Am I crazy? - Develop/Scan

[Gary R. Smith]

It's been 50+ years since I did my own film. It would seem that with a Lab-Box and Valoi Easy35 I should be good to go with minimal concern about where in the house (as the garage ought to work). At the moment I am set with an APS-C macro rig which would give me 24mp scans but maybe I should pick-up a used 50mm Macro for the 42mp FF Sony? Anyone care to comment on the difference between a 24mp v. 42mp scan of a 35mm frame? Then there's the question of chemistry. Back in the day I always used Kodak D76 with a fix and rinse. For some reason I seem to recall that I used acetic acid for something (as I recall the smell). All of this is to assuage my cost consciousness over spending $26/roll (however the astute mathematician will note that adding up all of the cost of what I don't have at the moment and dividing it out by 26 suggests that I'll need to shoot in excess of 27 rolls in order to break even - the question being: Is my current fil infatuation likely to last? Or put another way: Am I likely to recoup this outlay prior to taking the final dirt nap?).

 

[Pete Askew]

Regarding scans, I guess it depends on what you want to do next with the images. If they are for sharing on computers then I doubt you will gain much, but for prints / crops etc the extra resolution might be useful.

I guess you used the acetic acid as a stop solution between the developer and the fix.

When did cost come into it?

 

[Gary R. Smith]

When did cost come into it?

It was never an issue 50 years ago but given that I view digital as essentially "free" the cost of $3.00 per exposure of a shot on 120 seems excessive. I realize that the cost/shot isn't the same for 135 b&w but sending film off to be developed and scanned when I know I've done it myself for the cost of chemicals.

Maybe what I'm looking for is more physical involvement?

 

[Ralph Turner]

I can't comment on how a 42mp scan looks compared 24mp, but I have printed approx half a 24mp scan of a full 35mm b+w negative to 10x8". and to my eyes it still looked quite crisp. A full frame 35mm scan printed to A4 (the biggest I can print at home) looks superb.
I suspect with the higher (42mp) pixel count on 35mm scanning, the grain clumps will be better resolved but not sure how much more pictorial detail will be gained. I have read online comments saying the higher res scan accentuates the grain without much gain in IQ, but I've not properly tried this for myself.
I did try a three section scan and stitch of a Kodachrome 25 transparency shot with Zeiss glass, but the detail gain was only slight over a straight 24mp scan of the same transparency.
I would imagine shooting with slow, high res film stocks like Adox CMS20 may benefit from the 42mp but I've not tried it.
I hope some of this helps though, of course, these are just my thoughts based on my own experience. Other folk will have other perspectives.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Thanks Ralph! I think there's a part of me that wants to transition my macro work to the a7Riii and that using scanning film is just an excuse. I'm sure that the 24mp APS-C scan would be just fine. I suspect that's where I'll start anyway. I have 2 macro lenses for the a65.

 

[Tony Warren]

Hi Gary - for a 8 x 10 print at 300 dpi you need just short of 8mp. Myself, I digitise by copying using a Sony 20mp A3000 and a Nikon Micro Nikkor, pre-Ai which would give me a 12 x 18 print at 300 dpi. Since most of my output ends up on screen these are way more than I really need. There are other issues of course, noise, detail etc, between cameras offering higher resolutions but for general useage I wouldn't expect to see a great deal of difference. So, unless you plan on producing very large prints, what you have now should be adequate.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Thanks Tony - large prints aren't ever likely. I rarely print anything these days (perhaps I should change that).

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

On 35mm film I've been happy with 16MP... it resolves just enough to see the grain properly if that makes sense. I used 12MP before that and it was OK... but I wanted a bit more. A got literally a 'bit' more . I suspect for 120 you'd want a bit more again - but I would imagine the 24MP setup would work great. You could always upgrade later if you wanted to!

As to chemistry, I started out with Cinestill DF96 monobath which is definitely handy but less flexible than a traditional dev/fixer, then moved on to Ilford ID-11 and Ilford Rapid fixer. Things have stopped there for the time being, as I'm not at home with all my kit...

Edit: Just adding that my references to grain are in relation to HP5 - so it's a bit chunky

 

[Ralph Turner]

Indeed, as @Stevenson said 24mp does do a very good job with 120 if you don't intend to print big. Although I've yet to try it, I would imagine printing up to A3 would still yield a crisp image. From my own experience scanning 645 Velvia 50, there is a noticeable amount of fine detail that can only be properly seen by scanning at higher resolution (in my case scanning 4 (24mp) sections and stitching. The resultant image size here was around 60mp and I was starting to see the dye clump patterns. This was just an exercise to see what was achievable but not one I'd need to use regularly, just nice to know it's there. Here is a link from elsewhere on here that may be of interest, Gary

A stitch in time..

Up to now I’ve been using the stitching tool in PSE6 for assembling sectional scans of medium format frames. The end result is usually a superb seamless composite. The only drawback is that elements will only handle 8-bit files. As a result I usually do any major edits on the 16-bit sections...

realphotographersforum.com

 

[Paul Taylor]

I have a Lab-Box, and so far have had mixed results. I usually lose a frame or two per roll due to some issue. I need to run some more film through it and try a few things to see if it is user error, or an issue with the Lab-Box. It is easy to use with 35mm - but for 120 it is so complicated I just use a tabletop dark tent from Adorama and a Jobo tank. When my new Pentax 17 comes in and I run a few test rolls through it - maybe I will use those to figure out what is going on with the Lab-Box cause I do really like the concept for 35mm.

My home scanning rig is a old Sony Nex-7 (24mp) with an adapted Minolta 50mm F2.8. I have been quite happy with the results - and have printed 120 up to 13x19 with great results (Canon Pro300.) I have printed 35mm up to 11x14 and it looks great, and I have no doubt it would be the same with 13x19.

That being said, I am investigating a change with the set-up. I ordered a Olympus 30mm Macro for my Lumix G9 and I am going to try that out on the scanning rig. Reason being is the G9 has "super resolution" and I want to see if that makes a difference, and the old Minolta being fixed aperture I get blurry scans if the film isn't perfectly flat due to the DoF. I also am looking forward to auto-focus with the Olympus.

I bought a barely used Epson V550 from a local person a while back for cheap - and after figuring out what workflow works best for that - I really, really like the results - but it is sloooooow and the Epson scan software is temperamental. I don't use the stock film holder and instead lay the negatives directly on the glass, and then put another piece of glass on top. The difference in time is astonishing when compared to the camera scanning rig. By the time I scan one frame with the Epson - I can just about do an entire roll with my camera scanning rig.

A friend of mine has the Easy35 and uses it with a Sony a6400 w/ the same Minolta 50mmF2.8 macro. He likes it, and the scans do look quite nice in 35mm

Chemical wise - I use the Cinestill stuff. I am sure there are better chemicals out there - but the cost/easy of use is why I use them. The B&W monobath I have good luck with, and the C41 kit has proven quite reliable. For C41 I can stretch the chemicals out that it only cost me a little over a dollar a roll to do 35mm.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Paul, thanks for your detailed description of the process you use.

 

[Ralph Turner]

@Paul Taylor interesting what you say about the Epson. I've got the old 4870 that I bought new back in the early noughties. It has it's limitations but does a pretty good job with colour negs. As you say, though, dead slow compared to camera scanning. About four negs worth of time on the Epson is a whole roll of 36 exp with camera scanning (that includes checking focus on at least every other frame)

 

[Paul Taylor]

@Paul Taylor interesting what you say about the Epson. I've got the old 4870 that I bought new back in the early noughties. It has it's limitations but does a pretty good job with colour negs. As you say, though, dead slow compared to camera scanning. About four negs worth of time on the Epson is a whole roll of 36 exp with camera scanning (that includes checking focus on at least every other frame)

I am quite happy with the V550 - but it is a headache to use sometimes. The software (and I am running the latest version) is really annoying sometimes. It doesn't play nice with windows 11 in a variety of ways - sometimes it is super slow/laggy to respond why defining the areas I want to scan to the point of being unusable or crashing, it doesn't display all the buttons till you click on where you guess they are. Both these are common issues according to the Epson support forums but there isn't a real solution to date.

It also is very hit or miss on whether it will allow me to scan without the negative carriers. Sometimes (about 25%) of the time I have to put a negative carrier in, and preview - then I can take it out and use my preferred method (directly on the scanner bed with glass on top holding the negative flat.) It will pop up an error saying it can't detect anything on the bed - even though there is -then I have to restart the software/scanner. I have found if I tape off a small square on my glass sheet it will think there is a negative carrier lol.

By far - the most annoying thing about the Epson scanners (V550, 550, 600, 700, 800) is the appearance of bright red, blue, or green lines that run across the entirety the scanned negatives. There are two little calibration sensor things that it uses before scanning and apparently if there is any spec of dust, dirt, etc - no matter how microscopic - you will get the lines. I keep my scanner on a desk that is clean, and I keep it covered with a cover made specifically for it when not in use and I still will get the lines on at least one batch per roll - Then I have to clean the thing and redo my scans as they don't show up in the previews. Given how clean I keep it, and how I keep it - I can't see how dust / dirt get on them. It can be maddening sometimes.

I really wish Epson would release a completely new scanner that didn't have these issues but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I read where there are two other software suites that are compatible with them (VueScan & SilverFast) but these programs cost more than I paid for the scanner.

VueScan is maddening to use in demo form. You download the demo - which is stripped down in features to the point you can't even scan a negative and then it places a giant 1990s graphic watermark across what you scanned making it hard to check the quality, and it repeatedly pops up browser windows with the software's website when you open or close it trying to get you to buy it. Based on how annoying that was - I just uninstalled it.

Silverfast was less annoying (no pop up browser windows) but after installing it and its multiple required drivers and for whatever reason triggering one of the components of the NVidia software I have on the PC - I was ready to try it. This is the most expensive software I tried. When I launched it - you can't even use it without signing up for an account. I uninstalled that demo as well.

The Epson Software works fine, it is just annoying with Windows 11 due to the missing buttons / slowness. I hate windows 11, but it came on the PC. I am going to downgrade it to 10 at some point. The PC , in case anyone is curious is an MSI Codex w/ 13th Gen Intel / 32GB DDR5 Ram / Nvidia 4060. So PC horsepower is not a problem.

I will say though, the most enjoyable aspect of digitally scanning negatives is using Negative Labs Pro. That is a wonderful piece of software, and well worth the cost (I think I paid 70 bucks for it.) I don't rely on Epson Scan to convert my negatives as it was always lackluster - so I scan my negatives as positives and them import them into lightroom classic (the requirement of Negative Lab Pro.) I then use Negative Lab Pro to convert / tweak them. I like it has color profiles for different lab machines (Noritsu / Frontier) and some built in profiles for what film stock. I posted on here about what the difference was between the scans with "stock" EpsonScan and my new method - it was surprising how much the EpsonScan leaves on the table. The difference was so great - I now need to go back and rescan all the negatives.

 

[Ralph Turner]

For the small amount of colour neg film I use, I didn't feel NLP was worth it for me. I can usually manage ok with manual adjustments. Having said that, I've a stack of old family snaps only in colour negative form that I will be scanning later in the year, so I may reconsider my position and invest in it. I bought the Valoi mainly for this purpose to help speed things up a bit and hopefully finish the project before hell freezes over.
I'm still running Windows 8 so the Epson driver is fairly well behaved. I've taken a brief look at Viewscan but never got to grips with it. Other folk have in the past said how good is for squeezing the best out of the Epsons, but I'm content with the in-house package.
Anyway, now I have my camera scanning set up more or less where I want it, the flatbed doesn't get used so often. Even just a single frame scan of 645 b+w on the X-A3 it's a close call with the 4870 detail-wise, the former possibly yielding slightly smoother tones.

 

[Brian Moore]

VueScan is maddening to use in demo form.

It's not very friendly after you buy it either. But I bought it because the Epson software that came with my V500 stopped communicating effectively with my MAC. It no longer will do batch scans, which means I have to scan each 35mm neg separately. (I used to be able to just load 12 negs and say go. I'd do other things while the 12 negs got scanned. Anyway, bought the VueScan and although it's not as easy to use as the Epson software at least I can batch scan so I'm not terribly unhappy with it.

Regarding developer I was a committed user of Rodinal for years. But now that I live in a house with a septic system I've gone to the convenience of Cinestill Df96. It seems to be fine.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

I made some "preliminary" decisions and ordered the Valoi Easy35. It arrived today so I did a couple of scans with 2 different macro lenses attempting to "fill the frame" (which I don't belive I've done yet). Here is my first attempt (with a commercial scan for comparison). The negative is from February from the iiic and HP5+.

The above with a 50/2.8 macro and 2 tubes in the Valoi.

These were both done with the 100/2.8 macro and 4+ tubes in the Valoi. I'm still not getting a full 24MP image (but they are likely going to be just fine for gov't work).

 

[Geoff Chaplin]

As Ralph pointed out a high resolution film would benefit from a higher resolution scan. I think films like FP4, delta 100 and 400, can capture detail of the order of 30-40mpx so would probably marginally benefit from the higher resolution. As has also been said, compared to say a poor flatbed scanner like my old V700, higher resolution scans reveal grain more, but also acutance. Taking Ralph's example of CMS20 where they claim resolution bordering on the one terapixel, then I don't know how you could scan that level of detail other than via a microscope and multiple imaging and stitching. So as always it comes down to all the equipment used in the photography process, development, and what you want at the end.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Thanks for commenting, Geoff! In my first foray into scanning with this gizmo, I don't seem to have nailed the optimum combination of macro lens extension with added tubes between the light and the lens. I'm not sure that it's important to me at this time since I'll be adding in yet another variable once I start doing my own film development again. If you've looked at (m)any of my recent image uploads here in the last month, you'll likely also notice that I've started playing with an old version of the NIK Collection (perhaps going a little crazy with SilverEfEx). What I'm likely building towards is (once again) doing prints (albeit, likely digital). Seeing things large on paper is very different from seeing it small on a screen.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

As to chemistry, I started out with Cinestill DF96 monobath which is definitely handy

I'm starting with this as well Steve. I ordered an old/used Anscomatic tank (like what I used 50 years ago) and a few additional odds and ends (beaker, squeegee, thermometer) and some Df96 monobath liquid and some wetting agent.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

My previous scan tests were done using my Sony APS-C and both a 50 and 100mm macro. I picked up a used 50/2.8 macro for the a7R3 ff and re-ran my Valoi Easy35 tests. Note the size in pixels and the size in MB differences.