Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival

[Ricoh]

All true Nigel, but have a look at 'Early Color' by Saul Leiter. He experimented with out of date and even heat damaged film to produce the effects he was after. I'm not sure digital could match the magic he produced, for one thing it would look too clinical, too sharp.

[David M]

It's possible Nigel that what you're seeing is not the film grain with high resolution scans. You may be seeing an issue with the film base. Google Fuji pepper grain for more info. I remember prolonged discussions online about the problem when film scanners got good enough for a photographer to submit scans to their clients/editors. I'm finding some affected shots having coped 1600+ slides last winter.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by David M

It's possible Nigel that what you're seeing is not the film grain with high resolution scans. You may be seeing an issue with the film base. Google Fuji pepper grain for more info. I remember prolonged discussions online about the problem when film scanners got good enough for a photographer to submit scans to their clients/editors. I'm finding some affected shots having coped 1600+ slides last winter.

That's an interesting thought David.

I have found that Kodak colour negative films create the worst effects, but I have seen similar problems with Fuji transparencies as well. I have sometimes suspected the processing methods used.

Film scanners with LED light sources definitely accentuate film grain, in a way that traditional enlargers never did.

I wonder whether wet film carriers improve matters?

[pandora]

Originally Posted by iso

Anyone ever use Agfa? Funny stuff - the reds always seemed to pop out of the trani as if in 3D

I once tried Agfachrome, difficult to expose, always seemed to over expose (too dark) certainly no suggestion here of incompetence on my part

As you say, the reds did pop out in trannies just as they did in Agfacolor Optima 400,
which unfortunately I was forced to use in my Nikon F4s on a US wedding in 2005 as Fuji Pro 400H
was unavailable at Walgreens. Agfa Portrait would have been fine but also not stocked. I was however
partial to Agfa Ultra 100 that I used exclusively on our 1990 UK trip - it predated ICE for psychedelic effects.

Sandra - just outside our lodgings ...




Rather he than me

AGFA ULTRA / Pentax-A

[David M]

Now you say about wet scanning it reminded me about an article online about someone modifying a flatbed scanner to do wet scanning. My problem with wet scanning is cleaning the film afterwards. I've had trannys back from publishers in disgusting condition after wet scanning.

[pandora]

To fill a duplicate thread

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by David M

Now you say about wet scanning it reminded me about an article online about someone modifying a flatbed scanner to do wet scanning. My problem with wet scanning is cleaning the film afterwards. I've had trannys back from publishers in disgusting condition after wet scanning.

I am sure Epson supply (or supplied) wet scanning carriers for some of their high end scanners like the V750. They were claimed to be very good. The film was placed into the carrier with a special clear aqueous gel; probably like ultrasound gel.

As I understand it the wet scanning process is supposed to be a one time operation for archival purposes. The idea is that the film is wet scanned at high resolution providing optimum image quality, but the film is effectively scrap afterwards. This may explain the condition that your films were returned in.

I have a glass film carrier for my Nikon film scanner, but wouldn't want to risk gel inside it!

[David M]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

I am sure Epson supply (or supplied) wet scanning carriers for some of their high end scanners like the V750. They were claimed to be very good. The film was placed into the carrier with a special clear aqueous gel; probably like ultrasound gel.

As I understand it the wet scanning process is supposed to be a one time operation for archival purposes. The idea is that the film is wet scanned at high resolution providing optimum image quality, but the film is effectively scrap afterwards. This may explain the condition that your films were returned in.

I have a glass film carrier for my Nikon film scanner, but wouldn't want to risk gel inside it!

Some (maybe all) drum scanners use wet mounting. So it wasn't me archiving the images, it was a publisher using the image. I could still license the image for further use if I could get the original cleaned up.

Edit. IIRC, the fluid used was mineral oil.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

Film scanners with LED light sources definitely accentuate film grain, in a way that traditional enlargers never did.

In the UK at least many enlargers had colour or variable contrast heads which use a diffuse light source, whereas heads intended for mono had a condenser. Condenser heads were well-known for accentuating film grain (and dust and scratches!) and produced a higher contrast.

I've been playing with slide copying using my E-M5 and an OM Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro lens, and a white LED panel with diffuser as the light source. I originally rigged that up as my old Nikon Coolscan IV was kaput and my Epson 4990 flatbed (also a diffuse light source) didn't produce good results from 35mm slides. Having found some servicing info on the web last week I've managed to sort out the scanner hardware problem (a dusty mirror!) and got it running on Windows 10.

Film grain and dust are much more noticeable on the scanned images, and actually, the image is quite a bit more detailed than from my E-M5 slide copier rig despite the scanner's lower resolution. Maybe I should hire a 60mm m43 macro lens from Ian and see how that compares as I'm guessing it's a better performer than the 50mm Zuiko. The scanner takes a minute or two to scan a 35mm slide whereas the E-M5 does it in 1/13 second which is a useful time saver . The Coolscan IV does use an LED source, whereas I believe some other film scanners use a diffuse light.

[Ricoh]

What are the benefits of using film?
I can think of some of the negatives, such as the cost and labour of processing/digitising, and the cost of buying a good scanner.
It's reassuring to see Ektachrome making a return, but in the long term I suspect film will die out. Cost will be a big driver for most.

[Otto]

The only benefit I can think of in using film is that it makes you stop and think before pressing the button - simply because of the cost! I don't think there's any other reason to use 35mm colour film at least as modern digital cameras are better in almost every respect.

Black and white is a different matter though, in my opinion no inkjet print can match a fine silver print made in the darkroom. It's getting better but it's not there yet I don't think.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by Otto

The only benefit I can think of in using film is that it makes you stop and think before pressing the button - simply because of the cost! I don't think there's any other reason to use 35mm colour film at least as modern digital cameras are better in almost every respect.

Black and white is a different matter though, in my opinion no inkjet print can match a fine silver print made in the darkroom. It's getting better but it's not there yet I don't think.

I only use 35 mm film for the pleasure of it, (and then only B&W), as digital is superior to colour film in almost every way, is cheaper and more convenient.

However film is still superior to digital in medium and large formats, (I am thinking 6 x 7 upwards), and is still used by professionals for demanding clients. Only this week I was talking to a pro (via FB) about a commission he has from one of the big cosmetics companies, who expect 6 x 7 transparencies.

[iso]

Just thinking about the comparison. Quill Pens and Parchment did seem to produce a product with an everlasting / more individualistic / result.

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

I only use 35 mm film for the pleasure of it, (and then only B&W), as digital is superior to colour film in almost every way, is cheaper and more convenient.

However film is still superior to digital in medium and large formats, (I am thinking 6 x 7 upwards), and is still used by professionals for demanding clients. Only this week I was talking to a pro (via FB) about a commission he has from one of the big cosmetics companies, who expect 6 x 7 transparencies.

I've heard it said the other way, colour film being superior to digital, but I have no personal experience.
Regarding B&W, the ability to expose for the shadows and to let the highlights take care of themselves is quite a benefit I believe.

For street photography when someone asks to see what you've just taken, I can see a benefit by being able to say sorry mate, film. Give them a business card and move on.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by Ricoh

I've heard it said the other way, colour film being superior to digital, but I have no personal experience.
Regarding B&W, the ability to expose for the shadows and to let the highlights take care of themselves is quite a benefit I believe.

For street photography when someone asks to see what you've just taken, I can see a benefit by being able to say sorry mate, film. Give them a business card and move on.

Colour negative films provide much greater dynamic range than digital, at the cost of reduced definition; in 35 mm formats at least. That is why medium format was so popular with wedding togs as it provided the dynamic range needed to simultaneously capture detail in a while bride's dress and black groom's suit in typically shadowy conditions, with plenty of definition in case large prints were needed.

However, by the time digital came along many wedding togs were using 35 mm to save cost; but rather than taking 36 or 48 well composed shots they were using their cameras like machine guns, so the bar was actually set very low when it came to digital quality.