out the details hidden in the shadows due to a noon sun.

I'm actually re-visitng film after a long break from photography.(I have a DSLR on order too, but it is taking some time to arive, so a good opportunity to get out and shoot some film shots). Thanks for your images and examples, really interesting. I will need to get my film processed by a lab to get the image files. Can you recommend a file format for me to request from the lab so that I can manipulate the images? (I'm completely new to the post work side of things).

[womble]

Can you recommend a file format for me to request from the lab so that I can manipulate the images? (I'm completely new to the post work side of things).

Most labs offer a choice of jpg or tif. Tif files will give you more flexibility at the expense of (a) file size and (b) cost as labs typically charge more for tifs. Personally, I just pay for the basic jpgs which are mostly fine for posting online and general use. If there is an image I want to do more with, I then scan/photograph it myself.

I've stopped getting prints with my films now. Mostly, when I am trying to be "arty" (rather than record events or work images), a 4x6 print is of little use to me. I'm trying to make myself go through dozens (hundreds?) of packets of prints and pick-out the few I want to keep and to bin the rest. The negs, on the other hand, are filed away in good quality sleeves and folders.

[stephen_G]

Most labs offer a choice of jpg or tif. Tif files will give you more flexibility at the expense of (a) file size and (b) cost as labs typically charge more for tifs. Personally, I just pay for the basic jpgs which are mostly fine for posting online and general use. If there is an image I want to do more with, I then scan/photograph it myself.

I've stopped getting prints with my films now. Mostly, when I am trying to be "arty" (rather than record events or work images), a 4x6 print is of little use to me. I'm trying to make myself go through dozens (hundreds?) of packets of prints and pick-out the few I want to keep and to bin the rest. The negs, on the other hand, are filed away in good quality sleeves and folders.

Great advice, many thanks.

[ismaelg]

Hello,

Years ago I was testing a pre-set lens on a film body. Set the lens (most likely f11 or f16), opened up, composed, focused and BAM! Pressed the shutter without closing it. "ARGH!! [BLEEP] I just wasted a frame!"
I was surprised when I got this as it is about 4 or 5 stops overexposed. I think this was cheap Walgreens 200 film.



I actually preferred this over the properly exposed frame with everything in focus.

Thanks,
Ismael

[LesDMess]

I'm actually re-visitng film after a long break from photography.(I have a DSLR on order too, but it is taking some time to arive, so a good opportunity to get out and shoot some film shots). Thanks for your images and examples, really interesting. I will need to get my film processed by a lab to get the image files. Can you recommend a file format for me to request from the lab so that I can manipulate the images? (I'm completely new to the post work side of things).

I agree with Kris's response above, ideally an uncompressed file format like TIF but if JPEG one that is saved with a low compression. For reference, a full res 4000dpi scan of 35mm is about 5600 X 3700 pixel size and a 16bit TIF is about 125MB while a 0 compression 8bit JPEG is about 20MB. So if the shot was "properly exposed" and the scan is good, then post work may not even be needed and a relatively low compression JPEG may be good enough for the final use depending on the cost.

For reference, this is a full res scan of Kodak Portra 400 in a highly compressed JPEG format of less then 2MB and I did not apply any post except for crop and text. Depending on final use, would you have needed the full res to adjust grain or sharpness? In your own judgement, would you have needed a TIF file to adjust exposure, color, contrast? Of course getting the full res uncompressed file will allow you to make those decisions after the fact and only you can decide.

[tonyzoc]

I've been shooting HP5+, Delta 100 and Tri-X and developing in D76. I've been trying to find some Microdol-X developer, which is what I'd prefer back in the day. I have picked up a couple of 1 gallon packs, both of which have browning of the package... and I'm assuming allot of oxidation has occured. I haven't mixed up a gallon yet, but I'm going to give it a try.

Is there any decent fine grain developer available that's comparable to Microdol-X?

[LesDMess]

Is there any decent fine grain developer available that's comparable to Microdol-X?

As I understand it, XTOL replaced Microdol-X. I have not done a controlled comparison myself but used to have a colleague who was really into it - shooting TMAX100 as ISO 3200 and pull processing with XTOL and his results look very useful. He also shot at box speed and processed normally and really preferred TMAX and XTOL. Unfortunately his site of full res scans is no longer up.

[disconnekt]

I've been shooting HP5+, Delta 100 and Tri-X and developing in D76. I've been trying to find some Microdol-X developer, which is what I'd prefer back in the day. I have picked up a couple of 1 gallon packs, both of which have browning of the package... and I'm assuming allot of oxidation has occured. I haven't mixed up a gallon yet, but I'm going to give it a try.

Is there any decent fine grain developer available that's comparable to Microdol-X?

Freestylephoto has a Legacy Pro version of it: LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer (Makes 1 Gallon) | Freestyle Photo & Imaging)

[ChrisPlatt]

When I first started developing I too preferred Microdol-X to D-76.
A few years ago I tried the Freestyle clone and got excellent results.

Today I develop sporadically and use only long-lasting concentrates,
i.e. HC-110 and Rodinal clones.

Chris

[tonyzoc]

Thanks for the info... I got XTOL ordered and looking into getting a gallon of Mic-X to test them out.