[Leica] Film Lab
Mark Rabiner
mark at rabinergroup.com
Fri Jun 9 14:14:39 PDT 2017
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
More information about the LUG
mailing list