Developing b/w

[ian_humphrey]

<p>I do not have a darkroom and want to develop my own b/w 120 filns medium format, but have no way of printing them. Is there a computer printer capable of recording and printing b/w negatives.?</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<p>You'll need a negative scanner (many flatbed scanners will work just fine, but a dedicated film scanner will most likely give you better results) to scan the negative; after that you can print on whatever printer you choose.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p> Unless you want to pay a lab to print the negatives traditionally (which you can still do), you'd need to scan the negatives first. Either on a scanner you own or on a scanner owned by a lab. Then you can print, either on a printer you own or via a printer owned by a lab. You can scan and print yourself, scan at a lab and print yourself, scan yourself and print at a lab, scan and print at the same lab; or scan and print at different labs. <br>

There are a huge number of options for these. Partly its going to depend on whether you want to scan/print all your B&W work, or only the best few. And it depends how big you want to print. And it depends how much control you wish to exert over the final print. You can achieve control with a lab doing the printing, so long as you make the file and they don't mess with it. </p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Its also possible to lay the negatives on a light box and photograph them using a digital SLR with a macro lens, preferably mounted on a copy stand.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>all in one printer scanners exist but I doubt they scan film. Maybe so but then I would doubt the quality. </p>

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Hello everyone. Depending upon one's budget, developing and printing B/W without a darkroom is within reach. I continue to expose and develope my b/w materials with a compact Igloo cooler to hold the preped chemicals and wash water, dry the negs in the bathroom shower and scan the negs with an Epson 600 flatbed model. The jpeg files are then run thru either a HP printer for "proofs", and a high end Epson for quality work.<br>

I am now two years into a "bucket list" project to get all my medium and smaller negs into digital form and can say that the V600 when used properly has produced amazing results that compare favorable with wet prints.<br>

Search thru the various forum inputs and you will see how others have achied their goals of using b/w materials in this on-the-move digital world. Enjoy, Bill</p>

 

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Forgot the picture. Bill</p><div></div>

[ian_humphrey]

<p>Hi Bill<br>

Could I please see a picture of the negative or any b/w negative. It might answer a few questions I have. I have managed to copy a color negative to my computer but as the colours are reversed I do not think I would be able to print it and wonder if it is the same with b/w. ie are the tones reversed.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I should add that I (and I think many others) find scanning either deeply dull and repetitive or pretty expensive if I get others to do it in volume at high quality. I can't see any merit for me in any case, of scanning all my film either as taken or as a one-off task after I've finished with film- the only reasons I can think of are intellectual neatness and a sense of completeness, and neither of those I'm willing to spend hundereds of hours over a hot scanner to achieve. <br>

I have about 8000 "front line " MF slides and b&w negs, and scan them when I need to- for example</p>

<ul>

<li>historically, having the image accepted by a stock agency. In many cases the agency paid for the scans.</li>

<li>When I wanted to make a print after I converted from colour analogue prints to scan and digtial prints in c.2000AD, and on b&w in 2009</li>

<li>If I needed the image for a self-published book</li>

<li>If I wanted to use that image for my website or indeed other websites including this one.</li>

</ul>

<p>Result is that I've got c 2500 scans and the other 5500 (plus my entire "reserve " portfolio of maybe 10 000 further slides) remain uscanned. I don't know how much time or money and heartache that's saved, but its a lot. If I need to scan one of the others I do it on a flatbed here or on an Imacon at a lab depending on purpose. I'm in no way reluctant -I just don't want to spend time doing a major task that I have no need to do, that's all. <br>

</p>

[paul_loveteck]

<p>David,<br>

Although I agree with your comments, I think there is another reason to scan: long time conservation of your pictures.<br>

All negatives degrade over time, specially if they have not been processed carefully with fresh products and correct time and if not kept safely (another subject).<br>

Once scanned, they are potentially saved for ever (usual restrictions may apply!)<br>

So, depending on how much value you attach to the Perennity of your work, scanning can be an absolute must or an unnecessary pain.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Ian I suggest you go over to the digital darkroom form and read some of the post there about scanning and printing.</p>

<p>As for the colors being reversed on a negative scan you may have scanned the negative as a positive or transparency instead of a negative depending on your scanning software options. You may be able to invert the colors in editing software.</p>

<p>There are 3 steps: 1. scan for maximum detail from the negative or transparency; 2. edit in editing software to render the desired image; 3. print to desired quality.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>"All negatives degrade over time....Once scanned, they are potentially saved for ever"<br>

Potentially? Perhaps, but I'd bet on the longevity of a B&W negative over that of a scan that has to be transferred from one medium to another over the years to remain usable.</p>

 

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I do not have a darkroom and want to develop my own b/w 120 filns medium format, but have no way of printing them. Is there a computer printer capable of recording and printing b/w negatives.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As others have said you will need to scan your negatives if you do not want to use a dark room to print them. The Epson V500 is a popular economical choice. It is a flat bed scanner. To get better quality you will have to spend exponentially more. Used Nikon 9000 scanners have been kind of a benchmark as far as high end home scanners. And now the OpticFilm 120 has come out. Still no definitive word on how it stacks up against the Nikon 9000.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Although I agree with your comments, I think there is another reason to scan: long time conservation of your pictures.<br /> All negatives degrade over time, specially if they have not been processed carefully with fresh products and correct time and if not kept safely (another subject).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The obvious solution is to develop and rinse your negatives correctly. Storing your negatives in archival sleeves in a storage binder in a climate controlled closet is all I've found to be necessary. Even if negatives fade a bit after decades they are still scannable. Actually thinner negatives are easier to scan. I develop mine dense and wet print. It also gives them more density to lose and still be scannable. Honestly though I'm not old but I feel my negatives will outlive me.</p>

[paul_loveteck]

<p>Jeff,<br>

I don't want to offend you, but when you say "I feel my negatives will outlive me" this is probably true, however some people have a different idea of perrenity than themselves.<br>

500 years ago, Da Vinci knew that he needed to use good linen for perrenity of his art. Thanks to this, we can admire the Joconde in Paris today.<br>

Many artists in our country today use cheap canvas and paints. Yes, their paintings will last as long as them, however nobody will see them in 500 years.<br>

I am not criticizing your vision for perrenity as this is a matter of personal choice.<br>

My own preference is different from yours and I am glad digital offers a way to preserve what I do, even so I am not a Da Vinci!</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>+1 on negatives not degrading. <br>

They don't. I have negatives from my grandfathers studio going back to the 1920's. The Smithsonian also would not have archived their stock of historical images back onto 4x5 film two years ago as the real risk was digital file format changes possibly making current formats obsolete. Its happened before.<br>

You can buy an all in one scanner/copier/printer with dedicated film holders for film scanning. The result is quite acceptable. I have a three year old Canon MP810 that scans at 9600dpi. An Imacon might do better for $3500. The Epson V700 is also well regarded and not expensive.<br>

Yes, its a pain...getting the negatives developed, scanning the keepers and then into your digital workflow, but I will say that the way film is shot has an anticipation until you see the results days later. It makes you be much more careful. I personally like the hybrid workflow.</p>

<p>Digital is here to stay, but its horrendously expensive if you take into account the high cost of a decent DSLR and its terrible depreciation in just a couple of years...as much as 50%. But then again, digital has made photography something for the masses. </p>

[sfcole]

<p>Ian,<br>

The solution is very easy: get an Epson v500 and Photoshop Elements. That's probably less than $300 total. It does a great job on MF film, as long as you don't need very large prints. For, say, 10x10, you probably won't tell the difference between the Epson and a Nikon. The Epson V700 is a little more convenient in that you can scan more negatives at a time (6 vs 3 square negatives). What many people do is use a basic setup like this, and if a higher quality is needed, send it out to a scanning agency for the occasional hi-res scan. I'd avoid getting a printer--just a money-pit. Send out a file for printing to any number of places. They'll probably use better paper anyway. You can also get digital files printed on real silver-coated paper.</p>

<p>As for the longevity of negatives, they can always be fixed and washed again if there's any doubt.</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>This is for Francisco:</p>

<p>Francisco, I'm fascinated by your statement about the Smithsonian archiving some of their digital files back to 4x5 film! That's very helpful to know, thank you. I have grave concerns about the archivalability (is there such a word?) of digital files of photographs. Can you tell me more about this decision from the Smithsonian, or point me to a source to learn more about it? I haven't checked their own website, perhaps there's something.</p>

<p>But thanks so much for that tidbit of information. Quite remarkable.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>Ian, you asked about reversed colors and there have already been some responses, but just to clarify, when you scan film the scanning software allows you to choose whether you are scanning a color negative, a color positive (some times called slide film or reversal film) or a black and white negative. Once the software knows this it will adjust the colors accordingly as you scan. Of course you will then probably want to use some image editing software to make further adjustments before printing.<br>

My main scanner is the Epson v700. But currently I am living overseas for 6 months and left my scanner at home. So my Christmas present to myself was the Epson v600. It was less than $200 and does a great job. For scanning software I first used the Epson Scan program which comes with the scanner. Recently I purchased VueScan which is more powerful. For post processing I use lightroom and it allows me to do all sorts of things with the image before printing or displaying on the net.<br>

As for the discussion about longevity of negatives, surely the negatives may degrade over 500 years, but the compatibility issue of digital information is also highly questionable if we are talking about 500 years!<br>

I scanned a lot of my father's negatives after he died and many were more than 50 years old. I was very impressed with the quality of the B&W negatives but the color slides that he shot 30-40 years ago are much more problematic.<br>

Here is a scan of a 50 year old negative taken soon after my birth.<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/revdocjim/image/123287086/original.jpg" alt="" /></p>