New Kodak Film in 2022?

[McDiesel]

Two thoughts:

1. Color or B&W, a lot of us cannot afford to have a darkroom due to various constraints. Scanning is all we've got. @NB23 you're basically shaming us for not having something you enjoy. That's not nice.
2. When I scan, nothing is "lost". So your first argument about "losing an edge" is probably specific to your scanning skills. Don't over-generalize. That's not nice.

Be nice, basically

 

[Sirius Glass]

Two thoughts:

1. Color or B&W, a lot of us cannot afford to have a darkroom due to various constraints. Scanning is all we've got. @NB23 you're basically shaming us for not having something you enjoy. That's not nice.
2. When I scan, nothing is "lost". So your first argument about "losing an edge" is probably specific to your scanning skills. Don't over-generalize. That's not nice.

Be nice, basically

The cost of the darkroom is in large part being able to set aside

 

[Sirius Glass]

Two thoughts:

1. Color or B&W, a lot of us cannot afford to have a darkroom due to various constraints. Scanning is all we've got. @NB23 you're basically shaming us for not having something you enjoy. That's not nice.
2. When I scan, nothing is "lost". So your first argument about "losing an edge" is probably specific to your scanning skills. Don't over-generalize. That's not nice.

Be nice, basically

The cost of the darkroom is in large part being able set aside permanently or semi-permanently. Years ago I was not happy with the scanning and printing results so I was able to make an adjustment to have a darkroom, less than perfect, but still a darkroom. One has to work with what one has. There is nothing wrong or less using digital methods, just differences.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...scanning large format, you must be a nutcase. Absolutely everything that separated LF from 35mm film gets lost when scanned...

Thank you for your gracious description of my mental status. Not.

I don't have a permanent darkroom. I have one downstairs bathroom that is windowless in this slab foundation house. It serves as a temporary darkroom, but exacts a large overhead cost in the setting up and taking down for wet photography work. I have a Beseler 4x5 enlarger with the Beseler 8x10 conversion head and Aristo cold light source. Looking forward to a move elsewhere that's ever more unlikely to occur, I bought that enlarger and stored it at the far end of an under-stairs closet. It's equipped with a 240mm Apo Nikkor. I've used it a couple of times by waiting until late at night, dragging everything else out of the closet, stuffing towels under the door, exposing paper and then carrying said paper in a light-proof envelope to the bathroom for processing. Fine for proof of concept. Not practical on anything approaching a regular basis.

Several years ago I purchased an Epson V850 scanner. The image I'm most proud of was shot on 8x10 320TXP at Grand Canyon some years ago. It scanned beautifully on the Epson at 105 megapixels and, when printed 11x14 on my Canon PRO-100, gives away nothing to the appearance of any wet print from any size film original, up to and including 11x14 contacts. I know. I've made those too from 11x14 negatives exposed in my 11x14 Phillips.

About the only thing that might differentiate inkjet prints from silver halide prints is life expectancy (LE). If that's a concern due to lack of long-term experience with inkjet real-world (vs accelerated testing) LE, sure, go with the darkroom. If one pays attention primarily to print appearance, inkjet might even look better than many of the darkroom papers available today.

...Be nice, basically

You're new here. Don't hold your breath on that.

 

[McDiesel]

The cost of the darkroom is in large part being able set aside permanently or semi-permanently.

We all have our own limitations. My significant other is categorically against having any kind of "non-household chemicals" anywhere in the house, so I can't use our bathrooms or any other room, for that matter. On one hand I miss wet printing. On the other hand my digitally printed film scans, even the B&W ones, are way better than my wet prints from the good ole days.

What happened to the wisdom of limitations aiding our creativity? I guess not having a darkroom made me a far better film scanner than NB23 is

I suspect it wasn't a serious question. Well-scanned C41 film in 120 format is absolutely fabulous. I also happen to enjoy digital cameras and the results I get from both mediums are quite different and easily justify using both.

 

[1kgcoffee]

And I was saying that, also. But you must realize that it is exactly "leftover film users" that have enabled a film like Kodak Gold to be kept in production continuously. It was always a snapshot film. The people who picked up shooting Portra over the past 5 years aren't the people who have kept Kodak Gold selling in stores. (Although lots of the tagged "Portra" shots on Instagram could be Kodak Gold - who would even know?)

I beg to differ. Purchased many rolls of both portra and gold. They have their strengths and weaknesses just as foma 200 and delta 400. You can make amazing art with both. It all depends on the subject

 

[braxus]

When I worked in a photolab back some years, we started with a Noritsu optical printer. We didn't do medium format, because it was a 1 hour photolab that catered to the general public. We printed onto Kodak chemical prints. The colors off film from that machine were less saturated and also looked softer in print sharpness. But there was no fake look to the prints in terms of tones and the colors that came off the film. Then we got a digital Noritsu printer that we scanned the films on. The prints off it looked better in my opinion then the optical printer (as I did a comparison), but the colors were less differentiated. Sharpness was better on the digital printer. That said I was never truly a fan of todays inkjet type of prints, nor dye sub prints. They look like crap in comparison to the chemical prints we used to do. The dry prints came into being in our lab when we got Kodak equipment that replaced the old chemical Noritsu machines. I stopped doing most of my own work in our lab when we made that change. It just didn't look as good. It didn't help we used a Kodak film scanner either which really made film colors look like hell. Noritsu color science was 10 times better then what we got off the Kodak. I wish I could have all that old Noritsu equipment in my house here to do my work on. The digital film scanner on the Noritsu gave the best scans I've ever had done, and it was fast in comparison to home scanner. Minutes to do films instead of hours. If I had money right now, I'd get the Noritsu 1800 film scanner and the neg attachments for it. There is one for sale I noticed, but I don't have 18 grand to buy it.

 

[Don_ih]

Regarding the lab-prints of the 90s (cheap 1-hr photo prints, that is): I both scanned and enlarged a number of negatives that I originally had as "second set free" prints and was surprised. Being a victim of not knowing anything about it in the 1990s, I assumed the prints I got were as good as anyone would get from the negatives. That was truly incorrect. Whatever the reason, all those original prints were a bit fuzzy.
The last roll of film I had developed and scanned at such a place, I asked for the largest scans they could manage (they supplied a cd with the scans). I think the photos were around 100kb each....

Getting control over the colour of a wet print is difficult. Getting close to what you want is relatively easy but you can almost always see a way you could get it to look a bit better. When you get it right, it's very nice. I don't mean when you get it "the way it's supposed to be", but the way you want it to be. Scanning should be thought of the same way. If there's an odd cast to your scan, get rid of it.

I beg to differ. Purchased many rolls of both portra and gold.

I'm not sure what you're differing with - I never said you couldn't make art with Kodak Gold. People using it to make art haven't kept it on the shelves at Walmart, though.

 

[foc]

Any lab using a Noritsu or Frontier neg scanner can produce very high standard scans and prints, be they RA4 or inkjet.
The scanning is basically all in the software and how the lab use it. You can have extra sharpness, more saturated colours if you wish or you can choose not to. You can have full auto or semi, the list goes on.
Have a look in any store that sells large screen TVs. You will see differences in colour etc on the different screens because they are all together. Bring one home and you will think you have the best, most accurate colour tv and everyone else's is rubbish.
So yes colour is subjective, especially among photographers.
Trying to access a print against a screen image is very hard and requires some skill. One is reflection of light, the other is transmission of light. (just like looking at a print and a transparency/slide)

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't have a permanent darkroom. I have one downstairs bathroom that is windowless in this slab foundation house.

Sal you have my sympathies. If I had to do what you do each time I doubt if I'd bother.

However what's a slab foundation house? I assume this has an effect on your darkroom restrictions

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

what's a slab foundation house?

Simply put, there is no basement. A concrete slab is poured at ground elevation and the walls are built on that. The amount and kind of prep work required depends on climate, ground condition, and what you plan to put on top of it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...However what's a slab foundation house? I assume this has an effect on your darkroom restrictions...

Don provided the correct answer.

As you can see, I'm in southern California. "Prep work" done in this area before pouring slabs was essentially running a bulldozer around so the clay soil got shaped into a flat spot where the house would go. There ain't no "bedrock." Some wags refer to San Clemente as "a city on the move" given its rather malleable soil conditions.

Many decades ago, before southern California real estate prices got as high as our earthquake faults are deep, rock musician Little Richard (Tutti Frutti, Long Tall Sally, Lucille, etc.) described what we live in as "quarter million dollar heaps o' stucco." He was correct. The only change now is that one must adjust for inflation, including the most recent bubble, and those same "heaps" sell for $1.5 million. No way I could afford to buy my home (which we've been in for nearly three decades) today.

 

[pentaxuser]

Sal and Don, thanks for the explanations. I had thought that in mentioning it, a concrete slab house gave some peculiar problem for the inclusion of a darkroom but it sounds like your main problem, Sal, is a similar one to that of many people, namely they just don't have a room to spare to turn into a permanent darkroom. I feel it is this that prevents many people from trying darkroom work

pentaxuser

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...it sounds like your main problem, Sal, is a similar one to that of many people, namely they just don't have a room to spare to turn into a permanent darkroom...

There are rooms in this house which, although they have windows, could be blacked out and turned into a permanent darkroom. The problems with them are, first, they're not plumbed, and, foremost, I've a spouse (married for one and a half times the number of years we've been in this house) who doesn't consider those rooms "spare."

 

[Don_ih]

Sal, it sounds like you need a shed.

 

[NB23]

Sal needs a Digital Kemra.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal needs a Digital Kemra.

I've got and use several high-end Nikon digital cameras paired with multiple Sigma Art lenses. As I've written elsewhere, digital wipes the floor with film for color. In black and white, image life expectancy is the only reason for silver halide.

Any other snide comments?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sal and Don, thanks for the explanations. I had thought that in mentioning it, a concrete slab house gave some peculiar problem for the inclusion of a darkroom but it sounds like your main problem, Sal, is a similar one to that of many people, namely they just don't have a room to spare to turn into a permanent darkroom. I feel it is this that prevents many people from trying darkroom work

pentaxuser

But I do not have complains from the distaff side about room use. Having and maintaining a darkroom is an expensive real estate choice.

 

[NB23]

As far as I’m concerned, it seems my recomendation was spot on. You should maybe add another digital kemra since they’re soo good...

I've got and use several high-end Nikon digital cameras paired with multiple Sigma Art lenses. As I've written elsewhere, digital wipes the floor with film for color. In black and white, image life expectancy is the only reason for silver halide.

Any other snide comments?

 

[Cholentpot]

No you are just off. Did you stop taking your medicines?

Did someone mess with your cornflakes?

Yes, absolutely, and as long as it isn't ruined by scanning it of course!

Shame I never actually used the stuff though. It's all a song to me

I don’t know for you guys but color 120 film still being produced is a total Mystery to me ever since the year 2002.

Everything from it, its whole edge over 35mm film is lost, when scanned. The whole magnification thing is useful for wet prints, where grain and tightness of grain is the name of the game. But in the digital age, shooting 120 color doesn’t make any sense unless you print from your darkroom, a thing that nobody does anymore, or at least in unsignificant numbers for an industry to follow.

Same for 4x5: darkroom Large format has its place, but scanning large format, you must be a nutcase. Absolutely everything that separated LF from 35mm film gets lost when scanned.

I’m a heavy 120 BW film user and printer, but that’s the point of it, the darkroom work. But color 120 is just not worth it. Can’t understand why it even exists. Who actually sees a benefit of scanning a 120 film over 35mm? And is the hassle of the handling, low exposure count and extra cost worth it?

I beg to differ. A well scanned 120 shot is something amazing. You're getting a major upgrade in lack of grain and depth of field. Color 120 is a major step above 35mm, not to mention the awesome cameras you get to use. And 4x5? Love the stuff, yes, I'm nuts to scan it but the results are worth it. It takes me as much time to scan and post processes 4x5 as it does to do a full 36 roll of 35mm.

The again, I'm hand loading 110 film so maybe I'm a little further gone than most.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've got and use several high-end Nikon digital cameras paired with multiple Sigma Art lenses. As I've written elsewhere, digital wipes the floor with film for color. In black and white, image life expectancy is the only reason for silver halide.

Any other snide comments?

Not snide but I've found that B&W on digital just looks a little off. Never quite looks right to me.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Not snide but I've found that B&W on digital just looks a little off. Never quite looks right to me.

After climbing the learning curve (pun intended), I concluded that applying an appropriate curve to digitally originated black and white enables prints that look just like images originated on film. Large format film, that is, unless one intentionally adds blur to mimic small format film.

 

[mshchem]

I've had a darkroom for 50 years. I mixed up 7 liters of RA4 developer tonight. Going to print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

Color printing is so easy.

I have a scanner and inkjet printers, they are great. I have high-end Nikon digital DSLRs

I love it all. Never in time have we had more tools to make photos.

No one, not even a cell phone photographer, should feel like their work doesn't "count".

 

[Cholentpot]

After climbing the learning curve (pun intended), I concluded that applying an appropriate curve to digitally originated black and white enables prints that look just like images originated on film. Large format film, that is, unless one intentionally adds blur to mimic small format film.

Getting the grain right never sits well.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Getting the grain right never sits well.

I have always, long before Kodak invented digital cameras, absolutely hated grain. That's why my early 35mm photography was all done using Kodachrome 25, and why I continuously moved up in camera format all the way to 11x14.

Nonetheless, for those who inexplicably like grain , there are software programs that can effectively add it to otherwise wonderful digital files.