Question to film users

R

Ruben1954

Newbie
Local time
6:33 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
2
I must warn first that I left film some 15 years ago, therefore I may be asking a silly question. So kindly excuse my ignorance.
I am curious to know: do you scan or photocopy your film? And why do you do it your way.
Thanks.
 
There are a few film enthusiasts who still make prints in their darkroom. Most film enthusiasts don't have, or have access to, a darkroom, so they digitally scan their film and post the scans to the internet. Film enthusiasts who scan their film may digitally edit the scans a little or a lot in programs like Photoshop.

If I shoot film, I make gelatin silver prints, including lith prints, in my darkroom. For the past few years, I have primarily shot digital, made digital negatives, and made platinum/palladium prints. I also make palladium over pigment prints.
 
I have a Nikon Coolscan V, but the last 7 rolls of film that I used were processed by Dwayne's outta Kansas City. This company did a great job processing my film, and they have scanners that offer much better resolution than my old Nikon scanner. I still use the Nikon occasionally for uploading 20+ year old images to the internet, though.
 
I switched to film in 2008. Having no previous darkroom experience, I decided to initially scan the negatives, posting some and making a few inkjet prints. However, I was not satisfied with my inkjets, and I stress mine. It’s not that they looked bad, but I just hit some type of psychological barrier with them.

About three years ago, I slowly started making darkroom prints. I still create digital scans, which I use for online posting and as an approximate ‘blueprint’ for how I want the print to appear. I have no “nostalgic” yearning to do darkroom work, and setting up and breaking down the gear each session can be a pain. But when the print comes out as desired, it is, for me, the ultimate expression of photography.
 
Hardly a silly question! It's been discussed and debated by analog photographers ever since digital printing became a viable option.
Though I have a nostalgic fondness for the wet darkroom, I scan and print digitally. The toxicity of the chemicals, the inconvenience of setting up and cleaning up, and the severe shortage of water in my area (the Southwest desert) make wet printing impossible. Having a sensitive septic system in my climate is also an issue.
These days, I think that one can make digital prints that rival silver prints in beauty and possibly longevity (the jury is still out on that one). Without fail, anyone who is not themselves immersed in photography can't tell the difference, and doesn't care. A beautiful print, given as a gift, is a source of joy to the recipient regardless of how it was made, and that is what's most important to me.
And, of course, there are those who might consider that statement blasphemy.
 
I started making darkroom prints when I was 15 years old. I learned to print in a high school photography class. That was 31 years ago. I had to stop doing darkroom printing 20 years ago because of my health. I've had a lot of health problems going back to childhood, and by 2001 I was starting to have respiratory problems from breathing the chemicals evaporating off the trays. I had a good ventilation system in my darkroom but the chemicals were still making me sick. I bought a Nikon 8000ED scanner and have been scanning my film ever since.
 
I've kind of given up on the idea of wet printing again. For a long time it was because the pipes in this place never would have stood up to the stress. But even after they were replaced it still didn't make sense to try to set up a darkroom due to ventilation issues mostly. So I get my films scanned at time of processing, and print out what I need on an inkjet. Even there, certain things can mess up the works, like the one lab I dropped off some film at asking that they do not make corrections, and the idiot running the scanner caused it all to come out blue because they didn't get those instructions. Luckily for every ones sake they are no longer in business.

Now the only things holding me back are I need a new printer and computer as I just can't get the right colors while printing no mater what (Epson), and the post processing software I want to use will not run on this laptop. That was the one redeeming feature about a wet darkroom, you never really needed to upgrade anything.

PF
 
Incidentally, Ruben, I just noticed that you are new to RFF, and that this is your first post. Welcome! You'll find that we can be an invaluable source of information, as well as a morass of unsupported opinions, fiercely debated. Enjoy, and beware!
 
Ruben1954 said:
I must warn first that I left film some 15 years ago, therefore I may be asking a silly question. So kindly excuse my ignorance. I am curious to know: do you scan or photocopy your film? And why do you do it your way. ...
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum!

I have my film (I may shoot - at the most - four rolls in a year) processed in a lab and scanned to high-resolution TIF files onto a disk. At that point I treat my film-shot images just like those shot with digital. I do print on occasion with a 13" wide Epson 2880. I haven't used a darkroom in well over 20-years (don't miss it).
 
I don’t scan film. If I want digital files I make the photographs using a digital camera. My iPhone works great for me. Other than my iPhone, all digital photographs I make with RAW mode with Canon cameras then process with photoshop. I still use some film and have an analog darkroom.
 
Not a silly question and welcome to RFF. When I send film out for processing, I have it scanned also.
 
Nikon 9000 coolscan obtained just as production ended in circa 2010. Keeps chugging along w/o a hitch. Use vuescan as the software now.
 
I'm in the scan and inkjet camp too these days. I still have all the darkroom equipment ready to deploy if I feel the need, but frankly I was always just an average printer at best even though I really enjoyed the process. With inkjet printing I enjoy the process less but the quality of my printing is much higher because I do better work in Lightroom than I was able to do with contrast papers, masks, and dodging/burning tools. I also like that once I can get an image to look the way I want I can print it multiple times with the same results. In the darkroom I struggled to get the same consistency on any print where I did anything more than burning in the sky a little bit.
 
Currently scanning my film. I use a Plustek 8100 for my35mm and an Epson V600 for Medium Format. Currently on the look for a small enlarger so I can set a small space as a dark room. Used to do dark room print 15 years ago so lately I'm starting to wish I could do it again.
 
For scanning, I use the methodology described in this video. All-in (excluding the digital camera + macro lens), the total cost was around $350. The results are significantly better than my flatbed scanner or the scans I get from my local lab (plus I have waaaaay more control over the look of the scanned images).

https://youtu.be/-aThAi4jan8
 
I shoot slides and B/W. I develop my own B/W but send out the E6. I scan every frame of B/W but only selected slides. Scanning is for me an electronic contact sheet and a way to share selected shots with others. I made my own scanning setup with digital camera and mini-enlarger, but used an Epson V500 before that. I do believe darkroom printing to be the ultimate expression of black and white film photography. I eventually print my best B/W images but that is unfortunately a rare event for a variety of reasons these days. Reversal film, on the other hand, is a wholly unique experience of its own when projected. No ink, no paper, and definitely no computer screen can hold a candle to projecting a first generation slide. But because I eventually want prints from my slides, I have been looking into digital printing since there are no more Type R papers. I haven't gone far enough to identify the best method among many.

My feeling is that darkroom chemicals are no more toxic than household cleaners; the flame retardants applied to every new carpet and piece of furniture; paints; food additives; gasoline; plastics, and so on. Some would argue darkroom chemicals are more benign than any of the above as they are more likely to be handled and disposed of with care.

Studies conducted years ago found photographic lab workers who worked for minimum 20 years in a lab had life expectancy several years higher than average.

Please understand I'm not trying to cancel or demean those who develop very real sensitivities to these chemicals!

Anyway, sorry if I'm straying from the question. I just get triggered when the discussion of darkroom printing inevitably steers into toxicity as if the risk is somehow greater than any other modern technological process. I see the perpetuation of this 'foregone conclusion' as a very real tool that could threaten photochemical photography, especially when we are beholden to law makers whose modus operandi is sensationalism and low information.

It seems tempting for photographers who no longer print in the darkroom to lean on the 'received wisdom' of high toxicity. It's one thing to give up darkroom printing if you actually have a physical reaction, but I would ask for the rest of us, please don't just throw this out there so casually.

If, on the other hand, one's standard is a totally pure, toxin and risk-free existence, one could easily extrapolate that inkjet printing is just a way of transporting one's toxic waste burden to China rather than one's own country or local municipality. But at that point one shouldn't be living in anything more than a grass hut let alone touching a computer or doing photography.

All technology is/has always been a compromise between our potential for creativity and our original state as animals. Photography, either digital or analog, is not a special exception in either direction.
 
I'm a digital shooter these days but I used to scan my film with what was then considered a very good scanner. Today, it would be considered a toy. And I hated scanning and cloning out the ever-present dust spots.

Any way, today I sometimes "digitize" my old negatives and slides using a Nikon D810 with a 60mm Micro-Nikkor and the Nikon ES-2 Digitizer. In my opinion--limited though it may be--this is the most simple method I've found for getting film to excellent quality digital. But I still kinda hate it.
 
I scan all films with DiMAGE 5400 or Epson v700 using VueScan. The scans are used for making contact sheets, posting, and editing. Occasionally I'll make darkroom prints just to prove I can still do it and occasionally I'll pay for a high-quality inkjet print to be made.
 
I wet print b&w. I love everything about it except setting up and taking down my impermanent darkroom. I like the idea of getting the whole information out of the negative rather than sampling it, as a lower resolution scanner would, and I like the craft aspects, making a physical object in the physical world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top