Film Time

even though I'd already developed BW film in high school photography class, I too was equally excited to develop my first color negatives at home. I plan to move up to E-6 home developing eventually, I think that will be thrilling too.

OP here, just finished developing...film is currently being rinsed...I was wondering...is it possible to over-agitate the film? I was shaking it up pretty hard and constantly but I don't think it had too ill-effect on it...

>>2913897
It increases contrast as it develops more. Also if you create too many bubbles you may get a weird effect on the top edge of the film if the level of the liquid developer went too low

File: zan1-1.jpg (3MB, 2743x1822px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2743x1822px

So. I'm pretty happy. At least a few pictures came out nicely. It seems like there is some definite exposure issues...I'm thinking maybe it has something to do with the scanner I used to tag these into my computer with. I'm going to try more later, see what happens. I am also getting these "thread-like" marks, does anyone know what they're from? They invert to be black usually.
Here is a sample picture from the set, any suggestions for making a better image export?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 03:28:10

I'm developing a cut roll right now. Tri-X in D-76. Right now fixer is in.

File: 1472553140756.jpg (1MB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x664px

>>2913931

good job for a first try

i dont know much about this stuff, but from an editing point of view id say its a bit over exposed, wether that is from developing or when you took the pic i couldnt say

heres a quick enhancement for you

learn to correct the levels and curves in photoshop after scanning, also spot removal for dust etc, will make your scans look 100% better

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2743
Image Height	1822
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 14:00:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	664

>>2913931
>It seems like there is some definite exposure issues...I'm thinking maybe it has something to do with the scanner

Post a picture of the negatives held up to a light. If your negatives have dark and light areas odds are you did everything right and your scanner / scanning techniques just suck.

Congrats on what looks like a successful first foray into developing!

File: 1472582667116747793727.jpg (855KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 3264x1836px

OP here! I think I'm having a scanner issue because when I look at the negatives they look crisp with good contrast which gives me hope. I followed the dilution and developing times to a T. Here is a pic of my negatives. What do you guys think? Better way to scan in? Maybe using my digital and 100mm macro?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G920W8
Camera Software	G920W8VLU3CPC8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 11:45:44
Exposure Time	1/366 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	40
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Brightness	6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	A16LSIA00SM A16LSIL02SM_

File: inverted.png (503KB, 810x721px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 810x721px

yeah your scanner is having some kind of terrible problem.

>>2914191

fack. I cleaned the glass on it and everything. It's a canon pixma mx530. I thought it would be better. Any suggestion? That image definitely looks better already.... That is what I mean about the negatives looking much sharper

>>2914203
remove the white slide from the top of the scanner you dipshit

>>2914216
So could I just scan with the lid open or take the white chunk off?

>>2914238
oh jeez, i didnt realise you didnt know how your scanner works

negatives need to be backlit, if your scanner is capable of this

then remove the white sheet from the lid, use negative holders to hold the negative and use the negative scanning function on the scanner/scanner software or third party software

>>2914303
Any recommendations for third party scanner software?

>>2914320
i use built in scanner software, dont even need a laptop untill editing

but most people use silverfast i think

>>2914324

Thanks! I'll try throwing a piece of paper behind and backlighting it...

>>2914368
using your phone displaying a solid white screen can work decently well too

File: pixel.jpg (539KB, 876x606px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 876x606px

Hey guys, so my scans are definitely getting better. I have 3 pieces of white paper with a back light behind and it seems to be getting a more contrasted result. When it comes to my scanned images though...it looks like I'm getting pixels coming through. (see red circled areas for example) Is there an easy way to get away from this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6472
Image Height	4024
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	599 dpi
Vertical Resolution	599 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:30 18:44:34
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	876
Image Height	606

>>2914388
>>2914388
shameless self-bump

>>2914388
Wider aperture, but because it might not be viable due to film flatness, increase the distance between your film and monitor

>>2914388
A piece of opal acrylic and bit of space between backlight and the acrylic

>>2914466
how thick of opal acrylic? Is there a grade?

Set up would be: Scanner>Acrylic>Film>Backlight?

Or
Scanner>Film>Acrylic>Backlight...

just buy a second hand backlit scanner, you can pick them up cheap enough and will save you a lot of time and effort, i have an old epson and its great

File: 1472608027319.jpg (620KB, 898x608px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 898x608px

learn how to post process your scans

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	599 dpi
Vertical Resolution	599 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:31 13:26:34
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	898
Image Height	608

>>2914556
>>
I'm just doing a rough edit to show you what I'm encountering.
Look right along the middle, do you see how there are white vertical lines that look like it's slightly pixelated? That is from just a scanner, negative directly on the scanner, white piece of paper behind it and a backlight. What is causing the pixel effect? Certainly on the negative there is no pixels.

>>2914778
Could be the fiber of the paper you're using.

>>2914799
I'm going to try to find some of that acrylic and see if it makes a difference

>>2914556
Not OP, but please, share your secrets. Unless they're "reverse the tone curve, adjust exposure, adjust black point, adjust grey point, apply masked tone curves to taste".

>>2914556
>>2914868

Not OP either but I second this motion

File: EPSON008.jpg (774KB, 1000x723px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1000x723px

>>2914778
>>2914866

yes i see it, im not sure whats causing it, but a proper set up is a back lit scanner with negative holders, you should be able to pick one up cheap second hand, and they produce great results, i have scanned many rolls in no time and barely have to edit

see attached pic of a scan from my ancient backlit epson scanner with minor adjustments in photoshop

>>2914868
>>2914870

>open photoshop
>select RGB levels
>correct RGB levels
>add a bit of contrast
>result

youtube scanning film or how to correct levels in photoshop, very easy and works a treat

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:31 23:42:47
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	723

OK all you fucktards, OP said he has a digicam and a proper 100mm macro. Why in THE FUCK are you recommending shatbed techniques and advising him to purchase another still shit-tier flatbed???? The best scan in the whole thread is the one where he holds up his neg strip in front of A CELL PHONE. This should be all the evidence anyone needs.

OP: Do yourself a favor and use that macro lens to scan your films. There are many anons here that will be glad to help you on that technique.

>>2914881

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=925570&gclid=Cj0KEQjwgJq-BRCFqcLW8_DU9agBEiQAz8Koh62xYElLta4YqGfkkci5JAY4cAoE8FAqD64hgwjJpXgaAjU78P8HAQ&is=REG&A=details&Q=

How about something like this? Sorry for the long link. Too lazy to tinyurl

>>2914887
>>2914887


OP here!! I would like to do this properly...What would be the best technique for this? A light with a diffuser, then the negatives on glass?

>>2914891
First things first. Start by using your phone. This will give you a taste of goodness and you can refine things as you go. Get a white (255,255,255) jpg on your phone, rig up something so you can raise the negative a couple inches above the phone. Put digicam with macro on tripod and aim at film. Shoot raw, import into your software, invert, adjust levels, etc. Your first shots will have flaws, but you will see the promise this method holds. As you get better with this technique, you will want to upgrade to a better backlight. Some use diffused flash, I use rgb LEDS, some use their ipads. Experiment to see what works for you. Tbh, black and white is really easy, color a bit more challenging.

>>2914890
yea any old negative holders, they arent really the important factor

>>2914897

I find that the film slightly bends and it's actually picked up by the macro lens. Do people have pictures of what they use to rig the film and how high above the light they suspend the film?

>>2913897
Yeah, shake it for 10 seconds every minute that you are developing.
>>2913931
Those marks are probably dust on the negative or something. Give everything that touches or interacts with the negative a wipe with a chucks cloth, and clean the negative with a soft brush.

File: rocks.jpg (102KB, 634x1000px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 634x1000px

Babby's first DSLR scan. D610, Nikkor 150mm f/2.8 VR. What did I fuck up?

(film is RPX100 in HC-110(B), 8min at 20°C.)

>>2915430

Is the film flat or is that a problem with your lens? You can see on both sides of your picture (top and bottom) that you blur out..

>>2915440
I'm thinking that it's in the negative. I'm shooting against an XP-PEN light pad at ISO100, f/8, and 1/25s, so there _ought_ to be plenty of DoF. The negatives are held down with a carrier from a flatbed. On the other hand, the negative was exposed under a dark pedestrians' overpass, so likely wide open at 1/30s at 50mm.

File: 1472758838065.jpg (288KB, 634x792px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 634x792px

>>2915430

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	634
Image Height	1000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:02 00:21:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	634
Image Height	792

>>2915590

whats your problem?

>>2915591
what seems to be the problem?

>>2915592

you.

>>2915590
>>2915591
>>2915592
>>2915689
Oh you boys are just plain silly

>>2915590
Thanks; that's the kind of tip I was looking for. I just gotta work on my PP then.

Is Foma 35mm good choice ?
their cheap on ebay and it looks like i have no better option anyway...