Film processing confusion in need of being educated...

[Randall Nguyen]

This topic is something that has been mind boggling as a newbie for a while but film developing shops there's are separate listings in that you can purchase "Developing" which is one price another option is "Scanning". What I don't understand from my limited knowledge is that I know that developing is something you cannot avoid to process film but my question is why are they separated because wouldn't you want to buy them both no matter what because those two procedures are needed to actually SEE your photos? What are the scenarios that would occur to ONLY scan your film or ONLY develop your film. Please educate me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Traditionally one could have film developed and printed. Today some people want film developed, printed and scanned to a CD so that they can put the scanned photographs directly on their computer and the internet. When one brings in film to be developed, one should ask if they will get the negatives back because some places such as Walgreens do not return the negatives. Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives, while reproducing prints from scans have the image go through and intermediate step. I recommend that you always get the negatives back and optionally, at your choice, get scanned copies of the negatives. That would give you the most flexibility: darkroom processing and/or computer processing.

 

[Randall Nguyen]

Traditionally one could have film developed and printed. Today some people want film developed, printed and scanned to a CD so that they can put the scanned photographs directly on their computer and the internet. When one brings in film to be developed, one should ask if they will get the negatives back because some places such as Walgreens do not return the negatives. Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives, while reproducing prints from scans have the image go through and intermediate step. I recommend that you always get the negatives back and optionally, at your choice, get scanned copies of the negatives. That would give you the most flexibility: darkroom processing and/or computer processing.

Thank you so much for answering!

When you state "Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives", is there a difference between making prints made directly from the negatives (characteristics of photos)? Where and how would you get that process been done? I promise last question that I'll ask but just to clarify when you say "prints" meaning like actually physical paper prints correct?

 

[mshchem]

Thank you so much for answering!

When you state "Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives", is there a difference between making prints made directly from the negatives (characteristics of photos)? Where and how would you get that process been done? I promise last question that I'll ask but just to clarify when you say "prints" meaning like actually physical paper prints correct?

Optical prints made with a excellent enlarger lens are better than minilab scans and prints IMHO. A high resolution scan and a high resolution digital C print is also amazing.
I like to make my own color enlargements. When my friend was running his shop I would have him develop my film. The lab had stickers for the envelope "Develop Only" and because I use Printfile negative page another sticker "Do Not Cut" was used as well. Very 20th century
Ask as many questions as you want

 

[Randall Nguyen]

Optical prints made with a excellent enlarger lens are better than minilab scans and prints IMHO. A high resolution scan and a high resolution digital C print is also amazing.
I like to make my own color enlargements. When my friend was running his shop I would have him develop my film. The lab had stickers for the envelope "Develop Only" and because I use Printfile negative page another sticker "Do Not Cut" was used as well. Very 20th century
Ask as many questions as you want

Thank you thank you! I will do as time passes

 

[Moose22]

t I'll ask but just to clarify when you say "prints" meaning like actually physical paper prints correct?

Yes. Prints is a physical printed copy on paper that you can hold in your hand.

When mshchem says "digital c print." or "optical print" that is just a different way of making these physical prints. Optical printing shines light through the negative onto photosensetive paper, which is then developed. It's "wet" process, not like an inkjet printer.

Digital C prints are also a wet process, (C or C-tone means Continuous Tone. "Continuous" because It doesn't do microscopic pixels like an inkjet) but instead of shining light through the negative onto the photographic paper an image is projected from the digital file scanned from the negative.

When I drop off color film at a lab (there's a good one locally, I'm lucky) I will usually pay for the developing and get scans done right there. I scan at home now, but when I started with film that's always what I did. Then I'd look through the scans, prepare any I thought were worth printing, and send them back to be printed at a larger size. That way I always had digital copies to share places like here or with friends who only ever see pictures on their phones, and when I made "art" I could get a great wet print at a larger than 4x6 size cropped just how I liked it.

90% of my photos good enough to be seen are just seen online, but for the ones I really like the print is my ultimate goal. A really good print, in person, is almost always better looking than it is on a random computer monitor. I like the look of the digital c prints I get from that lab and still use them for that even on negatives I developed and scanned at home.

Many places like wal mart that still do developing use a "minilab", which is the sort of machine that does a lot of stuff for you, it's like what used to be in every drug store in the 90s. Modern ones are updated to do digital prints, but the technology for scanning film kind of died off a long time ago so they're digitally antiquated technology. They don't really do very good scans as the process is automated and as hands off as possible. They are OK, especially for small prints only, but only OK. So you'll get a pile of 4x6 prints to show your friends and then it's all done. If that's all you're doing then fine, but then you're limited in how much you'll grow as a photographer. So don't use a place where you won't get your negatives back.

If you spend time here you'll find these madmen who have darkrooms in their homes. or access to them elsewhere. A great many of the members print black and white at home directly from the negatives, old-school. A few do color as well, though B&W is more common. They are keeping the all-analog art alive and some make some pretty amazing prints. If you ever want to do this (or if you ever have friends who do it and will print for you, or a local community darkroom you can work in, or a local club, or a community college photography class that has a darkroom) you will definitely need your negatives. You might even decide to scan at home in the future, so you can get a really killer scan of a favorite picture you had scanned lower res at the lab... so a lab that returns negatives is a good thing.

 

[MattKing]

Photrio evolved from APUG.
For the first several years of the site, you weren't even supposed to talk about scanning - the site was dedicated to darkrooms and various ways of turning film into positive images - mainly prints - without ever creating anything digital.
A significant number of us still work that way - myself included (mostly).
Lots of us now do some digitization of film. Some use lab scanning services, some have their own scanners, and some try to use digital cameras for that purpose.
This is from a 35mm negative, that was printed optically using an enlarger in a darkroom on to light sensitive photographic paper that in turn was developed in that darkroom. It was then toned. Finally, and only at the end, the print itself was digitized using a flat bed scanner.

 

[Randall Nguyen]

Yes. Prints is a physical printed copy on paper that you can hold in your hand.

When mshchem says "digital c print." or "optical print" that is just a different way of making these physical prints. Optical printing shines light through the negative onto photosensetive paper, which is then developed. It's "wet" process, not like an inkjet printer.

Digital C prints are also a wet process, (C or C-tone means Continuous Tone. "Continuous" because It doesn't do microscopic pixels like an inkjet) but instead of shining light through the negative onto the photographic paper an image is projected from the digital file scanned from the negative.

When I drop off color film at a lab (there's a good one locally, I'm lucky) I will usually pay for the developing and get scans done right there. I scan at home now, but when I started with film that's always what I did. Then I'd look through the scans, prepare any I thought were worth printing, and send them back to be printed at a larger size. That way I always had digital copies to share places like here or with friends who only ever see pictures on their phones, and when I made "art" I could get a great wet print at a larger than 4x6 size cropped just how I liked it.

90% of my photos good enough to be seen are just seen online, but for the ones I really like the print is my ultimate goal. A really good print, in person, is almost always better looking than it is on a random computer monitor. I like the look of the digital c prints I get from that lab and still use them for that even on negatives I developed and scanned at home.

Many places like wal mart that still do developing use a "minilab", which is the sort of machine that does a lot of stuff for you, it's like what used to be in every drug store in the 90s. Modern ones are updated to do digital prints, but the technology for scanning film kind of died off a long time ago so they're digitally antiquated technology. They don't really do very good scans as the process is automated and as hands off as possible. They are OK, especially for small prints only, but only OK. So you'll get a pile of 4x6 prints to show your friends and then it's all done. If that's all you're doing then fine, but then you're limited in how much you'll grow as a photographer. So don't use a place where you won't get your negatives back.

If you spend time here you'll find these madmen who have darkrooms in their homes. or access to them elsewhere. A great many of the members print black and white at home directly from the negatives, old-school. A few do color as well, though B&W is more common. They are keeping the all-analog art alive and some make some pretty amazing prints. If you ever want to do this (or if you ever have friends who do it and will print for you, or a local community darkroom you can work in, or a local club, or a community college photography class that has a darkroom) you will definitely need your negatives. You might even decide to scan at home in the future, so you can get a really killer scan of a favorite picture you had scanned lower res at the lab... so a lab that returns negatives is a good thing.

Thank you so much for your effort of explaining I really appreciate it, learned alot of what you wrote!

 

[Moose22]

and some try to use digital cameras for that purpose.

No offense Matt, but I don't "try" to use a digital camera. I use a digital camera. Period. Many of us do this, with great results.

And I get far better scans than the crap the local lab's Noritsu spits out, very quickly.

I'm one with zero space, so no chance for a dark room. I've been progressing more and more toward my own control, and my scanning setup allows me to shoot a couple rolls a week, affordably, because I can dev at home.

You, personally, have helped me understand things I have experimented with recently. I never would have done those things if I had to send rolls off to the lab and pay for developing and scanning. Which is fair warning to the OP -- analog photography is a rabbit hole. There's a ton to learn, and it is fun learning, but sooner or later you'll be developing in your kitchen sink and the people here will just be a big bunch of enablers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Lots of us now do some digitization of film. Some use lab scanning services, some have their own scanners, and some try to use digital cameras for that purpose.

I've never had a lab scan that was as good as what I could get from my own scanner, even when I was using a 1998 flatbed scanner. Short of a wet mount drum scanner, however, the best negative scans I've seen to date were done with image stitching from digital camera (DSLR or mirrorless) images using a slide copy setup or copy stand and scanning frame; they can pull every possible bit of information out of a negative or slide (with the caveat that the resulting files are enormous).

I still prefer, when possible, to make prints of my favorite images, but one strong advantage of a scanner is it sits on my desk and therefore requires less prep and cleanup time to use than my darkroom. If I only printed, I'd have a huge backlog of negatives, B&W and color, that I'd never seen in positive form. At the very least, low- to medium-resolution scanning (by whatever method, even cell phone) is an excellent way of proofing negatives, and fairly quickly pays for itself compared to getting prints made by the lab if you're sending your film out, not to mention being much faster than even contact sheets.

 

[Kino]

There's a ton to learn, and it is fun learning, but sooner or later you'll be developing in your kitchen sink and the people here will just be a big bunch of enablers.

For many people, this is the only form of community available at the present. I am thankful to be enabled and (hopefully) be an enabler!

 

[Sirius Glass]

.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!

​

 

[MattKing]

No offense Matt, but I don't "try" to use a digital camera. I use a digital camera. Period. Many of us do this, with great results.

Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".
And yes I know that some people have a lot of success, but all the descriptions I see of their efforts, plus my few half-baked experiments at it, tell me that someone new to all this should wait for a while for the usability bugs (at least) to be worked out.

 

[MattKing]

100% agree. Camera scanning comes with much steeper learning curve, and is more expensive than a scanner. I don't think there are any "usability bugs" to iron out, the main problem is your scanning solution is a DIY kit of random components, and as far as I know nobody sells a "turn-key" solution that's ready to go, unless it's a $50K+ museum grade system.

I can't believe it, I'm agreeing with Old Gregg about a digitization issue!
But to the OP, don't despair. There are still options available for scanning your film that will give middling good results at reasonable cost. They aren't effortless, and they give far from ultimate quality, but they work.
Most of my scans are done on an old flatbed scanner that I bought used for less than $100.00. It just required a lot of time and effort to get it to behave.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".
And yes I know that some people have a lot of success, but all the descriptions I see of their efforts, plus my few half-baked experiments at it, tell me that someone new to all this should wait for a while for the usability bugs (at least) to be worked out.

I agree and that is why I wanted to make clear that it is a good idea to make sure that the negatives are returned when one has film processed.

Decades ago my ex-mother-in-law automatically threw out the negatives whenever she had film processed. When her husband later died she came crying to me that all her husbands photographs were worn and or creased and she did not know how to replace them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".
And yes I know that some people have a lot of success, but all the descriptions I see of their efforts, plus my few half-baked experiments at it, tell me that someone new to all this should wait for a while for the usability bugs (at least) to be worked out.

100% agree. Camera scanning comes with much steeper learning curve, and is more expensive than a scanner. I don't think there are any "usability bugs" to iron out, the main problem is your scanning solution is a DIY kit of random components, and as far as I know nobody sells a "turn-key" solution that's ready to go, unless it's a $50K+ museum grade system.

I can't believe it, I'm agreeing with Old Gregg about a digitization issue!
But to the OP, don't despair. There are still options available for scanning your film that will give middling good results at reasonable cost. They aren't effortless, and they give far from ultimate quality, but they work.
Most of my scans are done on an old flatbed scanner that I bought used for less than $100.00. It just required a lot of time and effort to get it to behave.

All three of us agreeing! It is not even 10 in the morning and I need a drink!

 

[Mike Lopez]

If I only printed, I'd have a huge backlog of negatives, B&W and color, that I'd never seen in positive form...

You have that problem as well? I was without a darkroom for about 10 years, and they were incredibly productive years in terms of making new negatives. Now I average about 10-12 hours a week in my basement darkroom and I doubt I'll ever catch up.

But I'm going to have a hell of a lot of fun trying.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Now I average about 10-12 hours a week in my basement darkroom and I doubt I'll ever catch up.

Nice. My problem is I still work for a living, and commute an hour each way. And then there are "honey-do" items on the weekend.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Nice. My problem is I still work for a living, and commute an hour each way. And then there are "honey-do" items on the weekend.

I hear you. I have a full-time job, 2 teens, and a 1 year-old! My darkroom time typically consists of all-nighters after everyone else is asleep.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nice. My problem is I still work for a living, and commute an hour each way. And then there are "honey-do" items on the weekend.

I used to think it was that way until I retired, then once I retired I became so busy that I could not then nor now figure out how I ever got everything done when I was working. Work interferes with life and life is what happens when you are making other plans.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah. I've been told (in another context) that if you want to succeed at something, you have to pretty much give up everything else. I can't do that. Photography is what holds my interest the best, so it's what I can somewhat do while working for a living. All the other stuff tends to happen when I can't do photography for some reason.

 

[Truzi]

Another reason is slides; the developed film is already a positive, and some people still like to project them. Also, I've made some ViewMaster reels. This is slide film; you stamp out the images and mount them in a reel. Put the reel in a viewer, hold it to the light, and view them.

 

[Paul Howell]

Even is you decide to have your negatives scanned and printed from the digital scan I would keep the negatives. Computes and hard drives fail, non recoverable, storage devices are lost, cloud services are subject to a hack. Unless you keep your data on a number of back up devices keeping your negatives is another back up that if kept safe will be there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even is you decide to have your negatives scanned and printed from the digital scan I would keep the negatives. Computes and hard drives fail, non recoverable, storage devices are lost, cloud services are subject to a hack. Unless you keep your data on a number of back up devices keeping your negatives is another back up that if kept safe will be there.

Yes, time has shown that properly stored negative can last many decades and are not impacted with computer crashes or operating systems upgrades.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Paul Howell keeping the negatives is a good idea, but suggesting that cloud services are less reliable or less durable or less secure than someone's house is just absurd. The probabilities of of mice peeing on your negatives, or house fire/flood/earthquake are all higher than probability of your scans disappearing after clicking "backup to cloud" checkbox in your backup software. The biggest threat to digital assets is human error - forgetting the checkbox, or deleting your data by mistake (humans always manage!)

Some cloud services will store your photographs for free and then sell them as though they own the copyright and not you. I would rather have mice peeing on my computer equipment, thank you although my mice are much better behaved than that.