B&W Slide Processing

[SouthJerseyMan]

I do not know if this is the proper subforum, but I have noticed that B&H Photo offers for sale "Fomapan" film which would be used for making b&w slides. DR5 was a lab that processed this film, but it looks like it is becoming history, too bad. I have never used this film, but I am curious about it. Does anybody know where there is a lab in the US that could develop this film? Thank you.

 

[Sandy Vongries]

Try here https://www.dwaynesphoto.com/site/services  They used to be fairly flexible.

[jason_withers]

On 2/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, SouthJerseyMan said:

I do not know if this is the proper subforum, but I have noticed that B&H Photo offers for sale "Fomapan" film which would be used for making b&w slides. DR5 was a lab that processed this film, but it looks like it is becoming history, too bad. I have never used this film, but I am curious about it. Does anybody know where there is a lab in the US that could develop this film? Thank you.

 

SouthJerseyMan: I used the Fomapan R100 film when I went on a trip to California. I really liked it and used the Dr5 developing service. You can see some of my results here. 

Spectra Film and Video may do B&W reversal processing still. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by jason_withers

[rodeo_joe1]

Genuine question - not meaning to be controversial - but what's the attraction of B&W reversal processing these days? Because you lose the exposure latitude and contrast control of the neg-pos process, and still have to scan the slides for online showing.

Surely it can't be having to drag out a screen and projector and sit in near-darkness to view the results? 

[glen_h]

I suspect the attraction should be low for sending it out.

There are some people who seem to find actual darkroom work fun, and so find some interest in that.

 

When I was young and just starting, maybe about 10 or 11, I remember the "Kodak Direct Positive

Film Developing Outfit" in stores, but way too expensive for me.   A few years ago, I bought some,

though didn't get around to trying them yet.  So, that is for nostalgic reasons.  I didn't get to do it

when I was young, but can do it now. 

 

By the time I could afford slide film, Ektachrome was more fun, mostly sent out, but when

I was in college, I did do E6 in the student darkroom. 

 

Well, even more, when I was young, again maybe 10, my dad had the book:

"Anscochrome and Ektachrome Home Processing" from 1961.

https://www.abebooks.com/Anscochrome-Ektachrome-Home-Processing-Robert-Bagby/17352743421/bd

 

I believe that is E2 days, including re-exposure with actual light bulbs.

 

In any case, a few years of doing E6 is enough to get me out of the thought

about doing it again.  I do have a C-41 kit, which I will use if I need a size that

labs don't do.  (I have some rolls of C116.)

 

But I suspect that the answer is to drag out the projector.  I still have mine, mostly

for Ektachrome slides, but haven't dragged it out for some years now. 

[glen_h]

I never knew my dad to do Ektachrome processing.  Especially as we lived a short

distance from a Kodak slide lab.  Drop it off in the morning, pick it in the evening.

 

He was the one that got me interested in darkroom work, he did know how to do

it, but mostly I never saw him doing it.  (He might have done some at work, though.)

My actual first ever darkroom work, when I was younger than 9, so maybe 7 or 8,

was in the darkroom where he worked, and he did all the work. 

 

Also, his father was still doing it when I stated.  I did some when visiting him

once, and not so much later, I inherited his darkroom supplies, including the

Nikor tanks that I still have.  Also, he is the one that told me about Diafine.

[rodeo_joe1]

11 hours ago, glen_h said:

Also, his father was still doing it when I stated.  I did some when visiting him once.... 

Wow! A 3rd generation photographer. Respect, Glen! 

[glen_h]

Among the cameras I have from my grandfather, is a box camera using 116 film,

with two 120V style power outlets.  They are wired up to use to trigger a flash.

 

A common flash bulb from years ago, the #40 bulb, fits in regular lamp sockets.

(And are supposed to work between 3V and 120V.)

 

I have some #40 bulbs, bought from a Goodwill auction, in case I want to try it.

(I have some #5R flashbulbs, too, also from Goodwill.)

[Tony Parsons]

I remember doing Ferrania E4 processing, with the light bulb re-exposure as mentioned. Had to do my own - ex-wife insisted (!). I have vague memories of an Agfa film that produced B&W slides (processed by Agfa) - 32  ASA, I think, or has my memory slipped another cog (wind-on lever needs a service, I think).

[rodeo_joe1]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:11 AM, Tony Parsons said:

(wind-on lever needs a service, I think).

You've got a lever wind?! Lucky devil. Mine's knob-wound... and with a lefthand thread I suspect.

[JDMvW]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:22 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Surely it can't be having to drag out a screen and projector and sit in near-darkness to view the results? 

Oh but it just may well be.

 

click...click... the cooling fan... darkness, Uncle Henry snoring....

Who could want anything different? 😜

[glen_h]

If you want to use the projector and screen, might as well use E6.

There needs to be some reason not to do that.

 

When I was younger, and did B&W because I could afford it, I still couldn't

afford reversal processing. 

 

I hear, though, that the latest is a shortage of slide mounts.

 

 

[chuck_foreman1]

"I remember the "Kodak Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit" in stores, but way too expensive for me.   A few years ago, I bought some,

though didn't get around to trying them yet.  So, that is for nostalgic reasons.  I didn't get to do it

when I was young, but can do it now. "

In the early 1980s I bought this out of interest, I don't think it was too expensive.  but as I read the directions, the idea of exposing the wet film to an incandescent bulb x inches away for x seconds etc... sounded like a sure sign of disaster for lucky chuckie. It may still be in the darkroom I used .. a root cellar where the band practiced.
I was very impressed with Jason_W's desert photos. If I understood correctly this came with a mail-off processing.

I think I would at least once go through the effort of projecting the slides... one thing that has really impressed me is "SIZE MATTERS" . Though being quite vain, I do enjoy looking at my work on the bigger PC monitors. Putting it up on a slide screen or wall  sounds interesting.  ... uugghh I can't stand myself.

[glen_h]

14 hours ago, chuck_foreman1 said:

"I remember the "Kodak Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit" in stores, but way too expensive for me.   A few years ago, I bought some,

though didn't get around to trying them yet.  So, that is for nostalgic reasons.  I didn't get to do it

when I was young, but can do it now. "

In the early 1980s I bought this out of interest, I don't think it was too expensive.  but as I read the directions, the idea of exposing the wet film to an incandescent bulb x inches away for x seconds etc... sounded like a sure sign of disaster for lucky chuckie. It may still be in the darkroom I used .. a root cellar where the band practiced.

(snip)

That might have been when I was 10, and didn't have a lot of income.

In college, I did some E6, which doesn't need re-exposure, but I also did some

Unicolor PFS.  That is, Prints From Slides, which uses Ektachrome 1993 paper,

usually in a Unidrum.  And PFS uses re-exposure.

 

After the first few steps, you take the paper out of the drum, expose it

to a photoflood lamp one foot away, and then put it back in the drum.

I still have the lamp, which is stored safely in the Unidrum.

[rodeo_joe1]

Years ago I was asked to produce some B&W slides to be projected as a backdrop to a stage performance. 

I just shot the exterior scenes on FP4 and developed it normally, then made contact positive dupes onto blue sensitive slow copy film under an amber safelight in the darkroom.

IMO the minimal extra work was actually easier than piddling about with an unknown reversal kit that probably wouldn't give good results without some experimenting and several tries. Plus there was more exposure latitude and contrast control with the copy film method.

The play's producer was happy with the results anyway. 

[glen_h]

On 3/6/2023 at 6:14 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

 

I just shot the exterior scenes on FP4 and developed it normally, then made contact positive dupes onto blue sensitive slow copy film under an amber safelight in the darkroom.

 (snip)

When I was younger, about the time that I couldn't afford the reversal kit,

I bought something from Freestyle.  I believe it was supposed to be a slow

copy film as you say.  It came in 8x10 sheets.

 

But it never worked as well as you say.  For one, it had a background

fog level that made everything gray, but I suspect (more recently) that it

is just that the contrast is too low.  At the time, I did know about VC

paper, but not quite enough else about contrast, and especially not the

contrast needed for viewable slides. 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/11/2023 at 7:00 AM, glen_h said:

I bought something from Freestyle.  I believe it was supposed to be a slow copy film as you say.  It came in 8x10 sheets.

The copy film I used was sprocketed 35mm stock. Specifically designed for making positive dupes. It came in a 25' length IIRC and was developed in print developer. 

There's probably nothing exactly the same on sale these days, although I'd be surprised if positive cine print stock was unavailable.

It was a little wasteful, because I cut it into about 1.5 frame lengths to put in a contact frame, and to give some handling area for processing.

These days if I ever needed to do it again I'd use the 'Illumitran' copier I use for digitising film.

[AJG]

I did something similar going on 40 years ago with Kodak Fine Grain Release Positive film that I bought in a 100' bulk roll and loaded into cartridges.  I developed it in Dektol, as directed.  It was about ASA 3 or so and blue sensitive only so it could be handled under a regular print safelight.  Results looked good but the process was pretty labor intensive.  The last time I saw this film available I think it was in a 1000' roll for $700 or so so it would be quite a commitment... 

[glen_h]

5 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

The copy film I used was sprocketed 35mm stock. Specifically designed for making positive dupes. It came in a 25' length IIRC and was developed in print developer. 

There's probably nothing exactly the same on sale these days, although I'd be surprised if positive cine print stock was unavailable.

It was a little wasteful, because I cut it into about 1.5 frame lengths to put in a contact frame, and to give some handling area for processing.

These days if I ever needed to do it again I'd use the 'Illumitran' copier I use for digitising film.

The one I had was in a blue box, with no real data sheet.

 

There was a hand written note taped on the box that said 3 minutes in Dektol.