Tag: medium format

How to get the right colors from negative films

Posted on by Gianluca Bevacqua

Kodak Ektar 100 colors, Hasselblad 500c/m and Distagon 50mm f/4

Scanning color negatives is the Holy Grail of the film lover.

The scanning part, per se, is no different that the one you have to carry with any other film, color or black and white. The tricky part comes when you try to obtain natural, or at the very least, pleasant colors from that piece of films covered in a bright orange mask.

A bit of help may come from some new kind of negative film, like the Rollei Digibase, that does not make use of such orange mask; but you will still have an hard time sorting out how to get an usable picture if you don’t know a few tricks.

I will assume here that you have had your negatives processed by a lab, or that you followed my previous posts on how to develop & scan them at home – that you can find here:

 

Best film scanner: Canon 5D Mark II vs Drum scanner vs Epson v700

How to scan films using a digital camera

How to develop color negatives in C-41, the easy way

 

Now you have your film neatly cut in strips and scanned. It’s time for a trip into Photoshop!

Open your freshly scanned image and invert it: CTRL + I on Windows, CMD + I on Mac. It will look something like this:

before image

Don’t panic. Now it is time to use one of the most powerful tools of Photoshop: the curves. They look scary, but are not that difficult to understand, really. Basically at the bottom you have a couple of arrows: these set black and white point. And then you can manipulate the curve, pulling and dragging around, to your heart’s content until the image looks good.

Here is like I do it: first choose one of the colors from the drop down menu on the top part of the curve panel. We well start with red. Drag the left bottom arrow keeping pressed the ALT (Windows) / OPT (Mac) button. You will notice that the image goes away, replaced by a monochromatic version, but that at some point details starts to appear. Those details are actually areas of blocked out shadows or burnt highlights, so we will stop just a fraction before something starts to show up.

Repeat the process, always keeping ALT / OPT pressed, for the right arrow and then for the green and the blue colors.

At this point the image starts to look pretty good, but a fair bet is that the colors are still quite a bit off, with some heavy color cast.

Photoshop CS6 curves

To remove it just switch to the opposite color in the drop down menu (if the color cast is red go for blue and vice-versa) and manipulate the actual curve keeping an eye on the image. Try to not overcomplicate things. Often one control point, like you can see in the blue curve, is enough.

I find that rarely, if ever, I have to recur to more than two points. The second one is mostly just for the sake of cleaning a bit the shadows, that often tend to have some kind of blue cast for “environmental reasons”, because of the light that bathed the scene, or a green cast when you shoot under a tree in spring or summer.

Something like the image at the beginning of this post is what you will get. Quite a difference from the blue mess we started with!

P.s.: you will notice that the leaves in this image tends to go from green-ish to yellow-ish tonalities more or less from the bottom to the top part. This has nothing to do with processing: it matches the scene, or in other words it is exactly like this particular tree was.

How to develop color negatives in C-41, the easy way

Posted on by Gianluca Bevacqua

 

From the train, Kershaw 120

One of the best reason to still shooting film is the ability to use negative color film. It has been perfected for decades, and now is at the vertex of its evolutive path. For this reason you can shoot on amazing films like Ektar – to name but one – that give you beautiful colors and extremely small grain.

 

The problem

Problem is: good labs, especially if you don’t happen to live in a very big city and / or don’t trust the postal service with your precious pictures, are getting few and expensive. It’s much more common to get back the films all scratched and full of dust, with someone even sending back the negatives uncut and just rolled up and locked with a wristband – yes, it happened to me!

The obvious choice at this point would be developing the films at home. But, unlike black and white developers that are pretty much easygoing in terms of temperatures involved, C-41 – the name of the chemical process used to develop color negative films – is quite tricky. In theory, it requires you to maintain a temperature of 38 °C / 100.4 °F ± 0.3 °C during the entire process. A 0.3 °C margin is restrictive enough, but the real problems here springs from the 38 °C temperature. It is a really difficult threshold to maintain. During most of the year the water you use for the processing and the stock chemicals will be both at a much lower temperature.

To have the bottles of chemicals and the tank reaching 38 °C you will have to immerse them in hot water in some kind of basin or tray – and they will tend to float. But how will you be able to stop the heating process exactly at 38 °C? And what will happen when the water in the basin will starting to cool down? Yeah, you can add more hot water, but let’s be honest: there is no way you can control the temperature in a ± 0.3 °C range without an expensive and bulky color processor. And no, an aquarium heater is not a viable alternative. In many forum I read about this suggestion, but guess what: even setting aside the fact that it would lack the necessary precision, the goal of an aquarium heater is to let the fishes survive – duh! – so it will not run hotter than 32° C / 89.6° F; as you can see not hot enough by a long shot.

Pino Collito

The solution

So what, we give up? No way! There is an alternative, and if you have read some previous post of mine you may start guessing what I’m referring to: stand development at room temperature.

Yes, exactly like a black and white film. And that is possible mostly because the first developer of a C-41 process is, in fact, just a plain black and white developer. It is the next phase, the bleach or bleach-fix in some kits (blix for friends and family) that will remove the metallic silver and, so to speak, make the colors appear.

I first read about this technique on Lomography and I’m using it with just a couple changes. The results I’m getting are just plain great, without the awful and unpredictable color shifts caused by the imperfect control of time-temperature when trying to develop the films by the book at 38 °C.

 

The instructions

So let’s cut to the chase; these are the steps you need to follow to develop color negatives at home:

 

VARIATION 2 baths (for example: Tetenal C-41 kit)

Pre-soak = 3m (no agitation)
Developer = 45m (1m continuous agitation at first)
1st wash = 3m (changing the water every 30s)
Blix = 60m (1m continuous agitation at first)
Final wash = Ilford-style
Stabilizer = 1m (no agitation)

 

VARIATION 3 baths (for example: Rollei C-41 kit)

Pre-soak = 3m (no agitation)
Developer = 45m (1m continuous agitation at first)
1st wash = 3m (changing the water every 30s)
Bleach = 60m (1m continuous agitation at first)
2nd wash = 3m (changing the water every 30s)
Fixer = 1m continuous agitation and then 10s every minute for the amount of time given in the instructions
Final wash = Ilford-style
Stabilizer = 1m (no agitation)

 

Keep in mind that if your tap water is way colder than room temperature, say 5 or more °C degrees, like it happens in winter at my place, you should bring it to more or less room temperature or, better still, around 20 °C / 68 °F. No need for precision, just use the mixer faucet!

Strada delle Vette, Pentax ME Super 40mm pancake

Notes

Pre-soak
Just plain water. It swells the emulsion leaving it prepared to receive the developer and removes the anti-halo layer – this is why the water will come out of the tank with an heavy coloration.

1st wash
You could actually avoid this step, but it makes the blix last longer – and probably gives you better colors too, even though this is controversial.

Blix
This is simply a combination of bleach and fixer that some kit uses to combine two steps into one.

Blix & bleach
The times for blix and bleach can be extended up to 50% – with respect to the ones reported in the instruction booklets that come with every kit – without harm.

Ilford-style wash
It is an archival washing method devised by Ilford. Basically you fill the tank with water and turn it upside down 5 times, than you empty it. You repeat the process, but this time you turn it upside down 10 times, then you empty it. And for the last time you repeat the process, but turn the tank upside down 20 times before emptying it. That’s it; at this point you will have saved a ton of water – compared with the traditional 15′ wash – and your films will be still archival-quality clean. And yes, you can and should use it also when you process b/w films.

Stabilizer
This step has three functions: it hardens the emulsion, disinfects it agains fungus and bacterial contamination, and lets the water flow away out the film surface without forming drops.

 

After all this just hang the films to dry in a clean room – the best possible place is in the shower, after you run hot water for a minute to clean the air from flying dust particles – and come back in an hour and a half or so. Your pictures will be ready to be cut in stripes and scanned!

How to get good colors from the scans will be the argument of the next post.

 

Review: Rolleicord III

Posted on by Gianluca Bevacqua

Rollei Rolleicord III

I never understood why people insisted on using an old twin lens reflex like the Rolleicord or the Rolleiflex, and even more difficult to understand for me was the attachment they seemed to develop to their cameras up to the point to prefer this old beauties to more substantial Hasselblad and the likes.

Until, a few months ago, I took the plunge and bought a Rolleicord. Then another. Then another one…

But first a bit of background.

The Rolleicord were the economic siblings of the Rolleiflex. Don’t get me wrong, here “economic” still means terrific German engineering; they just lacked a few things and were (are) slower to operate if you intend to use them journalistic-stile. But for that now there is digital and long before that there were motorized 35mm cameras, so it is no longer an issue.

Also, “economic” is still a relative term when you talk about German optics and cameras: for every intent and purposes they were still expensive pieces of gear, just a tad less so then their big sisters. And it shows.

Today you can get a Rolleicord for 50-200 euro, depending on the model and the condition of the camera. A Rolleiflex will set you off anywhere from 350 to 1.500 or more euro, again depending on both model and condition – but to be fair the models that don’t excite the interest of the collectors sell usually between 350 and 600 euro.

Play zone in the woods

For the Rolleicord reviewed here, the model III, you can expect to pay between 150 and 200 euro for a sample in pretty good shape. On the other hand I got the IIb for 30 euro with a complete set of filters. 🙂

On the III I had to recalibrate the viewing lens; it is quite a simple process, but involves a bit of disassembling so it is not for the faint of heart. Now, however, the 75mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenar it sports is scary sharp, pretty much indistinguishable quality wise from the 80mm Planar CF of my Hasselblad.

Not bad for a camera made in the ’50s.

Like I said, now I understand why people swear by this cameras. What you cannot realize from the pictures but only in person, handling one of this little gems, is that they are extremely light, also more than the specs would suggest, and compact.

They are pretty much the same size of a Fuji GS645, the first model, the one with a bellows; this even if they cover quite a bigger film format: 6x6cm vs 6×4,5.

I love my Hasselblad, but I find myself more often than not reaching for one of the Rollei when I’m heading out for a hike. The weight difference between Hassy and Rollei can be only around 670g on paper, but in reality makes all the difference in the world.

Put the camera on a light tripod and chances are you will not even notice that you are carrying something else on top of it and not just the tripod alone.

Forest

The lens, like I said a Schneider Xenar 75mm f/3.5, produces stunning images with amazing tonalities and really beautiful bokeh. The camera shutter goes from B to 1/500s. None of the Rolleicord sports a meter; for that you have to look at one of the Rolleiflex. But, given that they will be external – not trough the lens – meters anyway, I think you will be better served using a modern external meter or one of the phone apps like Pocket Lite Meter.

Some of the previous versions have a different lens: a Carl Zeiss Triotar 75mm f/3.5. At least on paper, it should be a bit less sharp than the Xenar, especially at the borders. Maybe: but it has a completely different optical signature, exceptional for portraits or “ambient” shots. That said, between my sample of the Rolleicord IIb with the Triotar – the other Rolleicord I own – and the Xenar of the Rolleicord III I sincerely cannot detect almost any difference in sharpness, only in contrast – and that today is menial to correct in post.

The only drawback of this amazing cameras, assuming you got one in good shape, is that often the focusing screen is a plain ground glass without a Fresnel. In layman terms it means that it is terribly dim!

Luckily the two possible solutions are both preatty cheap and easy. You can simply buy a magnifier sheet / reading lens – they are cheap Fresnel lenses sold in office supplies stores that costs a few cents each  – and cut it to size. Or, if you want an even brighter finder and a more elegant solution, you can buy one of the excellent Rolleicord / Rolleiflex screens from Rick Oleson (note: I’m not associated with the guy in any way, I’m simply a satisfied customer).

I actually used both sistems: on the Rolleicord III I just cut a Fresnel reading lens to size, while on the IIb – that was dim as hell! – I bought a screen from Rick Oleson. Now both camera finders have the same comfortable brightness level.

Other than that the cameras, being quite old, can have mechanical problems of some sort, but generally they are easily fixable and not that frequent, at all. It is just that when you buy an used camera you don’t know the kind of usage the former owner may have subjected it – but this is true even for the latest DSLR. Anyway I have to say I’ve found the Rollei to be pretty tough: I have used them both under pouring – I mean: POURING – rain without any kind of cover and not a single hitch. Try that with the last 3.500 euro digital camera…

Summing up: if you are into medium format, or want to try it, just buy a Rolleicord. They are great but cheap, and if you decide that you don’t like the form factor you can always resell one of them for pretty much the same price you paid for it. But be warned: if you instead ended up liking it you may start to forget about your other cameras for a very long time!

Just an update after a few months: something happened that I would never have thought possible. The Rolleicord III (actually both the III and the IIb) made me sell my beloved Hasselblad! The quality was, especially compared with the III, pretty much indistinguishable, but the differences in weight, bulk and “operative flow” made me leave the Hasselblad at home more often than not. Worst still, when I brought it with me I ended up regretting not having brought a Rolleicord instead… So yes, this camera (remember: after a proper CLA) is really THAT good!

The cheap bastard guide to (film) photography – Part V: How to digitize your pictures

Posted on by Gianluca Bevacqua

The resulting image

This can be easily the most expensive part of the process. When you have to digitize your pictures there are three possible ways.

 

AN EXTERNAL SERVICE / LAB

If you’re lucky to live near a lab that still offers a good scanning service contextually the developing of the pictures – say Costco or similar – then go for it, or at least give it a try.

On the other hand, recurring to a lab to scan your pictures in a second moment can be quite expensive. Luckily we have two more options.

 

A FILM SCANNER OR A DEDICATED FLATBED

If you shoot 35mm only go for a film scanner. This days even a 3200 / 4000 model is quite cheap – often under 100€ – and the quality is usually impressive.*

With medium format you’re out of luck. Film scanners capable of accepting medium format films are often quite old and almost ever dreadfully expensive. So you’re left with a dedicated flatbed scanner.

I’ve tried both of the following, and while the first you can find it under 50€ for the V700 be prepared to pay up to 500€.

  • Epson 2450 Photo
  • Epson V700

The V700 is undoubtedly better, but not 450€ better. And frankly the results with a flatbed are disappointing anyway. You will get (some of) the beautiful tonalities of medium format film, but not the sharpness; no, not even in the ballpark. That said, if all you want is post the pictures on Flickr this may be enough.** Take a look at the two pictures below, part of a comparison I did a while ago between the Epson V700 and the digital camera method described in the next paragraph (both unsharpened 100% crops). Now you can sharpen the Epson sample to death, but it will never get as good as the first one; simply there is not enough detail to start with.

 

* You may also want to try the bellows method described later if you have a digital camera with an high-resolution sensor available.

** Now a lot of people will be angry and will say that they print the pictures scanned with the V700 mural-size. Please just take a look at the full comparison I made here

scanned with a digital camerascanned with epson 700v

A DIGITAL CAMERA WITH A MACRO LENS

If you have a digital camera and a macro lens – also a cheap but good one like the Pentax 50mm f/4 M – you can extract a ton of detail from your films, on par with a drum scan that costs 200€ a pop!

I’ve explained the process in detail here, but basically you will have to use a metal lens hood as a spacer – or just a bellow if you want to digitize only 35mm film – between the lens and the film, then shoot like you were shooting a panorama: in sections. In the computer you will then reassemble the sections and obtain the final image.

Multiple shots

If you have a digital camera but not a macro lens you can spend as little as 30€ for a 50/3,5 Nikkor pre-ai, but even having to appositely buy, for example, a Nex 3 still will be way cheaper than having to buy a (medium / large format) scanner.

And don’t forget, the quality you’ll get from your negatives will be head and shoulder compared to an under 4.000€ device. Just check the comparison I shot between this system, an Epson V700 and a Dainippon drum scanner here.

With this post we end the “cheap bastard” film photography serie. I hope to have convinced enough people to give film a try.

Now, film or digital, happy pictures to everyone!

 

The cheap bastard guide to (film) photography – Part IV: Films and developers

Posted on by Gianluca Bevacqua

Films and developers - Guardia Piemontese castle

When it comes to films you really cannot be more of a cheap bastard than shoot in black and white and develop on your own. 😉

But for completeness I will examine color films as well.

Remember, this is not the “guide to the best films on the market”, but the “cheap bastard” one.

However, given that it would be foolish to skimp on the quality of film if the results were poor the recommended ones are still really good choices, in fact outstandingly so; but some of them do not make use of the last cutting edge technology.

Fujichrome Velvia - Ferns in the Sila Grande forest

COLOR FILMS

When it comes to color you have the choice between negative and slide film. Frankly shooting slides nowadays does not makes a lot of sense, that is if you intend to scan them later.

Yes, they are beautiful, but a negative has often comparable colors – no, I’m not talking about Velvia, sorry this one is quite unique – with a much larger exposure latitude.

Moreover, I was a big fan of Fuji Sensia – cheap but with beautiful colors – and now it has been discontinued.

The remaining alternatives are all quite expensive, so if you insist in shooting slides just buy the ones that can give you the looks you prefer.

For print films the situation is less grim. I would recommend:

  • Agfa Vista
  • Fuji Superia
  • The cheapest Kodak ones (they are sold under different names in different countries)

I’m also testing the Rollei Digibase, but I’ve still shot too little with this one to make a final call.

Lake Arvo

BLACK AND WHITE FILMS

With black and white films, at least for now, we can relax again given that we still have a fairly vast choice.

But, like I said, here we are “cheap bastards”, so the uncontested king, the one that rules them all is (drum roll please):

  • Shanghai GP3 100 iso

You will have to order it often directly from China, but it costs half the price of the other films – yes, shipping included – and has beautiful tonalities. It has instantly become one of my favorite films, no matter the price. The one cons it has it is that the grain is not so fine, but nothing to worry too much. Soup it in Rodinal semi-stand at 1+200 and you will be in for a treat…

Like I said, lot of alternatives here, so you may also like to try:

  • Foma Fomapan 100 Classic
  • Foma Fomapan 200 Creative
  • Ilford FP4 125 iso
  • Ilford HP5 Plus 400 iso
  • Kodak T-Max 100
  • Kodak T-Max 400
  • Kodak Tri-X 400
  • Rollei Retro 80s
  • Rollei Retro 400s

The T-Max has tabular grain, almost invisible. The other ones have more of a traditional grain structure, but to my eyes often better tonalities too.

Shanghai GP3 in Rodinal 1+200 semi-stand

DEVELOPERS

Here I got three suggestion for you, two commercially available and one to prepare on your own. But black and white developers are hundreds, and many quite cheap. So you should do your own research to see which one performs more to your likings coupled with the specific film selection of your choice.

  • Rodinal (and clones, like R9 etc.)
  • Kodak X-Tol
  • Caffenol

You can use the Rodinal up to 1+300 (yes, one part of developer for 300 parts of water) and it lasts pretty much a lifetime in a well closed bottle, so you may well infer how it is the “cheap bastard” first choice.

The Caffenol is what you think it is, a developer based mostly on coffee (or caffeic acid, to be precise). There are various recipes on the net, just do your homework while you brew and sip a cup of joe.

To the next time, when we will discuss how to digitize – yes, I purposely didn’t say scanning – your pictures.