[takis63]

If it was old stock Agfa, it would have required special development if you wanted slides. The same is true for current product Adox Scala. Both can be developed to B&W negatives using processing similar to that of Agfa APX 100 (original type) or Adox Silvermax. Here in the U.S., the preferred lab is:

dr5 Film Lab - dr5-B&W-slide - B&W-negative - C41 - E6 - Film Processing World Wide

The process is standard B&W reversal, but dr5 is very good at it. B&W reversal is NOT the same as E6.


Steve

You're probably right Steve. I can't remember for sure, it's been a while since i shot it

[IgorZ]

If it was old stock Agfa, it would have required special development if you wanted slides. The same is true for current product Adox Scala. Both can be developed to B&W negatives using processing similar to that of Agfa APX 100 (original type) or Adox Silvermax. Here in the U.S., the preferred lab is:

dr5 Film Lab - dr5-B&W-slide - B&W-negative - C41 - E6 - Film Processing World Wide

The process is standard B&W reversal, but dr5 is very good at it. B&W reversal is NOT the same as E6.

Instructions for amateur development:

www.ars-imago.com/productinfos/osbahr_reversal_films.pdf



Steve

That's why I was asking. I have been thinking of trying it, but I am not used to the idea of sending stuff out for development... I guess now that my local lab does not do E6 anymore, I might as well get used to it

[RaceAddict]

I'm going to be honest here, this is Kodak Ultramax 400, and I definitely played with colors / saturation in Photoshop to get here;

That must be some old Ultramax... I shot 3 rolls recently and they turned our phenomenal straight from the processor.

[pres589]

It's not old. I took to a lab in the area that seems pretty well respected. I can try to re-copy it this evening and post a more faithful, unmodified version. It's weird because it's like nothing is quite in focus. That should have been shot at f8 or f11.

[pres589]

Okay here's that mess;



I use an LED light table and a home-brew light tube / negative slider thing (I haven't named it yet) that allows a plastic negative holder to slide over a hole in the slider thing so that light only shines through one exposure at a time. I've got a Ricoh 105mm Macro (the Kino Precision f2.8) hanging off of my K-5 II aimed straight down through the negative.

I set the camera for no anti-shake, white balance of 5000k, f8 aperture. ISO 100 requires an exposure time of 1/20. I was much more careful with focusing the lens this time around. Shooting RAW, I pull the shot into Lightroom, and invert the tone curve, giving a sort of screwed up positive image from the negative. I use the automatic function for Tone and then use the eye dropper tool to automatically adjust the white balance. I used a cloud in the image to try and source a reference for Lightroom to use. I then pulled the image into Photoshop Elements, cleaned up some lint (cheap gloves for handling negatives are the source, I think) and cropped and resized. Saved to JPEG in Photoshop at a quality level of 9.

Thoughts?

[Summer25]

I've heard they do good work. Myself, and several others do our own developing and scanning, so as you put things together, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'm sure one of us has an answer for you.

I’ve been pretty happy with their work so far! I was able to get a couple of developing trays from the lady, a 35mm tank with reel made of stainless steel that I thought pretty cool and a timer. I’ll definitely take you up on that and ask if I have any questions. Thanks again!

[Swift1]

This was done partly as a test of my Canon 50/2.2 LTM lens. It was shot wide open at f/2.2 and near infinity focus distance. I think I misfocused a bit , but I think the lens did pretty well.

Canon 7 rangefinder
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750-M Pro

[aaacb]

Thoughts

Detail and white balance looks good, but it's a little faded (low contrast). From previous experience of scanning negatives with a dslr+macro lens, you could boost contrast quite a bit.

[abruzzi]

Okay here's that mess;



I use an LED light table and a home-brew light tube / negative slider thing (I haven't named it yet) that allows a plastic negative holder to slide over a hole in the slider thing so that light only shines through one exposure at a time. I've got a Ricoh 105mm Macro (the Kino Precision f2.8) hanging off of my K-5 II aimed straight down through the negative.

I set the camera for no anti-shake, white balance of 5000k, f8 aperture. ISO 100 requires an exposure time of 1/20. I was much more careful with focusing the lens this time around. Shooting RAW, I pull the shot into Lightroom, and invert the tone curve, giving a sort of screwed up positive image from the negative. I use the automatic function for Tone and then use the eye dropper tool to automatically adjust the white balance. I used a cloud in the image to try and source a reference for Lightroom to use. I then pulled the image into Photoshop Elements, cleaned up some lint (cheap gloves for handling negatives are the source, I think) and cropped and resized. Saved to JPEG in Photoshop at a quality level of 9.

Thoughts?

A couple. I read somewhere that before inverting the color (this is assuming your in photoshop, most other apps will work the same but may look different) open the curves adjustment or levels adjustment. On both of those windows there are three eyedroppers for setting black, white and middle grey. Select the white eyedropper and click in the orange outside of the image. That will set the orange mask as the white point. (since nothing can be brighter than the orange.) Then when you do your invert, you won't have to tweak colors as much.

Second, if you look at the RGB histogram for the image you'll see that most of the pixels are right in the middle, and none are above 60%. This is how my Black and White show up initially. Here is what I do--just a starting point--open curves again. Drag the white point down to the brightest pixels on the histogram, drag the black point up the darkest pixels in the histogram. Basically this gives you real white and real black. This may be a little much so back off either if it doesn't suit the picture. Finally, on most of my shots, I change the straight line from the black point to the white point to a curved line by pulling it down a bit. How much is taste, but this improves contrast.

[ctrout]

Here are two of the same shot taken on Ilford Delta 400. The first was copied with an EOS 5D mark iv, Super macro Takumar 50mm f4. The second was scanned on my Canoscan 9000f ii.

[skierd]

Wynwood Walls, Miami. Olympus XA, Provia 100F, developed and scanned by The Darkroom

[skierd]

Cat on a fermenter, Casa El Enemigo winery and restaurant, Maipu, Mendoza, Argentina. Olympus XA, Kodak Tri-X 400

[dsmithhfx]

[dsmithhfx]

Here are two of the same shot taken on Ilford Delta 400. The first was copied with an EOS 5D mark iv, Super macro Takumar 50mm f4. The second was scanned on my Canoscan 9000f ii.

Interesting comparison. The DSLR capture has better detail and contrast, but the periphery is cropped out -- deliberate? (I like the 'uncropped' scanner version)

[ctrout]

Interesting comparison. The DSLR capture has better detail and contrast, but the periphery is cropped out -- deliberate? (I like the 'uncropped' scanner version)

I wouldn't say that the crop was deliberate. I did is as a quick test to compare the quality of the two different scans and didn't take the time to accurately align the negative so I ended up inadvertantly cropping a bit off. What this test does show is that even a quick scan with my 5D4 shows noticeably better crispness and clarity when viewed side by side. Without the side by side comparison though, I would never suspect a lack of usable quality in the scanned copy.