Almost the First Time

Hatchetman · Aug 13, 2015

I'm not exactly sure what all we're talking about here, but scanning 35mm film is a nightmare unless you have it done by a professional and that is going to cost big bucks. I just scanned some slides from Niagara Falls on my flatbed at home and they look like crap honestly. The only way I will be able to enjoy them will be either: 1) project them, which I will, or 2) send them to a good scanning lab which costs big $$. Glad my wife brought my DSLR for sending to friends/family via electronic means.

Ricardo Miranda · Aug 13, 2015

You are really behind, some 10 years to be more exact.

Ilford and Kentmere films are made in the same factory as they have been for a long time. It was just the name over the door that changed from Ilford Ltd to Harman Technology Ltd in 2004 as the result of the emergence from liquidation.
Harman is simply a group of 6 people who all worked on the Ilford factory. They bought the factory and rights to continue to make Ilford film, papers and chemicals.
Harman is the name of the founder of Ilford.
Harman/Ilford is the oldest company still making film.

I'm not admired you haven't heard of Adox, Foma and ORWO (ORiginal WOlffen). These are manufacturers more associated with the East side of the Berlin wall.
They are very old names now. Some like ADOX have been resurrected in the last 20 years.

Foma, Ilford, Fuji and Koda are the only factories remaining capable of producing film from scratch to the finished box. The others can only do one part of the process. Typically they can only do the slitting and finishing of films in their factories.
In fact, ADOX now has the smallest chemical factory in the world.

Films for Foma and ADOX are normally of the old cubic grain type and are excellent quality for the low price.
Please try them and the chemicals made by these factories.
I like Fomapan 400 and the NEW Retropan 320 Soft, as well as Fomadon R09 developer, a version of Rodinal.

ColColt · Aug 13, 2015

I stopped, for the most part, shooting 35mm back in the early to mid 90's when I went to medium format. I probably developed my last roll of film around the late 90's as I got out of photography for a period of time and only within the last maybe six months came back. I had bought several DSLR's during the interim so, no film developing for a long time.

I was surprised there was no more Agfapan 400 when I went searching for it, nor was Rodinal or FG-7 available. I understand Adox is making Rodinal under that name again. You can see I'm well behind. I can't pin point it at this point but my current problem may be more scanner/negative flatness related than film related. I've only had a scanner for a few months so that was a definite learning curve. I did much better in the darkroom with Dektol and Oriental Seagull than with this scanner but if you want jpegs to send to friends, Flickr, etc. you can't do it with an 8x10. That's why I bought the scanner.

Xmas · Aug 13, 2015

Ricardo Miranda said:
You are really behind, some 10 years to be more exact.

Ilford and Kentmere films are made in the same factory as they have been for a long time. It was just the name over the door that changed from Ilford Ltd to Harman Technology Ltd in 2004 as the result of the emergence from liquidation.
Harman is simply a group of 6 people who all worked on the Ilford factory. They bought the factory and rights to continue to make Ilford film, papers and chemicals.
Harman is the name of the founder of Ilford.
Harman/Ilford is the oldest company still making film.

I'm not admired you haven't heard of Adox, Foma and ORWO (ORiginal WOlffen). These are manufacturers more associated with the East side of the Berlin wall.
They are very old names now. Some like ADOX have been resurrected in the last 20 years.

Foma, Ilford, Fuji and Koda are the only factories remaining capable of producing film from scratch to the finished box. The others can only do one part of the process. Typically they can only do the slitting and finishing of films in their factories.
In fact, ADOX now has the smallest chemical factory in the world.

Films for Foma and ADOX are normally of the old cubic grain type and are excellent quality for the low price.
Please try them and the chemicals made by these factories.
I like Fomapan 400 and the NEW Retropan 320 Soft, as well as Fomadon R09 developer, a version of Rodinal.

Hi Ricardo

Filmotec
http://www.filmotec.de
Have sold off their acetate production (like Kodak) but they still be coat and can film B&H cine film still? In 100 foot in some markets?
My German is not good enough to be confident...

Noel

Ricardo Miranda · Aug 14, 2015

Hi Noel

Fortunately there is a version of it in English.
I'm not sure of their coating capabilities, only of their finishing.

The link you posted for the trial pack in 135 cassettes, also shown the bulk film prices. That ORWO film is more expensive than Ilford Hp5+.

Ricardo Miranda · Aug 14, 2015

nor was Rodinal or FG-7 available. I understand Adox is making Rodinal under that name again.

Rodinal is available under other brands and names like Fomadon R09.

pdeeh · Aug 14, 2015

Hatchetman said:
scanning 35mm film is a nightmare unless you have it done by a professional and that is going to cost big bucks. I just scanned some slides from Niagara Falls on my flatbed at home and they look like crap honestly. The only way I will be able to enjoy them will be either: 1) project them, which I will, or 2) send them to a good scanning lab which costs big $$. Glad my wife brought my DSLR for sending to friends/family via electronic means.

My emphasis added.

This is simply not true. Really excellent results can be had from home scanning. One does need to have a decent flatbed scanner designed with film scanning in mind, or even a dedicated 135 scanner, and one does need to know the capabilities of one's scanner and software.

Just like when we have bad results from developing, we have to look at our own processes before we start blaming the film, developer etc.

If you are seeking absolutely perfect scans suitable for "fine-art" hybrid printing at huge sizes, it's probably time to look for a pro, but I'd have thought that is massive overkill for most people who want to web-share or produce small inkjet prints.

This is venturing dangerously towards being off-topic for APUG, so I'll leave it there

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

The Rodinal patent date is in 19th century so the concentrated alkali paraaminophenol has been a generic for a century or there about.

It is quite practical to clone it or alternatively a near copy from pain killer and drain cleaner the latter same dilution, times and longevity.

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

pdeeh said:
My emphasis added.

This is simply not true. Really excellent results can be had from home scanning. One does need to have a decent flatbed scanner designed with film scanning in mind, or even a dedicated 135 scanner, and one does need to know the capabilities of one's scanner and software.

Just like when we have bad results from developing, we have to look at our own processes before we start blaming the film, developer etc.

If you are seeking absolutely perfect scans suitable for "fine-art" hybrid printing at huge sizes, it's probably time to look for a pro, but otherwise it's massively overkill for most people.

This is venturing dangerously towards being off-topic for APUG, so I'll leave it there

I regret to disagree you get better results by wet printing. And sticking the print on a generic allinone printer, fax, etc.

And you are both on wrong fora.

miha · Aug 14, 2015

Ricardo Miranda said:
Hi Noel

Fortunately there is a version of it in English.
I'm not sure of their coating capabilities, only of their finishing.

The link you posted for the trial pack in 135 cassettes, also shown the bulk film prices. That ORWO film is more expensive than Ilford Hp5+.

Hi Ricardo, they do the coating in house.

pdeeh · Aug 14, 2015

Xmas said:
I regret to disagree you get better results by wet printing. And sticking the print on a generic allinone printer, fax, etc.

And you are both on wrong fora.

What on earth are you talking about?

I haven't said anything to suggest that hybrid printing is better than wet, simply that it is perfectly possible to produce good scans at home.

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

miha said:
Noel, it's available as Bergger BRF 400 Plus and Argenti Reporter ARF 400 Plus http://www.foto-r3.com/es/argenti-reporter-film-plus-400-arf-35mm-36-dx-new.html

Hi Ricardo

The trial pack cassettes looked like hand loaded? Alas the site is misbehaving today!
miha's link cassettes looked like labels were professional and were cheaper.

Note they say made in Germany not made in EU

I'd buy 1000 or 400 foot as cine or may get short ends.

The dialogue was for the OP who likes Trix and APX400.

The OP may be able to source 5222 which is closer to Trix signature and curls less.

The only good that happened during the OPs interregnum is cheap drug dealers micro scales suitable for 0.01gm to scratch mix up of Rodinal or Microphen.

And I like the photo in the thread.

Noel

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

miha said:
Hi Ricardo, they do the coating in house.

That was my appreciation too.

Ricardo Miranda · Aug 14, 2015

Ah, thanks miha and Noel.

Noel
That N&T site has ORWO 100ft at £65, but Ilford FP4+ at £60.
I can get HP5+ 100ft fresh from factory delivered next day for less than £60.

Sorry about the off topic.

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

Hi Ricardo

You were not off topic that I could detect.
The UK £ or are useful but you did omit.

The equivalent 100 foot of Kentmere 400 is about 43.0£?
The equivalent 100 foot of Tx about 150.0£?

The OP will be buying in $ and his 135 retail will be way different.

Eg he may prefer Kentmere 400's grain signature for nostalgia.

Hatchetman · Aug 14, 2015

pdeeh said:
Really excellent results can be had from home scanning. One does need to have a decent flatbed scanner designed with film scanning in mind, or even a dedicated 135 scanner, and one does need to know the capabilities of one's scanner and software.

Well, I know the problem isn't Tri-X film, because I know the stuff can achieve outstanding results. So I am thinking the OP's problems are in the scanning process. Scanning has a significant learning curve and requires good equipment. The film isn't the problem here IMO.

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

Hatchetman said:
Well, I know the problem isn't Tri-X film, because I know the stuff can achieve outstanding results. So I am thinking the OP's problems are in the scanning process. Scanning has a significant learning curve and requires good equipment. The film isn't the problem here IMO.

You are correct about the Trix but not about the scanner the OP has posted a Trix scan from the past in the thread.
The problem is Tx curl probably from a low humidity dry off.

I don't get much Tx curl but my humidity is 85% or more.

ColColt · Aug 14, 2015

To eliminate the possibility that my M2 may have a very slight vertical misalignment I'm shootiing another roll of Tri-X today and will shot the same(or near) objects I shot with the Leica. I'm using a tried and true veteran that I know always does well, my 1974 Nikon FTN. If all is well and sharp with these negatives I'll know it's the rangefinder alignment and/or the curly Tri-X. If not-I'm not sure.

One thing I do intend on doing is letting the film dry with more humidity. I've never had to do that before always letting it dry in the same room for years. Of course, back then I wasn't using a scanner either. I'm considering getting a more dedicated scanner, maybe one of the Plustek models to see if that won't improve things a bit.

Tri-X has always been a wonderful film and I hate to abandon it but if necessary will. I can't image it being the problem at all but I've learned not to rule out anything. I'll just take one issue at a time but I'm leaning on either the rangefinder or the curl as the problem areas to focus on.

Hatchetman · Aug 14, 2015

Aha. I missed that. The curl should go away after a few days pressed in a binder or book I would think.

ColColt · Aug 14, 2015

I'm not saying the focus problem with the scanner and the resultant negatives didn't appear as sharp as they should, I think I've nailed the other problem. No wonder these negatives looked like crap with curls and my rangefinder being off in vertical alighment.

I thought something was a little out of whack and talked with Youxin Ye about it. He suggested I get some good screwdrivers like the Whia brand and turn that little offset screw a touch CW till the images converged. I bought a set of six and used the recommended 2mm tip. I focused on some large text I had noticed was not coming together with the original object being higher than the light image in the patch. After turning that little screw a bit it brought it all together. Before you couldn't read the text plainly-now you can. So, maybe part of the focus problem lay in the fact I was having a hard time discerning focus and wasn't quite sure if what I had started to focus on was indeed in the best focus.

I took the camera and two lens outside, focused on a variety of things I had tried before and voila, viva la difference! Now, between that and getting flatter negatives I may have finally conquered this. I need to run another roll of film through the M2 to confirm my findings. Ain't it good when things come together?

MartinP · Aug 14, 2015

ColColt said:
I've only had a scanner for a few months so that was a definite learning curve. I did much better in the darkroom with Dektol and Oriental Seagull than with this scanner but if you want jpegs to send to friends, Flickr, etc. you can't do it with an 8x10. That's why I bought the scanner.

For web-pictures, you will probably find it more effective to photograph the darkroom print with a digi camera of some sort. For slightly higher quality, borrow a DSLR and a macro lens then photograph the negative over a lightbox or similar.

ColColt · Aug 14, 2015

I have a Nikon D7000 and a 60 f2.8 Micro Nikkor lens. I've read of those who have used a macro(micro) lens to copy negatives but haven't tried it myself. That sort of negates the need for a scanner it seems.

ColColt · Aug 15, 2015

I've read somewhere, maybe in this thread or another, where someone mentioned drying in an atmosphere of about 75-85% humidity. Other than cutting the shower on and letting it run about 10-15 minutes there's no where in this house to achieve that sort of high humidity. Nearly everywhere is around 45%, plus or minus.

Xmas · Aug 15, 2015

Confirmed process film and before you hang it up
run hot shower for five
Hang film
Close bathroom door for 12 hours

I don't get much curl with Tmax or Tx.

ColColt · Aug 15, 2015

Close bathroom door for 12 hours

Right...if it takes that long I need to find another method.

Almost the First Time

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency