Can we talk about film?

[OldMacs4Me]

Film is ‘coming back’ but at the same time neither Kodak nor Fuji appear to be genuinely committing to their film products. I am old enough that I used to shoot film because that’s the only way one could take photos, but have only recently got into it beyond the snapshot camera world.

Right now it seems that C-41 color negative film is hanging on by its fingernails in terms of what people in the boardrooms of Fuji and Kodak think.

I did buy an Instax camera and it’s a lot of fun (though the photos ar really small), but at present it seems that while interest is growing, 35mm production has gone nowhere and is not being expanded. So prices and scarcity continue to rise.

If I were to use film again it would either be 120 in my Rollei TLR, or 120 or 4x5 in my Linhof. Either way I would want to go Color Print. With either neg or transparency I would still digitize from there. With CP films it's dead easy. Meter for the shadows and let the films incredible latitude do the rest. With slides I have always found it crucial to bracket; normal -1/2, and -1. Even when scanning, imperfectly exposed slides are a bear to work with and nowadays films and processing are pricey enough that bracketing is a big hit on the wallet especially at 4x5. Even a 0, -1 4x5 slide bracket would set me back $50.

 

[toke lahti]

I'm still waiting for the day that decade when good film scanners are better, cheaper and more available than 20 years ago.
That might never come.

Asked about update for a popular 8mm scanner. Manufacturer told, that 95% of their customers are happy with their compressed washed out half-hd clips, or do not know any better.

Usb2 still remains king in this dome.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm still waiting for the day that decade when good film scanners are better, cheaper and more available than 20 years ago.
That might never come.

Asked about update for a popular 8mm scanner. Manufacturer told, that 95% of their customers are happy with their compressed washed out half-hd clips, or do not know any better.

Usb2 still remains king in this dome.

I don’t think much development work as been done on film scanning hardware / software in years. The scanners available today are pretty much slightly improved versions to what was around 10-15 years ago as far as I can tell. And I doubt that will change in the foreseeable future.

 

[piatigorsky]

Hi, I'm posting for the first time on this thread after being pointed here on one of the Photo of the Week threads, where I happened to share a photo taken with the new Harman Phoenix. I've been experimenting with it, so I thought I'd come over here to share some of my results. All of the following photos were taken in and around Taipei with a Nikomat (Nikkormat) FTN camera and either a f/2 24mm or a f/1.4 50mm lens—and before anyone asks, I did check the camera’s light meter with an external meter and grey card, and it is a bit flaky due to age and possibly the battery voltage being higher than the now discontinued mercury batteries, but it’s never more than half a stop off.

First I shot roughly half a roll at box speed, on a hike as well as a few indoor shots with generous lighting and a tripod (but no flash), then I promptly cut the strip out and popped it into my developing tank in a changing bag, while leaving the rest of the roll in the same camera. Here are some of the more presentable results:

In my opinion, this is a film that really does not like contrast: dynamic range seems to be quite compressed, and exposing for shadows results in very overblown highlights that I had a hard time salvaging during scanning and post-production—there's supposed to be a distinct wavy pattern on the wallpaper behind the giant teddies!

Next I tried metering it at 400 and pushing it one stop in development. Results are incredibly grainy even in daylight, unless I'm doing really long exposures (more than 1 sec.) and blowing everything out. Ironically, I think low-light photos turned out better:

(Our local Ilford reseller was having a yearend sale, so of course the teddies had to stock up)

So, since this is a film that already doesn't like contrast and hates being pushed, I thought why not try doing a bleach bypass just for the heck of it. So for my second roll, I set my camera's meter to 400 to deliberately underexpose as per usual bleach bypass shooting, and tried to shoot low contrast settings. Frankly I think the results look better than normal processing:

So, my thoughts:
1. This film doesn't like contrast.
2. This film doesn't like being pushed.
3. If developing at home, try a bleach bypass if possible, you might be surprised by the results.
4. Don't throw away your Kodak Gold just yet.

It took quite a while to assemble everything, and this is just my two cents, but I hope this helps!

 

[headlessmike]

Hi, I'm posting for the first time on this thread after being pointed here on one of the Photo of the Week threads, where I happened to share a photo taken with the new Harman Phoenix. I've been experimenting with it, so I thought I'd come over here to share some of my results. All of the following photos were taken in and around Taipei with a Nikomat (Nikkormat) FTN camera and either a f/2 24mm or a f/1.4 50mm lens—and before anyone asks, I did check the camera’s light meter with an external meter and grey card, and it is a bit flaky due to age and possibly the battery voltage being higher than the now discontinued mercury batteries, but it’s never more than half a stop off.

First I shot roughly half a roll at box speed, on a hike as well as a few indoor shots with generous lighting and a tripod (but no flash), then I promptly cut the strip out and popped it into my developing tank in a changing bag, while leaving the rest of the roll in the same camera. Here are some of the more presentable results:
View attachment 2329450
View attachment 2329452 View attachment 2329453 View attachment 2329455 View attachment 2329456
In my opinion, this is a film that really does not like contrast: dynamic range seems to be quite compressed, and exposing for shadows results in very overblown highlights that I had a hard time salvaging during scanning and post-production—there's supposed to be a distinct wavy pattern on the wallpaper behind the giant teddies!

Next I tried metering it at 400 and pushing it one stop in development. Results are incredibly grainy even in daylight, unless I'm doing really long exposures (more than 1 sec.) and blowing everything out. Ironically, I think low-light photos turned out better:
View attachment 2329469 View attachment 2329471 View attachment 2329472 View attachment 2329473 View attachment 2329474 View attachment 2329475
(Our local Ilford reseller was having a yearend sale, so of course the teddies had to stock up)

So, since this is a film that already doesn't like contrast and hates being pushed, I thought why not try doing a bleach bypass just for the heck of it. So for my second roll, I set my camera's meter to 400 to deliberately underexpose as per usual bleach bypass shooting, and tried to shoot low contrast settings. Frankly I think the results look better than normal processing:
View attachment 2329477 View attachment 2329478 View attachment 2329479 View attachment 2329480 View attachment 2329481 View attachment 2329482

So, my thoughts:
1. This film doesn't like contrast.
2. This film doesn't like being pushed.
3. If developing at home, try a bleach bypass if possible, you might be surprised by the results.
4. Don't throw away your Kodak Gold just yet.

It took quite a while to assemble everything, and this is just my two cents, but I hope this helps!

Thanks for sharing. It’s always interesting to see how new film stocks perform.

Without knowing enough about your process, it looks to me as if most of your shots are underexposed which gives the excessive grain. The first teddy shot and the long-exposure crosswalk look the least grainy and seem more properly exposed in comparison to the others.

 

[piatigorsky]

Thanks for sharing. It’s always interesting to see how new film stocks perform.

Without knowing enough about your process, it looks to me as if most of your shots are underexposed which gives the excessive grain. The first teddy shot and the long-exposure crosswalk look the least grainy and seem more properly exposed in comparison to the others.

Indeed, that was my first thought when I looked at the developed film, which was why I checked my camera's meter right afterward, but it showed up with an error of less than half a stop. In fact, generally speaking when actually shooting I set my ISO value 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower than the value I'm aiming at (i.e. when I say 200 or 400, I actually set it to 160 or 320), and in addition when metering on the FTN I usually err towards overexposure (having the needle lean toward the positive side instead of centering it). This usually produces good results without too much overexposure, but not for this film stock it seems. In any case, I've already popped a roll into an F5 that I know has a good working meter, so I should have some more results in a few days.

 

[bunnspecial]

Love seeing your results with Phoenix…I need to pick up a roll.

 

[mollyc]

Love seeing your results with Phoenix…I need to pick up a roll.

i took my daughter to the film store today but it was raining so i stayed in the car. 😂 i might pick some up when we go back on friday to pick up her negatives.

 

[piatigorsky]

Love seeing your results with Phoenix…I need to pick up a roll.

i took my daughter to the film store today but it was raining so i stayed in the car. 😂 i might pick some up when we go back on friday to pick up her negatives.

Be quick! When I went hoarding film last week, the local distributor here said that Taiwan only received 300 rolls in this batch, and they don't know if and when Harman/Ilford will produce a second. (Which means that I have something like 1/50 of the total national supply in my hands.) I don't know how much stock has been allocated to other countries, but I'm guessing supply is going to be limited. And a new film stock appearing on the market nowadays is always cause for celebration!

 

[mollyc]

Be quick! When I went hoarding film last week, the local distributor here said that Taiwan only received 300 rolls in this batch, and they don't know if and when Harman/Ilford will produce a second. (Which means that I have something like 1/50 of the total national supply in my hands.) I don't know how much stock has been allocated to other countries, but I'm guessing supply is going to be limited. And a new film stock appearing on the market nowadays is always cause for celebration!

oh good to know. i know my local store did get some in but that was several weeks ago.

 

[bunnspecial]

I know my local store had some when I was in last week. B&H is showing in stock also, but thanks also for that information. I don't want to miss out on this first run!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I just ordered two rolls from B&H. 🤣

I don’t know if this is a film I will want to shoot regularly (if it remains available), but I want to encourage Ilford to get into the color game and naturally I’m curious what this will look like shot in my cameras.

 

[mollyc]

I just ordered two rolls from B&H. 🤣

I don’t know if this is a film I will want to shoot regularly (if it remains available), but I want to encourage Ilford to get into the color game and naturally I’m curious what this will look like shot in my cameras.

Yeah, this is me. I won't use it for "good" photos. If I can get a roll tomorrow, I'll probably hang on to it and use it in the spring when it isn't drab, but I'm not expecting much from it. But I agree that we should support Ilford for more work on this and other color films.

 

[bunnspecial]

I needed to stock up on 35mm film so ordered a bit of Phoenix and some other odds and ends from B&H.

I’m giving HP5 another honest try. I’m still a Tri-X guy and only really shoot FP4 because Plus-x is no longer made, but I also want to support Ilford. The HP5 I’ve shot more recently was freebie stuff of uncertain age that came in a bulk loader, and I’ve mostly used it for camera testing. I owe it to myself to try fresh.

 

[mollyc]

my store did not have the phoenix. i thought they’d gotten it in awhile ago but i guess that was the store i don’t go to as often.

 

[piatigorsky]

I shot another half roll of Phoenix on Thursday and immediately developed it when I got back home. This time around, I tried a couple of bracketed shots to sort of do a more systematic test, with a Nikon F5 that I know has a good meter, and ISO set to exactly 200 (not 1/3 stop lower as I usually do). For all of the following, I used only the default settings on my Epson V600 scanner and Silverfast 9, as recommended on Harman/Ilford's data sheet.

For the first one, I tried a relatively low contrast scene, and I used spot metering and metered for the darkest part of the scene, the trees in the center. The following three shots are respectively no compensation, -1 stop, and +1 stop:

EV±0 looks ok, -1 still acceptable, but the +1 shot is definitely overexposed, and there's a red cast for some reason.

For the second one, I returned to the art installation with the three colored balls I photoed in my earlier post. I used spot metering on the green ball on the right. Pardon the star filter, I forgot I had it on my lens. Again, the following three shots are respectively no compensation, +1 stop, and -1 stop:

This time, I don’t think there’s too excessive grain even at EV-1 compared to the earlier shot I took with the FTN. I’m guessing spot metering does make a difference, as the center-weighted metering on the FTN might have been led astray in high contrast situations; also, it looks like Phoenix really doesn’t respond well to pushing, so I think that even if you do set ISO at 400, it would be wiser to not push it in development. In this case, I’d say that -1 stop even looks better, since there’s quite a loss of detail in the highlights in the ±0 shot. +1 is of course very washed out, I tried rescanning at lower contrast settings but it appears the highlights are so blown out there’s not much detail in the film at all.

These next two were taken at one Taipei’s trendier pedestrian shopping districts, with spot metering used on the darkest parts of each scene: the evil mouse figure on the left in the first one, and the floor of the shed in the second. Since it was a rainy day with really heavy cloud cover, both shots ended being taken with aperture wide open at f/1.4. so focus appears soft. In particular, the jumbotrons in both photos are completely blown out, with hardly any details to be salvaged:

And finally, just for fun, a few half-frame shots taken with a Canon Demi EE17 (so don't expect high quality), using the remainder of the same roll of Phoenix, with the camera again set to ISO 200:

 

[Apple fanboy]

Nice write ups. I work for an Ilford stockist and I would say it is easier to get hold of than some Kodak brands. But I’m in the UK so things are going to be a bit different here.
I’m always amazed at how much film we sell in 2023 (well for another day or so!).
Mostly colleges and universities, but also a growing number of end users.
We even had a number of film orders on the 25th of December. I guess they got film cameras for Christmas.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I needed to stock up on 35mm film so ordered a bit of Phoenix and some other odds and ends from B&H.

I’m giving HP5 another honest try. I’m still a Tri-X guy and only really shoot FP4 because Plus-x is no longer made, but I also want to support Ilford. The HP5 I’ve shot more recently was freebie stuff of uncertain age that came in a bulk loader, and I’ve mostly used it for camera testing. I owe it to myself to try fresh.

I don't notice too much difference between the TX-400 and HP5+ that I have shot and developed. But that probably says more about my development skills than the film stock. I still shoot TX-400 but more often HP5+ due to the cost savings.

I shot another half roll of Phoenix on Thursday and immediately developed it when I got back home. This time around, I tried a couple of bracketed shots to sort of do a more systematic test, with a Nikon F5 that I know has a good meter, and ISO set to exactly 200 (not 1/3 stop lower as I usually do). For all of the following, I used only the default settings on my Epson V600 scanner and Silverfast 9, as recommended on Harman/Ilford's data sheet.

Thanks for the very thorough writeup. I think I'm going to save my Phoenix until spring or summer, when I can shoot with more light and less drab scenery. I'll probably try shooting it in my EOS 1N, as it has the most accurate meter of all of my cameras.

 

[bunnspecial]

I don't notice too much difference between the TX-400 and HP5+ that I have shot and developed. But that probably says more about my development skills than the film stock. I still shoot TX-400 but more often HP5+ due to the cost savings.

The grain looks similar but I find the mid-tone contrast to be very different between the two. Of course it's somewhat developer dependent, but in particular I like how Tri-X handles the bottom half of the tone curve better than I do HP-5. The same is true for me of Plus-X and FP4+, although that's not so worthwhile of a discussion anymore given that Plus-X is a decade out of production.

I really wish that we could get TXP-320 in small format. Its "toe" contrast is lovely, and in particular I love how it renders people, and in fact to my eye it's almost like the best parts of the Plus-X and Tri-X tone curves put together(although the grain is more like TX). I have some TXP-320 in 220 squirreled away and even I think a couple of rolls in 120. Now it's only available as sheet film.

 

[mollyc]

The grain looks similar but I find the mid-tone contrast to be very different between the two. Of course it's somewhat developer dependent, but in particular I like how Tri-X handles the bottom half of the tone curve better than I do HP-5. The same is true for me of Plus-X and FP4+, although that's not so worthwhile of a discussion anymore given that Plus-X is a decade out of production.

I really wish that we could get TXP-320 in small format. Its "toe" contrast is lovely, and in particular I love how it renders people, and in fact to my eye it's almost like the best parts of the Plus-X and Tri-X tone curves put together(although the grain is more like TX). I have some TXP-320 in 220 squirreled away and even I think a couple of rolls in 120. Now it's only available as sheet film.

you camera scan your film, yes? how do you digitize?

 

[bunnspecial]

Thanks for the very thorough writeup. I think I'm going to save my Phoenix until spring or summer, when I can shoot with more light and less drab scenery. I'll probably try shooting it in my EOS 1N, as it has the most accurate meter of all of my cameras.

I too appreciate all the information and work that @piatigorsky has provided and done on this film, and it's given me an idea of what to expect.

I had planned to toss it in my F2SB or maybe my F2AS(I just picked up a second one, this one a bit more "used" so I don't feel bad using it some more, unlike my other super clean one) but I'm thinking my first rolls will go in a modern-ish camera like my F4, F5, or F100. I'd use it in my F6 if it weren't more or less permanently an E6 camera...

 

[bunnspecial]

you camera scan your film, yes? how do you digitize?

I've played with it, but still keep coming back to my Nikon scanners. Yes they're slow and a bit clunky to use, but I like the results.

I'm going to give camera scanning another try. I actually have-on the way now-everything I need to do iTTL flash with a Quantum Q-flash T5Dr. I wasn't wild about my results from using sunlight, but found it difficult to get consistent results using off-camera flash within the range of what I could do with a wired connection. The Q-flash can give MUCH more diffuse light than a typical speedlight, and with the wireless attachments I can put them a good distance away. I'll have to experiment with this, but I'm even wondering how medium format will look directly on the Q-flash diffuser panels.

My last attempt was with the PB-4 bellows and the dedicated slide copy attachment. I realized too that the attachment I was using was missing the bellows that basically function as a lens shade between the lens and the slide. I had another that had those intact, so I need to try again with it. I was getting a LOT of light bleed, and my attempts at make-shift baffle weren't working great(I had meant to order some light blocking fabric, but found the other attachment). If I can get this set-up ironed out, I think it will be great, especially since the copy attachment for the PB4 is designed to accept a whole uncut roll also.

 

[mollyc]

I've played with it, but still keep coming back to my Nikon scanners. Yes they're slow and a bit clunky to use, but I like the results.

I'm going to give camera scanning another try. I actually have-on the way now-everything I need to do iTTL flash with a Quantum Q-flash T5Dr. I wasn't wild about my results from using sunlight, but found it difficult to get consistent results using off-camera flash within the range of what I could do with a wired connection. The Q-flash can give MUCH more diffuse light than a typical speedlight, and with the wireless attachments I can put them a good distance away. I'll have to experiment with this, but I'm even wondering how medium format will look directly on the Q-flash diffuser panels.

My last attempt was with the PB-4 bellows and the dedicated slide copy attachment. I realized too that the attachment I was using was missing the bellows that basically function as a lens shade between the lens and the slide. I had another that had those intact, so I need to try again with it. I was getting a LOT of light bleed, and my attempts at make-shift baffle weren't working great(I had meant to order some light blocking fabric, but found the other attachment). If I can get this set-up ironed out, I think it will be great, especially since the copy attachment for the PB4 is designed to accept a whole uncut roll also.

how do you convert your negatives? silverfast?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I had planned to toss it in my F2SB or maybe my F2AS(I just picked up a second one, this one a bit more "used" so I don't feel bad using it some more, unlike my other super clean one) but I'm thinking my first rolls will go in a modern-ish camera like my F4, F5, or F100. I'd use it in my F6 if it weren't more or less permanently an E6 camera...

Since I got back into film, all of the cameras I own and use regularly (Canon F1n, Canon EOS-1N, Nikon FM, Zeiss IKON) are in good working order but all are well used and none of them are so cosmetically pretty that I'm afraid to toss them into a bag, or back seat of the car, or have them dangle from my shoulder while hiking in the woods. Lugging a camera around can be a pain, but missing a great shot because you were afraid to bring your camera can be so very annoying...

I've almost bought a 'nicer' camera a couple times and stopped because 1) the cameras I have are capable of much better pictures than my skill level produces anyway, and 2) a 'nicer' more expensive camera would probably sit on a shelf most of the time.

I just finished developing a roll of 400 TX exposed at ISO 800 (my first attempt at shooting other than box speed). Initial glance at the negatives looks promising. I also just got my hands on an EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro to replace the FD 50mm Macro I have been using on my EOS RP () for film scanning. Hoping that improves my final product somewhat, as I can eliminate one of the two adapters I currently have to use.

 

[bunnspecial]

how do you convert your negatives? silverfast?

With the Nikon scanners, I mostly use Nikon Scan. This always presents a bit of a logistic problem, as the newest OS it will run on is 10.6.8. It's a "carbon"(will run on OS 9 and OS X) PowerPC Program, and 10.6.8 is the newest OS with Rosetta, which is the PowerPC emulator for Intel systems. I've run into some weird bugs even using ~2011 era Intel hardware(some of which shipped with 10.6.8, a lot of which can be made to run it) so practically speaking it's either PowerPC or 2006-2010 Intel hardware. Virtual machines can work for the Coolscan V, but not for the 8000(medium format) as it's not possible to pass a Firewire connection through to a virtual machine. I ran it for a while on my 2010/2012 Mac Pro, and found that, weirdly enough, I had to run it as a Photoshop plug-in(in PS CS4) and not as a stand-alone program.

Still, though, even with the headaches I find that these scanners are at their best running the manufacturer's software.

Vuescan will run them, and I have the older perpetual "Pro" license for it(with free updates forever-they've actually recently started asking perpetual license holders to voluntarily contribute to support continued updating). Vuescan is somewhat easier to use than Nikon Scan, and I can run it on my M1 MacBook Pro if I were so inclined, but I find that I don't like the results as much as if I use the Nikon software.

With all the scanner software, basically you just tell it what kind of film stock you're working with(B&W negative, color negative, color slide) and it handles the rest. There are profiles for some common color film stocks-those are a bigger deal for negative film than for slide film. There's also a generic color negative and color slide profile. There's even a Kodachrome profile, which locks out ICE(unless you're fortunate enough to have a Coolscan 9000). Of course too Nikon Scan is stuck in about 2004, a time when films were being discontinued. I honestly haven't checked to see if Vuescan has added more-I'd gladly toss some money their way if they added profiles for some of the new film stocks on the market, although the big one to worry about is Ektar 100(the current Portra offerings are similar enough to the old 160NC and 400NC versions that those work fine, and E100 is effectively E100G).

I've never used Silverfast, although IIRC my Epson V700 may have come with a copy of it, and I probably should install it. Even though I swear by the Nikon scanners, I still have the V700 around as it's a lot more versatile. It has a 4x5 holder, and I have the glass carrier for it so I can throw pretty much any size I want at it. I even have a 3rd party wet mount kit for it, and the results are phenomenal but incredibly tedious(and some of the best wet mount scans I have still have bubbles that I thought were gone but show up on the scan).

In any case, because I use two scanner brands and 3 different, I've avoided buying Silverfast as at least in the past you had to buy it for a specific scanner. I'm not sure if I'd need a separate license for the V and 8000, but know for sure I'd need both Epson and Nikon. Vuescan basically supports any scanner you can throw at it.