KrisK_

Hmm, a lot of surprising answers here. I shoot films in 35, 120, and 4x5. Here in California I constantly run into people with film cameras. I enjoy the process of photography, a digital camera does not give me any of this today -- particularly not the new models that reduce me to a button presser. Yes, film development and darkroom printing (or scanning) is less reliable compared to entirely digital processes, but it is not uncontrollable. People had very reliable results for more than a hundred years. Quality-wise 35mm is just fine for some of the greatest photographs ever taken be it in 1950 or 2021. These days, we largely look at photos on 6-17" screens, and 35mm is just fine for that. If you need to pixel-peep, the picture was not that good in the first place. That said, I yet have to see a camera that provides more details than Adox CMS 20 II in 4x5 and costs less than $5k. If I need a digital platform, I use my smartphone which has surpassed all but the $2000+ cameras on the market. Film is having a huge comeback because people want to be creative, because they want to be in control, and because learning and making mistakes is fun for most of us. I still make many mistakes, I post here, I read, I watch videos, I talk to people, and I learn every day. How cool is that! Finally, film looks more organic. As far as portraits (particularly on 120 or 4x5) are concerned, I pick a good portrait on film over digital in 9/10 cases. Is film better (whatever that means) than digital? Who cares?

Hi, From time to time I get some negatives that are so difficult to handle, they almost make me cry ;-). I am sure many of you experience this occasionally. Examples include cases where it is almost impossible to get really good colors from a negative, scratches, or dust and other residuals turn out to be super difficult to remove. If that happens I may get a negative or two that are basically unusable -- frustrating but no big deal. This time, however, I am struggling with a full roll of Ilford PAN F Plus and Microphen. I scan and develop and print at home and I do it a lot, so I am curious if any of you have an idea of what may have gone wrong. The Microphen was freshly mixed and used at 20C for 6min at 1+1. The scanner is a Coolscan 5000. Here is an example (https://imgur.com/a/teuRnnS). The image(s) are screenshots of the inverted negative (without any edits) at around 25% and the enlargements are between 100-200%. First of all, dust is always a concern. However, usually, I only get minimal dust on my negatives, but this image seems so full of dust, you would have to throw it to the ground while wet to get results as bad, so I have no idea where this came from. Also, and even more concerning, the write dots are certainly not grain, they are something else. You can see them in the sky, the street, and the shadows and they are irregular in pattern. My initial assumption was that I may have not mixed parts A and B or Microphen well enough, but when I developed Kodak Vision3 250D from the same day and scene, I got the very same issue (aside from the dust). See here https://imgur.com/a/Yq5erHp. Any ideas about what went wrong? Maybe my scanner needs a good cleaning, maybe I mess up something completely else. My only other idea is that the chemistry has been sitting for a while and I may have used the fixers too often and this causes the residuals? Thanks for your help, Kris

To add to the discussion, I develop B&W and color (negatives, and now also slides) at home. B&W and C-41 are easily done without sending to a lab and I enjoy the process a lot. I scan using a Nikon Coolscan 5000. I used a different scanner before but the difference was like day and night. I do minimal edits to B&W but more heavy (color and contrast) corrections to C-41. I used a lot of different software and now settled on the new 'negadoctor' (yes, terrible name) capabilitis of Darktable. C-41+scanning will never give you perfect colors. The process was simply engineered with photographic paper as a key component in mind. Negadoctor has nice features to adjust the color mask differently for shadows and highlights and this helps a lot. As much as I love the analog process (for the sake of enjoying photography as an activity), printing is a different story. Printing B&W is great, printing color seems to be a task that needs very good control and experience. Recreating this in 2020 seems difficult, at least for an amateur like me. If I recall correctly, the types of papers and processes to adjust color contrast in prints are largely gone. Honestly, I have not even tried so far (but may do so in the future). Long story short, I love B&W darkroom prints but for color I simply use my Epson P600. As far as labs are concerned, I have not found a single lab (in the US) that does good prints right off your color negatives consistently. If there is a little bit variation in your photography and scenes, chances are that you will not like the prints. E.g., scans are typically made to be flat to allow for interpretation, prints, however, should not be flat. I would develop at home, invert with negadoctor or another tool, edit, and then send off to a lab or printing service or simply print at home. The P600 is certainly good enough for me. Overall, a modern C-41 workflow with good results (and digital prints) seems very common these days. Oh, btw, I am all for trying. In the end, we all want to keep film and analog processes alive. What counts is whether at the end there is more fun than frustration.

Oh, I love these two stories!!! Thanks for sharing. I keep my darkroom recipes and processing instructions in sandwich ziploc bags. Once, I put the E6 table there, it never occurred to my that the PDF where these instructions came from had another (third) column. This is embarrassing as I looked at exactly this third column on my computer when I check my processing to figure out why the film was sooooo dark.

I finally solved the problem. It is a user error -- stupid me.... In my defense :-), one that could have been prevented by the documentation. Long story short, the documentation has three rows in a PDF file [1]. The second row contains information on how to develop film with CS6. Directly below it is a table that shows how long to develop the film for the first developer depending on the temperature. Being so used to negative film, I printed this out and put it in my darkroom. When I mix the chemicals, I have my computer next to me and see the third column that states that Dynamic Chrome needs 9 min at 1+1 (this part is called 'COLOR-TIMING SLIDE FILM'). The table that I printed out (and that is in the second column directly below the instructions states that one should use the first developer for 6 min. I can only guess that this for another 1st developer. Anyways, when I downloaded the instructions for the first time, I took the second column, printed it out, and left it as a set of instructions in my darkroom (thus always developing for 6min). However, whenever I mixed the chemicals and had the full PDF in front of me, I saw and read the third column, thereby not noting that once I am in the darkroom a few days later I set my timer to 6 and not 9 minutes. Stupid me. Anyway, I hope years down the road, somebody will find this useful and it may solve their issue. My test sheets of 4x5 Provia 100F came out great today. Thanks to rodeo_joe and all the others here at photo.net! [1] https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0339/5113/files/CS6_instructions_25dfbef0-f1e1-4fe7-841b-dc4ece42c184.pdf?v=1590215645

Thanks. I do not have a TV but will try to find an IR remote. Meanwhile, I tried again and exposed the Provia 100F at 50, 100, 200, and 400 for the first frames and then just used it at 100 for some street and landscape shots. The result with Cinestill's new Cs6 with Dynamic Chrome is the very same. The film is dark as night although all the information is there if I use a strong flashlight. I can see every frame and they all look good. The film base at the very beginning (that received full light when I loaded the film) has a strong blue cast, if this helps. Blix cannot be the issue. I soaked it in blix for 8min and as the film did not clear I put it in C41 blix for another 5min. I used Dynamic Chrome at 1:1 for 9min at 104, and the color reversal for 8min.

Hi, So I am trying Cinestill's new Cs6 with Dynamic Chrome [*] and I run into issues with the positives (Provia 100f) remaining almost black. I mixed the chemicals at the correct temperatures. I heated them up to 106F, I used the developer 1 at 1:2 for 10.5 min, I washed correctly and also monitored for the temperature there, I used the color reversal for about 8min, and blix for almost 10min. I keep my tank at 104F using a water bath. The color actually comes out okay if you just scan with a very, very high gain (see here for a capture with my smartphone: Pasteboard - Uploaded Image) As you can see here (Pasteboard - Uploaded Image) the film at the beginning of the roll that got exposed to a lot of light while loading the camera did clear. The rest however is mostly black. Using my light box at full strength, I can see the content and it seems okay (Pasteboard - Uploaded Image) and as said before they scan okay if I push the gain to the top. Any ideas why the film does not clear? Kris [*] see here for the instructions: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0339/5113/files/CS6_instructions_25dfbef0-f1e1-4fe7-841b-dc4ece42c184.pdf?v=1590215645

rodeo_joe What I meant is that it is not an issue of the /individual/ scanner. I agree that it is most likely two factors: P30 is very contrasty, and I used the monobath with 2x the time (as suggested online). I will now develop for 4 min only. This should hopefully address the bloom from scanning such images. Otherwise I do like P30, so I will keep playing around with it. Nontheless, I will be more careful in terms of picking scenes with less dyamic range to cover.

Dear Dave, Thanks for your posting. As you can see from this Coolscan scan (Pasteboard - Uploaded Image) versus this PIE scan (Pasteboard - Uploaded Image), the scanner is most likely not the problem as the issue remains but the orientation changes in the direction of the scanner line (by 90 degree). P30 has a small exposure latitude, so that I may have overexposed it indeed. Still, I have developed many rolls of all sorts but never saw this issue before. It may also be the effect of overdeveloping as I used 6 minutes (there are webpages online that suggest 6min and others that argue for 4min using Df96). Another issue could be the combination of overexposed film and the gain of the scanner (that will increase due to the density of the negative). I will try to run some more experiments. Thanks to all of you for these great suggetions.

So I wonder about the way it is scanned: -Is the film perfectly flat? --> Probably not perfect, but I also tried the FH-3 holder for the Coolscan 5000 and got the same results. -Is the emulsion side of the film pointing to the scanner optics? --> I think I tried both but can check again. But specially in the shape of the film, -Is it extremely overexposed and/or overdeveloped? I wonder if there is too much density on the film... --> Good point! P30 does not have much latitude and the sky is probably really dense. To adjust for that, I changed the gain setting in Vuescan for longer and shorter exposures. It had no success so far, but that may be something to try further. However, why would not all dark/bright regions be affected in an example like this one? Pasteboard - Uploaded Image Thanks again for all your ideas!

I tried the 'naked' and the FH-3.

Okay, I hope you will enjoy this little twist in the story. This is the result of using a totally different scanner: Pasteboard - Uploaded Image . Same problem, very different pattern so to speak. Maybe some sort of software issue or the effect is very faint and is created while stretching the image histogram by the scanner. The smearing is in the direction of the scanning so to speak as the Coolscan and the PrimeFilm XAs have a different orientation. Could this be some sort of residue on the negative that causes some sort of reflection? I used a 5x lupe and a lightbox before. Keep in mind that the sky around the lights will be all black on the negative; there is no way to see such a pattern.

Thanks. I will try to agitate more slowly. I definitely do not shake, but I will happily try your suggestion. Thanks again. I will also try jose's idea of rotating the film to check the scanner. I did not have this problem before and I did many rolls in the same setup. Let's hope it is not the scanner but just user error.

Thanks for your detailed replies. This is Ferrania P30 in Df96 for >6min at ~80-85F with regular but not constant agitation (inversion). The scanner is a Nikon Coolscan 5000. I did not have this issue before. I actually like the idea that it could be camera movement as the film is 80 ISO and I had to shoot it at 1/60 or 1/30 but then I would expect the movement to always down and not up and down. Now, that I know that the issue exists, I also spotted it in other pictures, like this one here that I like otherwise: Pasteboard - Uploaded Image .You can see that the streaks run both up (house) and down (traffic lights). There may even be some next to his black pants. The Df96 is still relatively new, maybe on its 5th roll. I tend to agitate by a full inversion, relatively quickly, say 5 times within 10 seconds and then let it stand for 30+ seconds. I hope it is my development and not the scanner. Any further insights?

Hi, I have some issues with streaks/smear on my recently developed negatives, affecting areas of very abrumpt contrast change; see this image fragment Pasteboard - Uploaded Image . Any guesses whether this is due to errors in development, my scanner, camera movement, or yet another issue? Thanks a lot! Kris