What film for my Eos 5

[MaDProFF]

I want to use my Eos 5 again and it has been so long not to sure what film to put in it

I want film that I can get developed (Negs only so I can scan in and print any images I feel are worth printing)

As I am using a scanner is there any other types of 35mm film I can use, etc.

Would like some ideas on the process now?
Films type recommendations, will generally buy in bulk 5 or 10 at a time.
I will just be generally shooting day time, more in the brighter weather, some street photog etc. maybe some birding, even some football just for fun.

Thanks

[DrPablo]

Any and all films can be scanned. There are a few considerations, though. First, 35mm film will not give great results when scanned unless you're using a dedicated film or slide scanner. Here are some general principles about scanning film:

1) Slide film is by far the most difficult to scan, because it has a huge density range. In other words, you can have a whole lot of detail in very thin (light) areas of the slide and in very dense (dark) areas of the slide. This presents a challenge for scanning, but generally 35mm film scanners do well.

2) Color negative film (print film) is the easiest to scan because it has the lowest density range (which is why it has the highest dynamic range). The difficulty with negative film is converting the inverted image with its orange mask to a normal image, but most scanners have software that can do it for you.

3) Black and white film is generally easy to scan unless you have some very dense regions (i.e. overexposed).


As for film choices, the easiest for you to get processed will be C-41 films, which are color negative films plus a couple black and white films (Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 Super). But that doesn't mean they're the best. Black and white films and color negative films have HUGE dynamic range. Slide films have tremendous color rendition.

Here's what I like to use:

Slide films (E-6 processing)
For portraits -- Fujichrome Astia (this may be my overall favorite film)
For scenery -- Fujichrome Velvia (gorgeous color, high contrast, high saturation), Fujichrome Provia (same as Velvia but slightly less contrast and saturation), and Kodak E100VS (similar to Velvia, but better purples and greens)

Color negative (C-41) films
These are some of your options:
Kodak -- Portra 160 NC and Portra 400 NC (natural color), great for portraits
Kodak -- Portra 160 VC, Portra 400 VC, Portra 160 UC (more saturated, better for scenery), there may also be an ISO 800 Portra but I don't know
Fuji -- Reala (a good all around film)
Fuji -- 160 Pro-S and 400 Pro-H, relatively unsaturated, good for both portraits and all-around use
Fuji -- 160 Pro-C and 800 Pro-Z, more saturated, good for portraits and great for scenery

True Black and White films
Traditional emulsions:
Ilford FP4+ (ISO 125) and HP5+ (ISO 400), Kodak Plus-X 100 and Tri-X 320 -- as good as any film gets

Modern emulsions (less dynamic range, less "magic" to them, but smaller grain)
Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 3200 (great in medium format), Fuji Acros, and Kodak Tmax 100, Tmax 400, and Tmax 3200

Also the two C-41 black and white films I mentioned above are excellent and you can get them developed at your local drug store.

[crazyskillz07]

I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.

[MaDProFF]

Many Thanks DrPablo for taking the effort to type all that, and I certainly will be looking at some of those films.

I will prob get a Epsom V700 or a V750 scanner soon

[René Damkot]

I agree with Dr Pablo on the Astia and Fuji NPH / Pro-H, NPZ / Pro-Z.
For B&W I have a preference for Fuji Neopan 1600.
Or maybe Tmax 3200.

I *really* didn't like the Kodak C41 films. (Or any Kodak color film except EPP and EPJ-320T ;))

As for scanners: I have a Nikon Coolscan V and it's great.

[Nick_b]

I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.


You know I felt the same way about a month ago. I was browsing a local used camera shop and they had a developing tank so I picked it up on a whim... a week later I had my first home developed roll! I really enjoy the process. I bought an Epson V500 too.

I honestly think it's not that hard and you do not need a darkroom. I know colour film is more complex to develop though.

Here are the two resources that got me going

Here is part 1 of a 4 part series on how to develop your own film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P9bNcBE_Hc

And here is an Ilford tutorial. I printed it out.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200629163442455.pdf


Here is a sample from my first roll of Kodak T-max 100 scanned with my epson V500
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/first%20roll/img058.jpg

I love the DR and after hearing there are other B&W films with better DR then that I gotta try em! Iflord HP5 here I come!

[DrPablo]

I will prob get a Epsom V700 or a V750 scanner soonThose are desktop flatbeds, which will be good for large format and decent for medium format, but not that great for 35mm. The Nikon Coolscan is a very good dedicated 35mm scanner, and you can get them for a reasonable price.

I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.You don't need a darkroom. You need a little developing tank, which are cheap, you need a developer, and you need a fixer. That's it. For film you use water as your stop bath (for printing you need a chemical stop bath, which is basically just dilute vinegar).

Of course the REAL fun with darkroom work is not in developing film -- it's in printing it!

Color film, whether C41 or E6, is a different ballgame because you need very precise temperature and time control, the chemicals are more noxious, and there are additional steps (like a bleach step).

Go to apug.org if you're interested in more info.

I *really* didn't like the Kodak C41 films. (Or any Kodak color film.I actually prefer the Kodak C41 films over the Fuji ones with the exception of Pro-Z (NPZ), which I've used a lot lately. I LOVE Portra 160NC and 400 NC for portraits (first photo is 4x5 Portra 160NC), and I love Portra 160 VC for scenery (second photo is 4x5 Portra 160VC).

I've shot a few rolls of E100VS recently -- it's a beautiful slide film, probably with better purples than Velvia and with a bit softer contrast, but I think I prefer Velvia.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/64659458.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/73583780.jpg

[Nick_b]

Paul! fantastic images! love that second one. So you said that the Epson Flat bed scanners aren't that great for 35mm? It seems to do a good job for me. Maybe my standards are too low? lol

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/first%20roll/img072.jpg

Crop from a file 3300 pixels wide on the long side.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/first%20roll/img072-2.jpg

What kind of improvements can be expected from the Nikon scanner?

[DrPablo]

The film scanners will hold the film flatter, they'll have a better density range, and a better resolution. Flatbed scanners also have more focus issues than film scanners. But that's a nice scan you've shown. I'm a real slide film lover, but this is where you're more likely to see the difference, because it can be such a challenge to scan. If you want a very large print from any 35mm negative or slide, you'll get better results from a dedicated scanner (or better yet a professional high end scan).

[MaDProFF]

I will look into the scanner side a bit more, as it is pretty important, The reason I was thinking of a flat bed mostly is other options, and I know the Epsom are highly regarded as film scanners as well.

I will certainly look into developing the BW myself, as if you can master that process, and with the cheap bulk buy of films, print cost is just a print off the one or two you like, (even possible make a book like you might with Digtial) it might save me buying a FF digital for a while, the real reason is I want to use FF body with my lenses, and the fun of film

Thanks again all, it is turning into a very useful thread

[René Damkot]

What kind of improvements can be expected from the Nikon scanner?

4000dpi scan of a motion blurred image, with a 100% crop. Sharpened with the TLR script.

http://img.skitch.com/20080815-ewqp2f7n689ict7awhcs44qf71.jpg

and one of a 2835px image wide, of a bit lower ISO film. (2000dpi). Same workflow.

http://img.skitch.com/20080815-npws53s4qhk8ngk7r24xf4r515.jpg

[DrPablo]

MaDProFF, developing BW film is pretty easy, and there is no reason to even consider a flatbed unless you plan to start shooting MF or LF some day. Printing does require a darkroom, including an enlarger, trays, and safelight. I did all this with a 4x5 enlarger (MUCH bigger than a 35mm enlarger) in a small apartment bathroom a couple years ago when I lived in Boston.

Rene, as I'm sure you know the stated resolution of scanners is a complex topic, and it is almost certain that even the Nikon Coolscan doesn't even remotely approach a true 4000 dpi. I've read a lot of formal scanner tests, and it's only drum scanners and very high end devices like Creo Eversmart Supreme, Imacon, etc that approach that resolution without interpolation.

[René Damkot]

and it is almost certain that even the Nikon Coolscan doesn't even remotely approach a true 4000 dpi.

It's what the reviews (http://bythom.com/coolscanv.htm) and the specs (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/scanner/scoolscan_5000_ed/index.htm) say.

(Both for the 5000, couldn't find the V)

Then again, at 4000dpi, IMO you're creating very much pixels of one grain particle ;)

[DrPablo]

You're right that you get down to grains well below 4000 ppi, though that is very film-dependent. You'll hit grain a lot sooner on Delta 3200 than you will on Tmax 100.

The specs for all consumer CCD scanners (including the Nikon film scanners) are misleading. The stated resolution is not the actual optical resolution of the scanner. Even though the scanner produces a 4000 ppi image, much of this detail on CCD scanners is interpolated, and in fact the lower end CCD scanners (i.e. excluding "virtual drum" scanners like the Imacon and Creo) probably don't exceed 2000 ppi in actual resolution.

Still, it's about what you need. I have a Howtek 4500 drum scanner that I just got (haven't even used it yet) and I can tell you now that I will never scan my 8x10 sheet film above 600 ppi. For 35mm I would only go to 4000 ppi (which is a true resolution on drum scanners, up to 12000 ppi on the Howtek 7500) for immense enlargements.

[MaDProFF]

MaDProFF, developing BW film is pretty easy, and there is no reason to even consider a flatbed unless you plan to start shooting MF or LF some day. Printing does require a darkroom, including an enlarger, trays, and safelight. I did all this with a 4x5 enlarger (MUCH bigger than a 35mm enlarger) in a small apartment bathroom a couple years ago when I lived in Boston.


Problem is I do have a load of old photos, I would like to scan and re print some again.
I would like to dabble in just some image making using the flatbed.

But I respect what you say, and I will look a lot harder, into seeing how much better it is to use a dedicated film scanner over a flat bed, if it is noticeable better I will get a dedicated and worry about a flat bed another day, ( I do have a flat bed anyhow in my HP all in one color laser it is not that bad)

This is a shot that was taken in 1955, that was sent to me, it was torn and had selotape marks on it, I scanned it (Photo), and repaired it in CS3, on my HP all in one, it was a 10 by 8 original I think, I printed it at A4 no probs, was pretty pleased really, and the reason why I would like to play with BW film again.

Just amazes me the quality though right back in 1955 of photos

[DrPablo]

I hear what you say, I don't want to convince you to get a film scanner if you need one for other things.

That photo looks like it was in a panoramic format -- the typical ones are 4x10, 7x17, and 8x20. Any image shot at this size has worlds of detail beyond what any small format device can produce.

[MaDProFF]

I am right in thinking that the Nikon coolscan V works with a Intel Imac? it is annoying you search around all the specs on the scanner, and it does not tell you anywhere even on the Nikon site

Still on the fence with the scanner atm (

[sjones]

I am right in thinking that the Nikon coolscan V works with a Intel Imac? it is annoying you search around all the specs on the scanner, and it does not tell you anywhere even on the Nikon site

Still on the fence with the scanner atm (

I am using the Coolscan V on an Intel iMac (August 2007); no issues. Also, Nikon Scan 4 works with at least 10.4 (Tiger), but I use VueScan anyway.

[MaDProFF]

I am using the Coolscan V on an Intel iMac (August 2007); no issues. Also, Nikon Scan 4 works with at least 10.4 (Tiger), but I use VueScan anyway.

Thanks for quick reply.
Everyone seems to use VueScan, is that a seperate package or comes with the Nikon Coolscan?

[René Damkot]

http://hamrick.com/

[sjones]

Thanks for quick reply.
Everyone seems to use VueScan, is that a seperate package or comes with the Nikon Coolscan?

VueScan is a separate package for the Nikon. While typing this, I just noticed that René has supplied the VueScan website.

Another popular scanning software app is Silverfast (http://www.silverfast.com/), which is bundled with some flatbed scanners. Silverfast, depending on the version you choose, has more features, but it also costs more. Plus, you need to buy a separate package for each scanner. If you only have one, not a problem. However, while I'm using the Coolscan V for 35mm negatives, I will likely buy a high-end flatbed scanner next year for medium format negatives, which my current version of VueScan will handle.

Both websites are somewhat convoluted, although VueScan's site is easier to navigate through, should that matter.

[MaDProFF]

Here's another ? I cannot find and answer to either :(

Can I use the C41 Process (be done in a print shop) on ILFORD FP4+ BW neg film please

[René Damkot]

Nope.
C41 is for color negatives, and a few B&W films made for the process. (Kodak 400CN and Ilford XP2).

FP4+ needs "traditional" B&W developing.

[DocFrankenstein]

The charms of film lie in optical pritining, not in scanning it and then putting it on paper with laser - that's making it digital and throwing out detail in the process.

[MaDProFF]

Again thanks for you quick responses

Just for fun, I bought a 5 pack Tescos 24 shots/400 ISO film 35mm, they cost £5-00 for 5, as I found out for that they process the film for 99p, and for 97p they put the images onto CD in jpg format
Got to say not to impressed with the JPG images on CD, so much noise, at the moment I am not blaming anyone, could be me, camera that has not been used for 5 years maybe, or the way they are scanned from the neg on the Tescos DKS 1550 Film machine, I do believe it is a kodak unit.
I am not bothered as it was an experiment, until I can scan the negs in myself I will have no idea what to expect, in fact it has been so long since I shot a film, I cannot remember how bad to expect, though must admit, not this bad.

Anyhow you can all have a laugh, here is one of those shots, one is unedited, just resized, the 2nd same shot just a little pp, noise reduction, little sharpening, and bright and contrast.
I hope it is their scanning process, and maybe saving in a lower quality Jpg, I did contact them they have no idea Quote "I just press the button"

Still there is something about a film shot that makes me smile, the whole process has made me smile, even taking the photos, and then forgetting there was no LCD :), even not to old habits die hard

[sjones]

The charms of film lie in optical pritining, not in scanning it and then putting it on paper with laser - that's making it digital and throwing out detail in the process.

That's crap. The charm in film is not limited to one aspect or operation. Would I chose the traditional darkroom over the digital printer if logistically possibly, maybe, but it is a moot issue. My whole apartment is the size of a walk-in closet, and I find little charm in the prospect of introducing toxic emissions to what minimal cubic real estate I possess.

Yes, there are sacrifices involved with using a scanner, let alone one that is not a US$20,000 drum variant, but not all of us are endowed with the finances to afford the best.

That said, although still an amateur, I have converted hundreds of digital photos to black and white, and all it took was one scanned B&W negative to prove that, despite its own digital undertaking, a greater degree of tonality is retained. Moreover is the factor of grain, which I failed to emulate with any satisfaction in Photoshop.

Other benefits exist as well; like being able to actually use a rangefinder and a full frame slr, and, next year, medium format, choices not financially conceivable in the digital domain. The very physical process of using a film camera, with all of its anachronistic challenges, offers its own charm as well.

I have not compared a silver halide print with its digitally converted counterpart, but I have read enough testimonies from folks in the business of fine art printing that the difference in quality has become increasingly debatable, particularly with the introduction of the latest baryta-based inkjet papers.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the injket proponents are certifiably delusional. Fine. One day, should my retentive disposition take over and my living space expand, I still have the negatives from which to make superior wet prints; it is not a zero-sum situation.

[MaDProFF]

I am still smiling though :)

[MaDProFF]

Well maybe I am prejudiced , but I see something different in this shot I converted to BW just the smoothness of the skin tones, I am no expert, but I do like the finish

[DocFrankenstein]

That's crap.
:lol:

I agree with everything you say except the above part.

[DrPablo]

I agree with both points of view regarding film. For black and white, especially large format, there are an incredible number of creative things that can be easily done in a home darkroom, and that are impossible with digital. Things like lith printing, cyanotyping, etc.

On the other hand, while I'd romantically love to do my own ilfochromes and RA4 printing, it's just too impractical. But scanned film still allows me to use my two view cameras, my rotational lens 6x12 camera, my Hasselblad, a little TLR, i.e. use all kinds of cameras that don't exist digitally and that have unique optics and capabilities. And with good scans, you can get enough out of them. I've printed great poster-sized prints from 4x5 negative film scanned on a desktop flatbed. So even if a lot of detail is lost, on large format there is so much extra detail that it usually doesn't matter.

Yes, there are sacrifices involved with using a scanner, let alone one that is not a US$20,000 drum variant, but not all of us are endowed with the finances to afford the best.I just bought a used Howtek 4500 drum scanner for $2000. I'll get it up and running within a few days.

[MaDProFF]

I just bought a used Howtek 4500 drum scanner for $2000. I'll get it up and running within a few days.

Be interested in that

[sjones]

:lol:

I agree with everything you say except the above part.

Well, I thought I would give it a shot...can't win them all...

I just bought a used Howtek 4500 drum scanner for $2000. I'll get it up and running within a few days.

Certainly a good price, but if it had mirrored my budget when I purchased the scanner, I would be using the Nikon Coolscan 9000 instead of the V ED. Nevertheless, worth considering the refurb/used route in the future.

Bottom line, if I had the time, talent, and space (actually, I have the time), I would be producing prints in the darkroom, or at least playing around in there. Despite all of the chemicals, there's just something more organic about it; at least in my romanticized preconceptions of the whole process (which I realize can also be a complete pain in the…).

Still, I am already feeling apprehensive about using the inkjet's 'color' to produce a toned print, such as sepia, palladium, or the above-mentioned cyanotype. I would rather be able to mix up some noxious solution and pour it on my paper to warm it up as desired. Might seem nonsensical, but that's where I am headed…

[DrPablo]

Certainly a good price, but if it had mirrored my budget when I purchased the scanner, I would be using the Nikon Coolscan 9000I was very near doing that, but I shoot a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film, and so I wanted a high end scanner that could take those. I also now shoot 6x12 on a Noblex, and I've heard that the 9000 has trouble with 6x12 and 6x17.

Still, I am already feeling apprehensive about using the inkjet's 'color' to produce a toned print, such as sepia, palladium, or the above-mentioned cyanotype.I've done a lot of cyanotyping, vandyke brown printing, and toned lith printing, and there is a lot more to the end product than the color. The texture of the paper, the refractive properties of the crystals, the ability to duotone (like with tea-toned cyanotypes) and other properties like the tonal range and archivability are things that an inkjet can't imitate.

But for color printing, from E6 and C41 films I'm ok with doing it digitally.