Secret method for even better film scans
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2021
- How to make your film photos look even better than scans with hand printing in the dark room.
Thank you to Squarespace for sponsoring this video, if you'd like to try out their service you can do so here: squarespace.com/negativefeedback/
Check out the files in higher res: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
FOLLOW UNCANNY: / uunnccaannyy
Video recorded on Panasonic S1H, using RODE Microphones.
Social Media:
/ negativefb
/ negativefb
George:
/ gmuncey
/ g_muncey
www.georgemuncey.com/
#PHOTOGRAPHY
My secret is editing a scan, hating it for 6 months... Rescan the image, re-edit and then settle.
I remember getting crazy hyper detail from my 35mm negs when I darkroom printed onto 8x10 then scanned on v800, I could print on A0 and admire all of its sand like grain... Amazing resolving power.
SHEEEEEEEEEEESH dope hat george
Thanks waftle
@@NegativeFeedback Please where did you get the hat i am begging
Personally i like the dynamic range of the direct negative scan, the shadows look just a little bit too crushed for my taste, but the colors on print paper are definitely feel richer and im sure having the print itself is way nicer then just looking at it on a screen
Worth adding that you can exaggerate the ‘look’ by diffusing the light from the enlarger through another pane of glass or a thin mesh material (tights, netting etc). Pre-flashing can be really helpful too 👐🏻
Its like photoshop before it goes through Photoshop for real
@@lukepeeters5178 thats why lightroom’s called lightroom loool
Great video. I have always found my darkroom prints to be more pleasing, impactful and true to what I was feeling at the time of capture than digital scans of the negative. I know a big part of that is down to emotion and engagement in the process, but it is what it is.
one thing i do that adds a special sauce to my photos (all digital because too broke for film) is to run them through a scene I've created in Cinema4D that adds some stuff to the image when rendered through octane. It gets rid of banding, I can add a promist effect, i can add flaring, distortion and many other stuff when manipulating the image through the node editor
Never heard of someone doing this!
nah man just give c4d up, houdini is way more powerful :)
@@NegativeFeedback New to me as well
What’s your IG would love to see results
Would also be curious to see your results
I really liked this video- was a nice change of pace and an interesting experiment. Also, looking forward to more videos not necessarily about photography.
i think we’ve gotta remember that photography and photographs is/are actually a sculptural medium in a way. it takes up space in the word, it is a physical object. of course these look fantastic! it’s the way photographs are meant to be seen, in person.
but man, it can be hard to remember this in such a digital age.
Really great results. Like you said, something to do as a 1 off, or for something special!.
Thanks for sharing the HiRes results
Never even thought about this method. I need to get an enlarged and make some prints.
Why haven’t you started a podcast yet? I would subscribe immediately.
This is also true for scanning B&W prints. As I see it, the photographic process ends on the darkroom print, not on a scan and software. Ok, I'm old school, follow what Ansel Adams teached, But it had all these components and worked to produce what you visualized in a great way. Just as you decribed. There's something different to it. Yes, sure!
There are no blacks like on a darkroom print. The tones you can get on a print are also physical, analog, not digital. They're almost unique. No handmade darkroom print is 100% exactly like the other. You spend a lot of money - paper, chemicals, time - to achieve what you want. But then, WOW! There's nothing like it.
I'm 57. I understand the digital generation is used to more instant everything. But I really hope many see on videos like yours a direction to what analog photography really is about - a print, not a scan. That's where the joy REALLY is.
Scanning and inkjet printing (no matter how "fine art") are digital processes. They "see" things in a different way, they produce amazing results. Many will argue they're technically superior to analog. But they're not like a photo print, for the good and for the bad of it.
Those who shoot film should invest their time on learning how to use a darkroom. I've 30+ years prints that still amaze me today for its depth, tones, you name it. I really hope many more people discover the real end of the photographic process. That's where the real joy is.
Thanks for the video! My best!
I was a drum scanner at a service bureau in NYC for a couple of years... by far the best quality scans, especially if you wanted to create extra large prints. But man, loading negs and transparencies on the drum was a pain in the ass!
Even with the handprint, you can do something like pre-flash the photo paper to give it that smooth warmth that you see a lot of fashion photographers achieve
What do you mean pre flash it?
@@galwachs exposure the paper to light without the film in the enlarger just for a short time, then put the film under the enlarger and print as normal
@@georgecaistor-parker6085 oh, like just a bit of "solarization", i see
Thank you George.
Great video George! Would definitely be interested to see a comparison between a drum scanned negative vs. the drum scanned hand print, think that would really highlight the secret sauce.
Nvr heard about drum scan negative as my understanding negative need lighting to go through the film to get the image scanned. Drum scan might not work that way.
Absolute epic video
For me they just looks like, more contrast and less magenta/yellow.
A decade ago in college I used to make 8x10 prints of my good negatives because I couldn’t get decent scans of the negatives themselves. It’s really all I want to do now with the work I’d publish. Also my mom got a lot of neat 8x10s for her office and fridge.
Color darkroom printing is a lot of fun and I think easier than black and white printing. I might still shoot film if I had access to a color darkroom and processor. We had one in grad school and it was wonderful. And there is something with the density that has a very specific look.
I've struggled to get good digital prints from the local labs but the one time I sent out my negatives to a lab that still does real optical prints everything came back perfect. It makes a difference.
What lab?
@@whycomeimsocool Blue Moon Camera in Portland, OR.
my college has a dark room but can only print black and white film. gonna try this when I shoot a good roll and see. have printed some old black and white negatives, so much more precision and detail can be made when printing with chemistry
I just scan my black and white darkroom prints with a flatbed and they turn out good
It looks nice bc everything's always better when you do something yourself as long as you take the time to learn how to do it and perfect it in the way you want it. That's just how it be.
Dayum the drum scan looks 3 dimensional and full of life
it's the slight warmth from the preflash when hand printing👌🏼
i've gested this is the ultimate method when i saw the youtube notification
ravioli ravioli give me the formuoli
i hear about this from bilal el kadhi work but honestly I don't even know where to go when I'm in paris or even london actually. but amazing video, i just need to find that place.
was about time ;)
wow thank you!
I expect the effect is caused mainly by enlarger light source? Though I am no expert printer
Really cool mate nice one ! :)
Thanks
In the google drive images, what is the process behind the images labelled as "raw"? @negativefeedback
I scan my negatives with the Hasselblad Flextight which my school had and done all my post production via Photoshop and print inkjet but color correct along the way. But I still prefer silver printing since that’s what I know
Tell us how much this cost. Even in the heydey of drum scanning it was really, really expensive. I can only imagine what it is now. The cost might blow people's mind - or at least make it more clear what you mean by expensive. While the drum scan looks more contrasty and darker in the shadows, the detail is there. That's what you're paying for. A long, long time ago I blew up a 35mm neg to billboard side for a campaign using a drum scanner. Thanks for taking this "expensive" trip down memory lane. It always good to try different things or to see the past come back for folk like me.
I would love to know how did you get those colors on your video? :3
the biggest differences is how much more exposure you recover from printing and retain more detail. All digital scanners have a hard time scans shadows hence "muddy" shadows. But if you were to take a negative that produced "muddy' shadows in your scan and you were to print it you wouldnt get those "muddy" shadows.
What I like about this video is that its an incentive to print you work, regardless if you have access to a darkroom or not: print your work. Photographs are meant to be things, not sit around on a hard drive. :)
I’ve worked in my Photo Store since 99, basically most photos just add red and yellow ;) yes a touch of sharpening, dehase maybe, but always red and yellow
I think the reason it looks "better" is because it was designed that way. Isn't that the intended process for color print film and the reason it's called print film?
I always thought, that they designed the colors of those films for printing, because that was the only way of displaying a positive image.
So back when they made Portra or any other color print film, they looked at final prints to judge the color reproduction, right?
So this is actually the way it's supposed to look and the scanned negative look is unintended by the designers of the film.
If that's wrong, maybe someone who knows more can explain it, I'm really curious.
That sounds like a very sound explanation.
Print colors and digital colors need to be handled differently. The don't translate 1 on 1.
What about wet scanning negatives?
Man, the differences are obvious. Thank you for this super helpful comparison. It helped a lot. Cause I’m trying to understand why Tom Craig’s photos looks so different with the same equipment. Also, nice hat.
And your video colouring looks like a drum scanned film, really awesome
very cool
While I’m literally struggling to scan my film 😭
What happened to the video between 0:14 - 0:30? Has it been censored somehow?
I believe that if you just added contrast to your noritsu scans they would’ve looked the same as the hand prints
Nice video
Is it just me or are the images at the start of the video blurred out? :(
I'm really curious about this process, thanks George for posting about this! Scanning prints from the darkroom is one of the main reasons why I want to finally learn more about all things darkroom. However, it's disappointing to see the flatbed not get anywhere close to drum scan even for a large print. I expected it to yield much closer results. You're right though, some of my favourite fashion photographers post a lot of work evoking that style. It feels really out of reach to see that they are drum scanned, that stuff is so expensive. I wonder if there are other alternatives or I just need to get deeper in the editing work on my images to achieve that look.
I think most are “just” scanning the prints on flatbed, who are you’re favorite photographers ?
@@ReSp0nCeHD Parker Woods is in the video, I love his work. I also enjoy Jens Ingvarsson and Jamie Hawkesworth who both have a similar style. I know scanning prints this way isn't necessary to achieve a strong look like this. But I'm glad George brought it up.
@@brntgudnYeah i think it's great that George made this video and I love to read everyone's comments, there's always lot's to learn about workflows and I know the feeling, it can be very expensive, which is the reason i'm not printing my work in a darkroom yet. But i'm really sure that most of that look comes from the actual darkroom work. I've seen Jamie in the darkroom and i'm very sure he doesn't drum scan his photos. It also matters which paper you print on when scanning. I saw people using glossy paper because it gives a softer look/glow to the scanned image (see Sam Rock's work).
There are several photographers here in NYC who achieve this look perfectly using a flatbed to scan their darkroom prints. I think it can be done just need to know how to get the colors / levels right before scanning it in the software.
Hi there… I run a drum scanning business in the Highlands of Scotland and I’d love to try scanning your frames to see how our inversions line up? I”d like to try scanning without a reference ( I haven’t looked at your files) and then I’ll see what it would take to match. Happy to do this for free and do a few drum scans on top for free too…
I told myself I wouldn't but it happened, I'm jealous of the hat now
I guess the hand print mean to be a final image so they have make the paper more contrast and saturated. A direct film scan more likely to depend on the lab personal likeness, they usually leave us a less contrast less vibrant image so we have option to tune it to personal likeness. I always edit my film scan. Just my opinion ^_^
I took a darkroom workshop with a fine art photographer and she only scans prints she has done herself. You can definitely tell. That said she is a master black and white photographer.printer. She doesn't touch color and even so it's expensive. For her though the print is the final product so the scan is just advertising.
Really interesting info in the video. I don't find the process very practical personally, each image just feels like filters of varying degrees regardless of the actual process. That said I do find the drum scan of the printed image more pleasing. I can imagine taking the time editing the original image to match the drum scan as close as possible, then using that preset as a template to determine what the drum scan is actually doing to this whole process. On a budget you can use that preset on any images on that roll of film shot on that day just to see what those images may look like drum scanned. Good stuff, thanks.
i think the negative should've been drum scanned also but maybe thats just me. Anyway cool comparison
Watching the Video and thinking man a drum scanner would be nice
Now looking up what such thing cost, ok maybe I that thing can wait
Spend enough time using the curves in photoshop & you can get the effect.
1: Scan neg + photoshop curves.
2: Shoot digital + photoshop film like effects & curves + secret source. 😜
I think the look is more retro.
I dont think u figured out the ‘sauce’ yet😯
where is the beanie from :33
edit: looks like Charles Jeffrey Loverboy, but not sure
instagram.com/baileyxgoldberg/
The images are really good! And yes, I really like the drum scans, they look amazing! This is the problem that I'm facing right now.. scanning! I have so many negatives with imagines that I like, but the scans.. not so much. I own a flat bed scanner because is more affordable for me to scan at home. But I don't know what more my V550 can offer. Maybe you gave some ideas! Haha! :D Lovely video! Thank you!
Am I missing something or can’t you just edit these in LR?
Yeah, up the contrast, up the saturation, get rid of the red cast and i think you can get really close.
Could you photograph the print with a digital camera? I wonder if the colour would be better… 🤷🏻♂️
Yes, just look up Silver Halide prints. Though it is quite expensive still, for a single 8x10 in black and white Ilford photo paper from Digital Silver Imaging would run $40, I imagine companies that do color would even more.
Ah I only scan negatives directly to digital on an Epson v600 so im out :(
That was how Photographers used to work for exhibitions!
my process is to not be afraid of saturation
Oh no, UA-cam blocked the samples :(...
Highlights look a bit hot. Interesting process though.
I'm living through you George because I'm broke. ✌️
I have a very secret method of direct printing from a transparency. I take a fresh Kodachrome slide and upload it into my brain. Then my brain sends it through it’s secret process. Mouthwatering prints come out. The name of the secret process is Cibachrome. It’s not available in the real world anymore but it’s still available in the world if you go see the movie “Yesterday”.
And then I woke up.
I grew up on film and Kodachrome and had several Cibachromes made. But Cibachrome can be overly contrasty, crush shadows and limit colours. It really needed someone very expert to make the best of it. But good scans or digital files on metallic paper can look pretty close and with decent processing or computer work avoid its inherent problems.
Everytime I think I know how to do something I am reminded I do not
Umm can definitely see the difference
Fire
Use a selective color adjustment layer in photoshop and you'll save yourself a ton of time and money.
drumscan was not a secret, is just too expensive
My dude forgot to export correctly 😂
It’s called contrast slider , thank me later
Print film looking good when printed... Yeah, I can see the logic... 🤪
Tastebuds
Can you talk about working with brockhampton.
Thanks for showing this. Those prints scans are really meh imho. Nothing special for my taste. However, it was good to see this comparison as some people (mostly boomers) hold the outdated view that what matters is the print, not the negative. Your comparisons further consolidate my view that the negative is the fulcrum of analogue photography, and what you make with it is down to your artistic preferences. So thanks for this!
been doing this style and look in lightroom and photoshop for years, dont have to print a thing.
hey can you help me out with how its done in lr and photoshop
Интересно - немытые волосы и дурацкая шапка поднимают просмотры или наоборот?
Microcontrast.
Levels & Color Correction.
Viewing an image on paper by reflected light vs. a computer monitor are different cognitive experiences. An actual photo will have better gamut. Learning to read the light in a setting will allow for better images. No software can improve on the subtle and fine complex light during golden hour in a forest clearing. Look at nature, not the camera.
As a novice,and relatively new to photography,why use film just to scan and edit, surely the same look can be achieved on a digital camera,I have seen film recipes on Fuji JPEGs that look just as good,to my untrained eye,is it the nostalgia or is there actual benefits, except obviously slowing you down.
No , the same way 16mm just looks different from any digital camera. it just can't be matched. sorry to tell you trained eyes can tell right away the difference in colors tonality from a preset and I even dare say like George that untrained eye would perceive the difference without being able to word it. if you can't see the difference yet keep shooting and looking at analog photographers work.
You're right it does look different. It feels different as well. Thanks for sharing the secret, sucka!
i think it's magic because you skip PIXELS and all that 100101001001 sh#t until final image, that you scan - not negative, all magic is already done by chemistry, not algorithm :) with handprind you are going from shutter click to final image via light through entire process.
Film is to be printed not scaned.....