[Leica] Film Lab

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

Hoppy its certainly good to be able to go back to your film original and 
rescan it better with the newer better higher rez gear you?ve just gotten 
I?ve done that at various stages. I?ve upgraded my film and flatbed scanners 
around three times so I?d go back to the film and rescan it if it?s 
important or a large print.
In the meantime, the original scan already had right there had certainly 
remained the same. There are no scratches on it or fingerprints or dust.  
It?s not been sitting there rotting. And its certainty not faded in any way. 
Although its not likely that the scan you already had would have turned 
brown or looking like its aged drastically it?s nice to know I have it on 
disk somewhere. Stuck in time, ready to go.
The first scanners did a lousy job of Kodachrome. Those would need to be 
rescanned. And Kodachrome itself was uncanny in its ability to not fade and 
be stuck in time. That is if not kept in less than ideal conditions. And we 
are all storing our film body of work in an ideal temperature controlled 
closet aren?t we? The odds of that are what?

A black and white neg if its faded just a bit is no big deal. You still get 
a pretty perfect looking scan out of it and print out of it.
The bigger problem is in color where the cyan layer is going to fade faster 
than the magenta layer or yellow layer they are not all three layers going 
to fade the at the same rate. So, you get a color shift very early on and 
sometimes fixing it is not that easy as you would think in Photoshop.  It 
would be great to be able to attack that one single color layer and fix it 
but I?ve not quite figured that out yet. 
The pro printers who were always there at the place where I?d print my color 
a rental lab in Portland knew that when you brought back your color neg to 
make a matching print the client asked for a week or two later amazingly it 
was often impossible to do so. One layer had already in that?s short a time 
micro shifted so you get a color cross over when you try to match a new 
print to an existing print. The best thing to do is ask for the original 
print back and give them two new ones.
The way smarter thing to do is make more than one print even if they only 
ordered one.

*Cross over means when you get the pink out of the print the greens are not 
right.

 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

On 6/9/17, 4:31 AM, "LUG on behalf of Geoff Hopkinson" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of 
hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Mark I don't think that this issue is quite so black and white as you
    are suggesting. See what I did there?
    Negative and transparency and print longevity is all affected by a number
    of factors. the original processing, the storage and the media itself of
    course.
    Some limits I see are whether you can even find a suitably high quality
    scanner with technology (eg SCSI?) that will work with current computer
    standards ( and drivers?) or a service that will do it for you or a
    darkroom etc.
    Unless you have a very high end pro scanner too or can afford to pay
    someone to do that you are losing signicant quality in the scanning as
    well. Same with making prints at the best archival standards.
    Anecdotally I have BW negatives  my father made in the 1950's (a 120 like
    roll film format) which are serviceable as are most of what I processed 
in
    35mm BW in the 70's and transparency film like Kodachrome has stood up 
well
    too.
    Other transparency stock (E6) has fared much less well. At least I never
    observed archival storage standards as an amateur and I think that would
    not be uncommon.
    
    Digital files though are subject to one certainty and a number of 
potential
    risks.
    
    Every hard drive ever made will fail at one point, CDs and DVDs have 
limits
    too and solid state drives are not permanent either. Where and how you
    store duplicates is very significant.
    
    There are also many hardware changes of course in disk types and drives
    etc. File formats disappear too, remember Kodak PhotoCD for example.
    Proprietary raw files are subject to support by the companies as well and
    DNG standards evolve even though it is an 'open' standard.
    
    You must have many tens or hundreds of thousands of images from a long
    career as a pro I am sure. Hand on heart right now, what if your computer
    fell victim to a ransomware attack right now or your apartment burnt 
down!
    If you run down the fire escape with a box or your most treasured negs 
you
    will have something ;-)
    
    
    
    On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 at 4:20 pm, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
    
    > Dan, I don?t blame you for thinking that what everyone is saying on 
every
    > chat group is true.
    > That your negs back up your scans.
    > The real story is your scans back up your negs.
    > There seems to be a basic need for a lot of people to keep coming up 
with
    > ways to put film on a pedestal.
    > That film has non-obvious redeeming values.
    > That after we?re done playing around with our silly digital files our 
film
    > will still be there. Rocklike.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mark William Rabiner
    > Photographer
    >
    > On 6/8/17, 7:32 AM, "LUG on behalf of Dan Khong" <lug-bounces+mark=
    > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of dankhong at 
gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >     Mark
    >     You are such a smart chap and I cannot possibly outdo you in your 
way
    > with
    >     words.
    >     All I know is that my B&W negatives that I souped in 1968 are still
    > doing
    >     fine in my dry cabinet. They will still be there when I bite the 
dust
    > and
    >     maybe even you as well. Chances are when you and I bite our dusts, 
our
    >     digital files will go along soon after.
    >     I love handling and looking at physical stuffs and that includes
    > negatives
    >     and prints. I like the analog workflow process from which I derive
    > great
    >     satisfaction.
    >     In the meantime, you are entitled to your views and I am entitled 
to
    > mine.
    >     Civilized men should always agree to disagree.
    >     Have a nice day.
    >     Dan K.
    >
    >
    >
    >     On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at 
rabinergroup.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >     > Robert, other people?s personal memories are great I?m all for 
them
    >     > there?s not much I can say about them but when I read ?And my
    > negatives
    >     > will serve as my archival backup.? That?s a trigger for me. It?s 
an
    > issue
    >     > important to me which brought me to write what I wrote.
    >     > His more full quote being:
    >     > ?I just souped a roll of Tri-X and waiting to send it to the 
pro-lab
    > to
    >     > have it scanned into digital. After that, I have the options of 
two
    > work
    >     > processes ? digital and analog. And my negatives will serve as my
    > archival
    >     > backup.?
    >     >
    >     > It?s my point again that his negatives will probably bite the 
dust
    > long
    >     > before his digital files. Thinking of one?s negatives like this 
as an
    >     > archival backup is being encouraged widely and is one of those
    > alt-true
    >     > truths. As in its just not true at all.
    >     > And the idea that we must only respond to the main idea of a post
    > and not
    >     > the part of it which we have something to say about I don?t has 
ever
    > been
    >     > expressed or been in effect.
    >     > I?m sure the archives are full of people responding to the point 
in
    > a post
    >     > which they have something to say something about.
    >     >
    >     > One reason why digital scanning and Photoshoping is such a nice
    > thing is
    >     > we can take our faded damaged off color old negatives and prints 
and
    > scan
    >     > them and process them and make them look much younger.  We can
    > restore
    >     > them. We have the technology
    >     > There are people who specialize in in restoration they used to 
have
    > their
    >     > own place in the yellow pages and can do a better job of that 
then we
    >     > probably can. Had those negatives or prints been digital 
captures the
    >     > restoration people are out of business. It?s a main plus of the
    > digital
    >     > process and workflow. I hate to see more and more people get that
    > turned
    >     > around.
    >     > Preservation of silver gelatin prints and negs is a tough 
ongoing job
    >     > which is most often done way wrong if not ignored. It?s a 
shoebox in
    > the
    >     > bottom drawer.
    >     > Preservation of Digital files is not a roll in the hay but is way
    > easier
    >     > to do partly because its possible to do. Digital files don?t 
fade.
    > They
    >     > don?t have to be kept in the dark in a humidity controlled room 
and
    >     > handeled with white cotton gloves.
    >     > --
    >     >
    >     > Mark William Rabiner
    >     > Photographer
    >     >
    >     > On 6/7/17, 10:31 PM, "LUG on behalf of Robert Adler"
    > <lug-bounces+mark=
    >     > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of rgacpa at 
gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     Ahh Mark, you missed Dan's point. Shooting/developing 
analogue
    > brings
    >     > back
    >     >     memories. I agree with much of what you post, but it is
    > irrelevant to
    >     >     anything Dan said...
    >     >     But that's ok..
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     Bob Adler
    >     >     www.robertadlerphotography.com
    >     >     *"Capturing Light One Frame At A Time"*
    >     >
    >     >     On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Mark Rabiner <
    > mark at rabinergroup.com>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     > I?ve seen this a lot on the internet and it?s not true or 
don?t
    >     > agree with
    >     >     > it? it?s not true. But it?s really out there being passed
    > around big
    >     > time
    >     >     > and achieving some unfortunate credulity as that?s how
    > information
    >     > spreds
    >     >     > now. The better virus wins. And you never know which Meme 
will
    > fly
    >     > and
    >     >     > which will die.
    >     >     > And that?s this backing up to analog as if chemistry based
    > stuff is
    >     > more
    >     >     > archival than digital. Or just thinking you are covered if 
you
    > have
    >     > a film
    >     >     > or paper copy of something.
    >     >     > When we all first heard about this new digital thing coming
    > out the
    >     > basic
    >     >     > idea behind the whole thing was the advantage of digital 
is its
    >     > digital.
    >     >     > You make a copy of the thing and the it?s a clone not a 
copy.
    > It?s
    >     > the
    >     >     > same only it exists in a different space.  For photography
    > that?s
    >     >     > revolutionary. Because in the past when make a copy of a
    > negative or
    >     > of a
    >     >     > print and hold them side by side and they are no way
    > identical. The
    >     > ?copy?
    >     >     > of the thing in most cases is a sad joke.  So, you try to 
avoid
    >     > copies. You
    >     >     > cover yourself as you?re shooting. You go ?click? a bunch 
of
    > times
    >     > not just
    >     >     > once or twice. The best copy or backup is another 
origional.
    >     >     > More to the point is the reality that the minute your film 
is
    > dry or
    >     > your
    >     >     > print is dry it starts decomposing; leaking gasses, 
fading, and
    >     > staining,
    >     >     > changing color. Film and prints exist in the organic carbon
    > based
    >     > world
    >     >     > just like people and trees. Film is made from dead bunnies 
(the
    >     > gelatin).
    >     >     > Prints are made from that and cotton and wood. Just like
    > people they
    >     > are
    >     >     > dying the minute they are born. Returning to the earth from
    > whence
    >     > they
    >     >     > came?
    >     >     > So your film based print and the film itself is not the 
same
    > image as
    >     >     > every day goes by. Every day in every way your print is 
worser
    > and
    >     > worser.
    >     >     > Film too. Not as much.
    >     >     > This is a main advantage not disadvantage of digital. It?s 
a
    > plus
    >     > check
    >     >     > not a minus. You could claim to hate the ?digital look? 
but go
    > with
    >     > it
    >     >     > anyway because it lasts forever. Its digital.  Other than 
the
    > small
    >     >     > possibility of an isolated file getting corrupted when you 
go
    > to your
    >     >     > digital file to Photoshop it again to print it or put it 
up on
    > the
    >     > internet
    >     >     > again a decade or so later you?re NOT dealing with a faded
    > different
    >     >     > version of the thing. In digital if you can get that single
    > file
    >     > open it?s
    >     >     > the same file you dealt the first-time decades going by.  
Not
    > one
    >     > 100000th
    >     >     > of a percent different.
    >     >     > And if that file doesn?t open you grab another older backup
    > hard
    >     > disk and
    >     >     > it will.
    >     >     > In the past decade, my digital body of work is on hard 
disks
    > and
    >     > right
    >     >     > here near me. My chemical body of work is in a storage 
cubicle
    > with
    >     > fumes
    >     >     > coming out of each and every print and neg and slide.  I?ve
    > not seen
    >     > it in
    >     >     > a few days I hope to soon and I don?t pass out from the 
gasses
    > as I
    >     > open
    >     >     > the door.
    >     >     > By the way if one print or roll of film is under fixed or 
under
    >     > washed it
    >     >     > gives off a lot more and nastier gases than the stuff 
which was
    >     > properly
    >     >     > fixed and washed sitting near it or in the same closet. 
So, the
    >     > properly
    >     >     > processed stuff is probably fading at an accelerated rate 
too.
    >     >     > The chemical analog workflow is messy. The advantages are 
hard
    > to
    >     > find.
    >     >     > And if there are any advantages to film archivalness is not
    > one of
    >     > them.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > --
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Mark William Rabiner
    >     >     > Photographer
    >     >     >
    >     >     > On 6/7/17, 4:14 AM, "LUG on behalf of Dan Khong"
    > <lug-bounces+mark=
    >     >     > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of
    > dankhong at gmail.com>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     I just souped a roll of Tri-X and waiting to send it 
to the
    >     > pro-lab to
    >     >     > have
    >     >     >     it scanned into digital. After that, I have the 
options of
    > two
    >     > work
    >     >     >     processes - digital and analog. And my negatives will
    > serve as my
    >     >     > archival
    >     >     >     backup.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     All said, 90% of my B&W pics (100% of color) are now 
taken
    > on
    >     > digital,
    >     >     > but
    >     >     >     it's the last bit that is analog that gives me memories
    > that
    >     > spans
    >     >     > back 50
    >     >     >     years when film was there in the most impressionable 
years
    > of my
    >     > life.
    >     >     >     Those were the days of Nam and protest songs, and 
growing
    > up into
    >     >     >     adulthood.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     Dan K.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     Leica Users Group.
    >     >     >     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for 
more
    >     > information
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     > Leica Users Group.
    >     >     > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
    > information
    >     >
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     Leica Users Group.
    >     >     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
    > information
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > Leica Users Group.
    >     > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
information
    >
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     Leica Users Group.
    >     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
information
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Leica Users Group.
    > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information