Developing 120 film - what needs to be done?

[David Mitchell]

Hi all,

I feel like a massive newbie asking this but I know the basic steps to develop film rolls, although not done anything myself it seems pretty straightforward:

How to Develop 120 Roll Negative Film | eHow.com

My question is (please be gentle) what needs to happen now? I am guessing that once its developed and fixed etc it will just be a roll of negatives which will need further development?

What would I need to do to make the developed negatives into proper photos?

 

[Brian Moore]

Once you have processed the negs you need to decide whether to print the images or digitize them or both. I do a lot of my own black and white film processing but then I digitize the images with a film scanner. I share them on the web. I'm not set up to do my own printing--which requires a darkroom--so when I want an image printed I send the neg out.

I do the same for color images that I have processed in a lab. I get processing only, then if I want one printed I just send it out.

 

[David Mitchell]

Ah ok, I thought as much, looks like I will look at getting a scanner, it will be in black and white, are there specific scanners used or could I simply use a high quality scanner you would use on normal documents etc?

I will ask my local lab what services they offer - need to check if they can process 120 film, it would be ironic if they didn't as its a Kodak store! I guess as long as I have the negatives I can order prints from them for the ones I like.

After they are developed is there a specific way to store them to stop them deteriorating or is it just a 'cool dry' area like a box?

 

[Pete Askew]

You can probably get a develop and scan done for reasonable price at least at first (see - http://www.realphotographersforum.com/content/260-photo-imaging-north-wales.html). Negatives are best stored in strips in sleeves - some development houses send them back in A4 sleeves. I have darkrooms and so develop my own film (and print) although sometimes I scan the negatives but apart from LF film I use a Nikon film scanner. I store the sleeved negatives in archive boxes and use the ones from Secol as I like print-through sheets as they are handy for making contact sheets from - below are the links. The Epson 750 range (Epson Perfection V750 Pro - Scanners. Technical Specifications and Overview) are pretty good scanners up to A4.

Silverprint - Store - Browse Products -
Silverprint - Store - Browse Products -

 

[Hamish Gill]

The Epson v500 also does 120 film for a lot less money... But that is the biggest neg it can scan!

 

[Larry Bolch]

Negatives are originals, just like RAW files with digital.

You have the choice of equipping a traditional fume-room and learning analogue printing, or going hybrid digital. To go digital, you will need a scanner such as the excellent Epson V700 and a ton of experience, or a darkroom with an enlarger and image processing trays for B&W, or a processing system for colour and even much more experience.

The simplest is a drum processor and rotator base. It is possible with determination to become a competent printer in the fume-room with a couple of years experience. Digital is much more flexible, but with the flexibility comes a much higher degree of complication and a far longer learning curve.

Digital cameras have liberated photographers from the extremely expensive domination of commercial photo labs, but have put the ball back in their courts. The operator of the big machine in a commercial lab corrects your mistakes so you probably are not aware of how poor your technique may be. Going digital, means that you must totally understand the photographic process, or your stuff will look as dismal as you see everywhere on the web.

There is no magic bullet.

 

[Larry Bolch]

Ah ok, I thought as much, looks like I will look at getting a scanner, it will be in black and white, are there specific scanners used or could I simply use a high quality scanner you would use on normal documents etc?

At this point, the Epson V700 seems to offer the best quality for the money, specially if one goes beyond 35mm. It also works great for 35mm, but also accommodates up to 8×10 large format. I use an Epson 4870 of some vintage, and find no reason to replace it. If it failed, I would have a V700 before night-fall. A Nikon CS9000 costs six time as much, but the difference is minimal and not significant to most non-publication users.

Except for optical character recognition purposes, monochrome scanners are ancient history. Realize that scanners in general are a threatened species. Drum scanners, and the technicians trained to operate them, are pretty much gone. When my 4870 came on the market, enthusiasts matched the results to very expensive drum scans made by experienced technicians, and large prints showed an advantage to the Epson scans in a blind test. This was at least half a dozen years ago.

I will ask my local lab what services they offer - need to check if they can process 120 film, it would be ironic if they didn't as its a Kodak store! I guess as long as I have the negatives I can order prints from them for the ones I like.

Film resources are evaporating quickly. If you have a local resource to deal with medium format, you are extremely lucky. Expect to soon be on your own in developing and printing film.

After they are developed is there a specific way to store them to stop them deteriorating or is it just a 'cool dry' area like a box?

There are three-ring archival binder pages available for most every format of film. They make archiving and indexing easy. Please read and feel free to ask questions

Thoughts Upon Scanning by Larry N. Bolch

 

[David Mitchell]

It feels like I have just stepped on a land mine! lol thanks for all the info, I will check the DPI on the scanner I currently have (I know it won't be amazing but it will be a start) I will still have all the negatives so I can always rescan, trying to keep everything as low cost as I can, I saw a starter developer kit for around £85 or indeed some development drums and auto feed reels for about £30ish.

I am planning on keeping with the simple low cost theme in keeping with the camera, it looks like the V700 scanner is around £400, or 26 times the camera cost lol considering the natural errors/blemishes from using the camera of this age and the fact that I won't be 'touching up' anything I will start with a basic scanner and see how that turns out.

I just noticed a Canon LiDE 700F scanner, 9600dpi x 9600dpi but its around £90, why such a difference? Or is it just the case that the light source is better on the non flatbed model?

Here is the plan:

Formats used/plan to use:

MF film
LF film
Wet plate/tintype

Development

Film - try locally, if not basic starter kit + black box
Wet plate/tintype - Developed by myself (no further processing needed)

Viewing of Photos

Film

1. Basic scanner, max resolution I can get, shown online or printed at home
2. Set up a dark room and try analogue printing (long term project)
3. Find somewhere local that takes MF/LF negatives

Tintype

Once developed, nothing further is needed

I don't plan to correct any 'mistakes' on the film/images, the image will be shown as it was taken (otherwise I would just get a digital camera)

 

[Pete Askew]

Have a look at SDS for home development. It would be worth giving him a call and I'm sure he'll help you select the right items.

Second-hand Darkrooms Supplies

 

[David Mitchell]

Will do

Is there no film (apart from Polaroid instants) where you can shoot a shot, then when you develop the film it becomes the final print? Ie you just process the roll/sheet and it goes from exposed to final version (much like tintype)?

What program would I need to convert the negative to the final positive image? Its all getting a bit complicated vs the tintype process lol

Im tempted to see if I can convert my camera to run 35mm B&W film as I know all places can take that lol

 

[Pete Askew]

The scanner software can do a basic conversion. There's no direct positive material around any more (apart from transparencies) and you' still need to scan it to share so not that much of a disadvantage. Getting 120 film developed is no problem although you may need to use a mail order service. Mind, if I'm lazy (or don't have time) I use Pinewood Photographic and I guess they would be fairly local to you - http://www.photographiccentre.com/ - they are very reliable.

 

[David Mitchell]

Yeah Pinewood studios is just up the road, could probably just drive over and drop them in! Development doesn't seem to be too much, although it does cost more than the film! I will try and work out the cost of getting my own development stuff vs getting it sent away for processing. Ie with only 8 exposures to a roll it will cost about £1.20 per processed negative and thats without printing it etc.

I will try and dig out some old 35mm negatives from my first ever camera (really basic plastic kodak lol) and see what its like scanning those in, im sure software has got better these days. My main PC is a gaming rig so its got plenty of power and RAM to do most things, might have to look into getting another hard drive if the high res scans are like raw digital files.

Hmm ive just had a thought (always dangerous!) I saw a review on the Kodak double 8 movie camera which due to an offset lens it only exposes on half the film as it goes through, you then run the film back through again by switching reels around for the lens to expose on the other side. Basically doubling the lenght of film - ie 25ft of film = 50ft of exposure lenght.

I am wondering if its possible to somehow offset/blank off part of the lens exposing only half of the 4x5 (like half plate) run the whole film through and then swap the reels back around and run the film through again exposing the other side. This will then give me 16 exposures on the film which would half the cost per exposure etc but still keep the full quality that the medium format offers - thoughts on this?

 

[Pete Askew]

Nice idea but 120 film is only 6 cm wide! With 5 inch x 4 inch film in a half plate camera you could indeed do something like that but don't forget that it uses single sheets (http://www.realphotographersforum.com/film-conventional-cameras/4311-loading-5-x4-film-holder.html). For 6 x 9 cm it could be done but re-spooling and getting the indexing right would be challenging! Better to find a 6 x 4.5 cm camera I guess then you would get 16 shots. And one taking 220 film would give you 32 shots.

 

[Brian Moore]

Yeah Pinewood studios is just up the road, could probably just drive over and drop them in! Development doesn't seem to be too much, although it does cost more than the film! I will try and work out the cost of getting my own development stuff vs getting it sent away for processing. Ie with only 8 exposures to a roll it will cost about £1.20 per processed negative and thats without printing it etc.

I will try and dig out some old 35mm negatives from my first ever camera (really basic plastic kodak lol) and see what its like scanning those in, im sure software has got better these days. My main PC is a gaming rig so its got plenty of power and RAM to do most things, might have to look into getting another hard drive if the high res scans are like raw digital files.

Hmm ive just had a thought (always dangerous!) I saw a review on the Kodak double 8 movie camera which due to an offset lens it only exposes on half the film as it goes through, you then run the film back through again by switching reels around for the lens to expose on the other side. Basically doubling the lenght of film - ie 25ft of film = 50ft of exposure lenght.

I am wondering if its possible to somehow offset/blank off part of the lens exposing only half of the 4x5 (like half plate) run the whole film through and then swap the reels back around and run the film through again exposing the other side. This will then give me 16 exposures on the film which would half the cost per exposure etc but still keep the full quality that the medium format offers - thoughts on this?

If you want more images to your 120 roll you might consider picking up a camera that shoots 6x4.5 on 120. This would give 16 images per roll. A fairly reasonable camera that will give you masks to shoot either 6x4.5 or 6x6 (12 images to a roll) is a Holga 120N. In the US you can get these for about $35.00 new. However, you'd have to be willing to accept the compromises in image quality that a Holga causes. (Some people value the Holga images highly,...so if you're into that it's a good way to go.) You can also buy an insert to allow the 120N to shoot 35mm film (and the sprocket holes get exposed, too) but I think you need to unload the exposed film in a dark bag.

 

[David Mitchell]

Yeah I just saw the Holga 120N and the 120 > 135 adaptor, the Holga doesn't have the best images due to the fact they have plastic lenses etc which aren't accurate, giving odd results lol all the adaptor seems to do is just allow the proper spacing to run a 35mm film through the 120 exposure size

I know that you can tweek a Six-16 camere to run a 120 film with the use of spacers, I think I will just accept that the camera takes 8 exposures - 6 more than a double plate LF holder!

I guess I just need to get my head around how to process them to use them/print them, I guess if I wanted loads of photos I would just go 35mm or digital!

This is quite interesting:

http://michaelraso.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/camera-mod-brownie-bullet-holga.html

Ive created an image which sums up the costs quite well with regards to my camera:

Ie every time I use a new 120 film it will cost about £10 in film and development costs

What film should I go with initially? Shall I try a few rolls of Ilford HP5? Apparently its the best for a wide range of lighting conditions etc.

 

[Larry Bolch]

I am planning on keeping with the simple low cost theme in keeping with the camera, it looks like the V700 scanner is around £400, or 26 times the camera cost lol considering the natural errors/blemishes from using the camera of this age and the fact that I won't be 'touching up' anything I will start with a basic scanner and see how that turns out.

I just noticed a Canon LiDE 700F scanner, 9600dpi x 9600dpi but its around £90, why such a difference? Or is it just the case that the light source is better on the non flatbed model?

I did a search, and found the Canon will only scan a single strip of 35mm so would be of no use with medium format negatives. The V700 will handle film all the way to large format, and has holders for 35mm negs and slides, and medium format strips. The holders can be optimized in height to deal with film curve, and to keep the cost low. (High-end scanners have auto-focus which is extremely expensive to implement.) It also is rated at 100,000 scans before failure. Just as with cameras, quality construction and features that are implemented determine the selling price.

Don't obsess over resolution. Oddly, it is really a minor factor. See the following...

DPI Secrets Revealed

I don't plan to correct any 'mistakes' on the film/images, the image will be shown as it was taken (otherwise I would just get a digital camera)

Ever since Henry Fox Talbot made the first negative/positive print in 1836, every time a print is made, processing decisions have been mandatory. Use a random exposure in the darkroom on paper of the wrong contrast and you risk horrible results. There is no standard exposure or contrast—each image demands individual attention. Printmaking requires a lot of skill and practice. A digital camera lets you review the image on site immediately after the exposure, and make necessary corrections. Film punishes those who make imprecise exposures and lack darkroom skills, and neither is quickly nor easily attained. It can take years of practice before one can produce predictable results every time.

 

[Pete Askew]

HP5 is a nice film with a lot of character - I like it a lot. But I think I'd start with Delta 400. It has finer grain and a more 'forgiving' density curve.

Nice shot of The Queen by the way and very appropriate given the impending jubilee! Shame you cropped her ear off though!!

 

[David Mitchell]

Ok, I will go for some Delta 400, ive found a pack of 5 for £21 so slightly more than the HP5, so about £4.70 a roll vs £4 a roll for the HP5. Should I go with a 5 pack of the Delta 400 or should I do some test shots with the cheaper HP5?

 

[Pete Askew]

Some test shots would be wise I guess just in case there are major light leaks etc. So maybe your first idea is better.

 

[David Mitchell]

Hmm I will get the 5 pack of 400 and a roll of the cheaper HP5 as a test roll, although theres only a 70p difference in the 2 films!

Edit: just bought 2 x HP5s and 5 x Delta 400s, should be good to have a practice, just need to find somewhere to develop them!