Any film users that can offer some advice please?

[Wild Rover]

Happy New Year all.

Due to an ongoing illness, I've not swung a leg over the bike for 6 months, and it seems that this will continue for the foreseeable future. I've thus been trying to hone my photography skills in place of riding. I've only really been into photography since DSLRs appeared, but have now acquired a Nikon F80 SLR film camera at a very reasonable price (inc. 28-80 & 70-300 lenses).

My questions do not relate to the camera operation - more about the state of film these days. For example - if I drop a film in for processing, what are the options nowadays rather than just getting the standard prints back? I've read on various websites about scanning onto DVDs etc, but these are American sites, so not sure whether we do the same over here.

I'm thinking of ISO 400 DX film as a good standard day-to-day choice.

Grateful for any tips, advice, warnings etc from any experienced film users. Sadly I don't have space to make my own little darkroom area, so will be dependent upon commercial input for that side of things.

Thank you.

[clarion]

I send my negs away to Peak Imaging, who develop and scan.  They also do the full range of printed products.  It's not cheap, but the quality of developing is good.  The scans I've had have been fairly low contrast, but I've not paid for the better standard, as I've been planning to get to scanning my own negs (as soon as I can get the machine working ).

I've taken some in to our local high street processors - there's one in Sutton and one in Wallington - and I've been surprised to find they scan to disc as well.  But I prefer to stick to Peak for all my 35mm and 120 processing.

http://www.peak-imaging.com/

There are many others out there, but that's who I use, anyway.

Good luck, and have fun!

[David Martin]

Processors have been scanning to disk for the last 15 years or so - it should be a standard service.

Of course the next step is to develop your own, and from there comes the slippery slope to making your own chemistry[1], casting your own emulsions and so on.


[1] in the photographic rather than scientific sense of the word

[hellymedic]

Indeed. I had every film I had developed scanned onto disc from the year 2000 (usually by Boots but sometimes by Snappy Snaps) so that I could email my photos to others.
I didn't acquire a digital camera until 2007.

Things have changed since...

[Pickled Onion]

I'm thinking of ISO 400 DX film as a good standard day-to-day choice.

The ever-increasing speed of digital has spoilt us all - but for film ISO 400 still counts as fast. ISO 160-200 as a compromise, or ISO 100-125 as a standard day-to-day choice in decent daylight for good sharp images that will take enlarging.

[Tewdric]

If you're going through the faff of 35mm film photography and are prepared to sacrifice quality, opportunity and convenience for quaint historical interest, then why not consider shooting black and white and developing yourself.  You do it at room temperature, all you need is a tank, spiral, tongs and a measuring cylinder, all of which are now available for pennies secondhand, and away you go.  You could then find a camera club that still runs an enlarger and enjoy the magic of watching prints appear before your eyes in the dev tray.  It will teach you a lot about photography.

Personally I think you'd be wasting your time though; it'd be like saving money on a  car by buying a horse and cart.  Pick up a decent D70 body on Ebay and get Lightroom or the free Photoshop CS2.  You'll get much better results much cheaper.

[clarion]

Sacrifice quality?  What digital provides the resolution of a 35mm image?

[Wild Rover]

Thanks for the feeedback all - some really useful stuff there.

Tewdric - I've had a Nikon D3100/Lightroom & Photoshop (both now the CC version) for some time. I'm fairly confident with these. The film thing is purely for the hell of it & to expand my horizons a bit whilst I'm off the bike. Plus I got the F80 & lenses at a very reasonable price; considering it's all in 'as new' condition, a VERY reasonable price indeed.

Let's just say for the same money,I could have bought a new Brooks B17 and still had change for a few beers.

[Tewdric]

Sacrifice quality?  What digital provides the resolution of a 35mm image?

All of them for about the last 5 years.  I couldn't get big prints from my Hassie to match what the X pro 1 can deliver. 

[Tewdric]

Thanks for the feeedback all - some really useful stuff there.

Tewdric - I've had a Nikon D3100/Lightroom & Photoshop (both now the CC version) for some time. I'm fairly confident with these. The film thing is purely for the hell of it & to expand my horizons a bit whilst I'm off the bike. Plus I got the F80 & lenses at a very reasonable price; considering it's all in 'as new' condition, a VERY reasonable price indeed.

Let's just say for the same money,I could have bought a new Brooks B17 and still had change for a few beers.

In that case one of these and run some FP4 through and develop in ID11 1:1 stock solution:water at 20 degrees.  You'll need stop, fixer, a squeegee if you don't want use your fingers, wetting agent and hanging clips too but that's about it. 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Paterson-System-4-35mm-developing-tank-/151193176012?pt=UK_Photography_DarkroomSupplies_SM&hash=item2333d0c7cc

Have a lot of fun and hope you can get back in the saddle soon.

[clarion]

Sacrifice quality?  What digital provides the resolution of a 35mm image?

All of them for about the last 5 years.  I couldn't get big prints from my Hassie to match what the X pro 1 can deliver. 

Well, that's patent nonsense.  According to Wikipedia, a medium format image is equivalent to approximately 50MP.  Mind you, it seems the figure I've regarded as a 35mm equivalent - 20MP - has been revised down a bit.  To about 16MP.  About the same as your high end X-Pro 1.

[David Martin]

The Wikipedia quote is also nonsense. It *might* be the case for an extreme low ISO technical film, but My large format experience would suggest that 15 is probably an upper limit, and in the ISO  range we can happily use day to day (ie about 400) you would be lucky to get more than 5. There are lots of technical issues with comparing film and digital but in practical terms digital has had the edge over film for the last ten years.

[sojournermike]

To the OP, you can safely ignore the digital vs film debate. I shoot both for their different qualities. There is more to photography than resolution, or even dynamic range and colour fidelity.

If I was you I'd settle on something like HP5+ or TriX and develop it for 10 minutes in D76 1+1 or Xtol 1+1 (check times) - both of which are cheaper than ID11 (D76 equivalent). You can buy a relatively inexpensive 35mm only scanner (Reflecta and Plustek both make them) that will do an OK job, albeit slowly.

If you want to do colour or send it away Peak IMaging and AG Photolabs both do a good job. ProAm Imaging in Bradford used to do an OK job at a much better price too - check their website to see if they still process C41. In my experience commercial scans are not as good as I get from my Nikon 9000, but are fine for small prints/editing.

I'd buy a 50 lens too, then use that exclusively, but that's just me:)


As a minor contribution to the digital/film discussion, bearing in mind the points I made above, I did some big print tests a couple of years ago between a Canon 1Ds3, Leica M9 and Mamiya 7 with Kodak Ektar. I could make prints from the medium format film that I preferred to the digital prints, but the differences required pretty big prints to be worthwhile from a pure technical point of view. I've not tested against the Monochrom or a Nikon D800 (I have got one of these), but suspect the results would be similar with the right film combination. It's worth remembering that Zeiss got 400 lpmm using a Biogon 25 and Spur orthopan. Of course, I wouldn't use that film in everyday use, so it's moot, but I don't shoot 35mm to be 'better, higher resolution' than digital.

Interestingly, some tests run by some friends of Joe Cornish suggested that the Mamiya 7 was able to outresolve 5x4 due to film flatness and lens differences.

Cheers

Mike

[Jaded]

One thing to be careful of if you have sensitive skin is the possibility of a reaction to the chemicals. I never used to have any problem, and haven't developed film for years, but have become sensitive to other chemicals through age.

[Wild Rover]

Thanks again all, and special thanks to Tewdric for that handy link.

[Tewdric]

Thanks again all, and special thanks to Tewdric for that handy link.

Oh, and practise loading the spiral with some junk film lots and lots before you try it for real.  It has to be done in total darkness...

[David Martin]

loading the spiral is dead easy if you make sure it is scrupulously clean and dry. Even in the dark (or a changing bag)

[rogerzilla]

Changing bags don't breathe so the sweat from your hands can make it humid enough in there to cause problems.  again, you have to be able to do it quickly and efficiently.

I like the Agfa/Rollei developers - they do a general purpose one (D74) which works for most things and gives great tonality, and another (R09) whitch is basically Rodinal*, and is usually sold as such.  The D74 is probably not much different to Kodak D-76, hence the name.

*if you're not familiar with it, it can be used at quite high dilutions to increase edge sharpness, usually at the expense of fine grain.  Pretty much the same as using unsharp mask in Photoshop.