Screen shot of the ASMP website focusing on registration counts

If I were a commercial photographer, registering the copyright as part of a shoot would really be an obvious thing. Since I currently do not have a steady cash flow from my personal work, I wait to register with the copyright office – yes I am being cheap! Some people register every quarter and this year I plan to register twice.

Some argue that if you are not currently making money with your work, that sharing it is more important than protecting it. Despite my experience, that it has stifled my recent expression, it does not have to. If you plan ahead you get all of the freedom and protection. Register before you publish.

Due to some shipping concerns many of the chemicals you might want to explore will require you to leave the house and explore your local photography store. There are plenty of places where “local” is hours away if it exists at all. If you enjoy ordering online out of convenience or necessity the following shopping list for black and white film development is online ordering friendly. All of these items are generally in stock at B&H Photo and Video. The shopping list below  is what I used to get myself set up having been out of wet darkroom for years. While this list is close to the minimum requirements, it values quality components over lowest budget.

Stock photograph of development tank and 35mm film

Creating a black and white film processing kit for 35mm and 120/220

This list is shared as a wish list over at B&H Photo and Video. That will get you the shopping list without reading all of my thoughts on each item.

Paterson Changing Bag 27” x 30” – This is where you will load the film into the processing tank. Make it stress free by getting a bigger bag. They all store folded up so going cheap here simply makes you stress out when the film or reel is uncooperative.

Paterson Triple Darkroom Timer – You will need to keep track of time and this three alarm timer makes the process flow. It allows you to set up to three steps of your film developing recipe making transition between key steps simple.

Paterson Universal Tank with Reel (Super System 4) – This version requires ~600ml of fluids to cover two roles of 35mm or one roll of 120/220. An alternative would be metal reels, but if you work with medium format film, the cool factor of metal is outweighed by not crimping your film during loading.

Paterson Auto Load Adjustable Reel for Super System 4 Tanks – If you work with 35mm film you will need an additional reel to take advantage of the capacity of the base tank.

Jobo Plastic Graduate 34oz – This is a little large but I like having extra space at the top of mixing containers. The only thing this will not measure accurately will be mixing wetting agent. It can be done, but you might want to get a smaller 25-50ml graduate if you like to be absolute.

Jobo 600ml Storage Bottle Kit (3 white, 1 black) – I tend to process one tank at a time and these bottles keep the exact amount of chemical required for the tank. They are small so you do not need lots of space to work.

Yankee Filter Funnel 16oz with Fine Mesh Stainless Steel Filter – I got this mostly because there never a time where I want dust flowing into the tanks or bottles. Particles like that can attach themselves to your equipment leading to unexpected results.

Paterson Chemical Stirrer – You need something to stir the chemicals and they are all over priced.

Dot Line 2” DLC Stainless Dial Thermometer – While temperature is less critical in black and white, you still need to know the temperature of your chemicals since that is what takes all those generic instructions and plots it on a graph to set your development times. Without one of these if you wanted to maintain a certain temperature it would all be a big guess. This thermometer is short, but perfect for this size of bottle.

Chemicals – Out of convenience I prefer buying chemicals in liquid form. Unless the developer does not come that way, it ensures some level of consistency. I also subscribe to one use mixing. Stop bath and wetting agent can be reused without having significant impact on the final negative. Ilford stop bath will change colors as it exhausts.

• Ilford Ilfotec DD-X Developer
• Ilford Rapid Fixer
• Ilford Ilfostop Stop Bath for B&W
• Ilford Ilfotol Wetting Agent

Delta White Darkroom Cotton Gloves, 4 pair – These are perfect for keeping the oils and perspiration of your hands off of your film. They are inexpensive enough that throwing them out whenever you want won’t hurt your bank account.

Delta Stainless Steel Film Clips, 10 pack – These are pretty good because they require a small footprint to hold your negatives. They have enough weight and have hook letting you add weight or attach it to a string or wire to air dry.

Paterson Film Squeegee – This is one of those things that I use to have, but never loved. It can leave streaks, but it is an effective method for speeding up the drying process.

I am a believer of sticking within brands in an attempt to reduce compatibility issues. Brands of chemicals can be mixed. For example, Ilford DD-X is similar to Kodak’s TMAX developer. Getting started I think establishing a baseline is more important than using a favorite developer or trying something “new”. The minute you develop your first roll, you will see that developing black and white has many points of variability. This shopping list doesn’t include the kitchen sink, which is also required. Some people like distilled water based on bad experiences with dirty film. Create your setup and start processing black and white film to have more influence on your final image.

First, there is film selection. If you have a history shooting film, you already know that films have a variety of different characteristics such as color rendition and grain structure. While films have a published ISO, indicating the speed of the film, it is possible to shoot the film at a variety of speeds yielding a multitude of results. All of these attributes are unique to the analog world of photography. Digital enthusiasts buy software to emulate grain, but fail to enjoy the unique contribution film selection plays in the process of creating an image.

The second ingredient is the exposure of the film. Films are formulated to react at different film speeds or ISO/ASA settings. Often the grain size is implied by the speed – lower ISOs often result in finer grain. In a digital context, lower means less digital noise, however the two are not the same. When shooting film, the photographer can decide to shoot a film at a lower or higher speed than it is rated. For example a 400 speed film can be shot at 800. Film processing needs to be adjusted to accommodate this change, which results in yet another variant in how grain is structured (in the case of black and white film) or dye is shifted (in the case of color film).

Third, developer selection impacts the realization of the negative. People often read about cross processing where slide or color negative film is processed in the other’s chemistry. While color film offers less latitude, black and white film can be drastically impacted by developer selection. Some developers such as Kodak T-MAX and Ilford Ilfotec DD-X are said to create finer grain negatives from the respective brands’ films. Others such as Diafine are said to create a fantastic range of gray, excellent for scanning.

Finally, there is the actual film developing process. The recipe using the developer as part of creating the negative is a critical part of any film realization. Again, color offers less latitude when compared to black and white, but in any case the time the film is exposed to the chosen developer impacts the contrast, color and grain structure of the selected film. Color film is less tolerant of temperature shifts as well, so processing is more rigid overall. In all cases how the film was exposed impacts how long the film should be developed to compensate. That said, it is up to the film processor to decide the correct compensation for the intended effect.

Processing black and white film is relatively easy and while it has been several years since I did it, it was pretty much like riding a bicycle. Developing film, especially black and white, is a key part if creating the negative – outsourcing it relinquishes the creative dial to generics.

My initial test compares the results of a dry and wet scan of the same negative. The image was captured with a Mamiya 7ii, 80mm f4 outfit. It was an extended exposure, taken at dusk. The film is 120 Kodak TMAX 400 developed at LTI New York City. The scan was performed with the same settings – 4000dpi; scale 100%; 16bit; multi-sample 1x; CCD Scan Mode set to superfine; scan image enhancer on; custom focus, black and white points. This resulted in NEF (RAW) files on disk exceeding 550MB files. Slight differences in crop are responsible for the file difference.  The wet scan fluid is Scan Science’s Lumina – a full review to come!

To keep things as simple and neutral as possible the screen shots that follow are from Nikon Scan. No processing has been performed on either, what we see is what was captured and saved. Snagit was used to capture the screens and the only modification is cropping out the main user interface of Nikon Scan. To properly view this comparison you will need to see the large versions of the following images (~2MB PNGs) by clicking the smaller versions below.

The first image shows the dry scan (left) and the wet scan (right). Each is at 8% with the scan settings area of the image view displayed to show all things that could be recorded are equal. Notice the greater tonal depth on the wet scan specifically in the shadows. Notice the crisper detail in the bricks, especially around the chimney top.

The next image zooms into the chimney at 33.33%. The details apparent at 8% are now very clear. Notice the dust caught in the wet scan. I didn’t realize how much was there. Compressed air and lint-free tissues are now in hand for future scans. An anti-static brush is on my B&H wish list.

This following image is the same view zoomed to 100%. This shows without question, the wet scan on the right more detailed and has greater dynamic range.

The differences were so dramatic that I questioned if the focus points were the same. The default focus point is middle negative. The following image compares both at approximately middle image. At this 100% view the differences are subtle, but present. Again, notice the richer darks on the right and greater overall range. What is muddy gray on the left is a stronger gray tone on the right. The grain structure from the window (upper right) is simpler and smoother when comparing the two scans.

This final image is found on the left middle of the image and offers yet another point of comparison. It shows the bricks and window frame of an apartment. Again, notice the overall dynamic range, but more importantly, review the detail seen in the brick.

If you caught me a couple of weeks ago, I would have told you that wet scanning might be a gimmick. I wasn’t convinced from what I could find and while the 9000 ED is a great scanner it isn’t a drum scanner, so I didn’t presume the comparison in process was transferable. At the very least, it can be said, that for black and white negatives, wet scanning is a must. The quality is apparent with almost no detailed review. The effort added to the overall workflow is relatively small and the cost is nominal when compared to all the other things photo geeks spend money on.

Finally, this is the image after being imported into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. I adjusted the crop slightly to align the horizon (noticeable at the top). Basic treatment includes conversion to grayscale, Recovery set to 12 and Clarity to 80. Tone curve is set to the Medium Contrast setting. No additional sharpening was applied. A slight vignette is added at an Amount of -15. I then edited a copy in Adobe Photoshop to review and remove a few dozen dust threads and two air bubbles at 100%. While I was there I removed the distracting light in the lower right. I am not sure I would say I am done, but my intent was to show a “clean” version of the image for review. The JPEG export was done at 100% quality, sRGB, 75ppi and 2000 pixels on its largest edge. The version below is a reduced size, remember to view the full sized version by clicking the image.

Courtyard at dusk, Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York

I save scans in NEF, Nikon’s RAW file format. If you scan to  a RAW format, the color space settings are not important. If you scan to a TIFF the setting should be the largest color space, often Adobe RGB 1998. Some argue with this last point – fodder for another post.

Scan at the highest bit depth and work all your post edits at that bit depth. It provides more information for your image editing software to work with, offering noticeably better results.

For black and white negatives, do not turn ICE on, because it won’t work. The results from having it on are disturbing. On color negatives I set ICE to Normal.

Resolution is another one of those topics that is worthy of a post all its own. If I scan a medium format image at 4000dpi, 16bit color, the resulting file size is over 570MB. Steinhoff and apparently Nikon recommend scanning at 4000dpi, but scaling it to 50%. This results in a more manageable 140MB file.

Setting Nikon Scan resolution at 4000dpi and scale at 50%

I usually have image enhancer on, which adjusts brightness and color saturation automatically. I’ll do a follow-up with before and after with it on and off so we can figure out how much to appreciate the setting.

Almost every selection impacts the time it takes to scan.  Multi sample is one that will make you want to run back to digital. Setting it to 16x on a medium format negative takes upwards of 30 minutes. For now I leave it at 1x and scans are done in a much more reasonable time and look great.

Apart from setting the black and white point, I do as little as possible in the scanner software. For example, I do not do any sharpening in the scan. My workflow moves from scan to NEF to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.

My Nikon Scan settings are:

• File format: NEF (RAW)
• Bit depth: 16-bit
• ICE: Off (B&W) Normal (Color)
• ROC: Off
• GEM: Off
• DEE: Off
• Resolution: 4000 dpi
• Scale: 50%
• CCD Scan Mode: Super Fine Scan
• Scan image enhancer: On
• Multi Sample: 1x
• Focus: custom
• Level adjustments: custom

Pick up a copy of Sascha Steinhoff’s Scanning Negatives and Slides. While it is pretty basic, I did learn a few elements that would take far more time to learn.  Chapters 9-11 review Nikon Scan, VueScan and Silverfast in detail and should offer enough information to make a decision.

My take on it is simple.

1. If most of your work is on slides, you should buy SilverFast because it supports calibration targets so it fits into your color managed workflow. I know VueScan has the ability to work with similar targets, but this would be one more feature making the cost of the software more justifiable. Almost all of the SilverFast capabilities make scanning easier. If you are working mostly with negatives consider other options.
2. If you purchase a Nikon scanner it will come with Nikon Scan. You do not need to buy anything additional as long as you have digital darkroom tools such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX 2, Apple Aperture.
3. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and already work in the digital darkroom then buy VueScan. VueScan is relatively inexpensive and seems to offer a considerable set of features that will work with any scanner.
4. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and are wondering what “digital darkroom” means then buy SilverFast. If you want a digital darkroom then you need to buy digital imaging software. If it sounds too scary then SilverFast and is sister products will likely be highly satisfying. They are wicked expensive, so if you always wanted Lightroom and Aperture, buy VueScan and one of those. SilverFast has a few nice features and as Steinhoff says, it integrates well with their other products. Stand-alone it is a fine choice if you are archiving a large number of negatives or slides.

All the magic happens after the scan. That is at the root of the rationale used to come to these conclusions. You need to do everything you can to capture the highest quality image. This is no different than wanted great glass and a high megapixel image sensor. As with any photography you want to get it right in the camera. That said, when we scan, we are taking another picture. Features beyond the basic but critical (e.g. setting white point, black point, ICE etc) are not required (e.g. color correction), since similar or better capability is found in other products.

I spent way too much time reviewing all of the pros and cons of each of these and Steinhoff does a great job offering a point of view. Try to spend less time on this one. It boils down to what you are scanning, what scanner software came with your scanner and if you already have and know how to use digital imaging software. Do not mind all the crazy hand gestures as they pick your pocket.

Scanner research began the minute I purchased my Mamiya. I knew I could get the local mini-lab work done, but it would cost and the result would not be very high quality. To really get the benefits of shooting film, a great scanner is required.

Drum scans are expensive. I am sure the quality is great, but I can’t justify spending the money on such high quality scans if I am not also making some money with my craft. This also means buying a drum scanner is out, even if its used. First, I live in a coop apartment where a drum scanner could fit, but it would have to also serve the role of sculpture. Second, from what I could read, they are extremely expensive to repair.

Flatbed scanners seem to be an option, certainly for those that shoot larger than medium-format. I even considered the Epson Perfection v750-M Pro as a relatively affordable high-quality machine. Almost all the forum posts I read said it was great, but not as satisfying as a dedicated film scanner.

Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is almost the only game in town for medium-format film scanning. They fetch $500 over list on Ebay, because they are hard to come by. From what I can gather, the other scanners in the Nikon line are well liked. Buying this model means there is the Nikon service and support available to keep the unit humming. Relatively speaking, this will be far cheaper than drum scanner service and for those that are trying to find the older Minolta scanners, it means actually having a product that is not discontinued. This scanner is almost twice the price of the Epson, but is much cheaper than the other alternatives.

If you are looking at the Nikon 9000ED then you have done a search on Ebay for used Imacon scanners. Imacon was purchased by Hasselblad a while back and are considered the best of the best. Unfortunately they cost as much as cars. Even ten year old models run over $3000 USD. I guess if money was no object then I would either have enough room for a drum scanner or a new Hasselblad scanner. Either way, today, these options are too rich for my blood.

Net: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is the highest quality, supported film scanner at the $2000 price point. Do not spend a lot of time debating flatbed vs. dedicated. I have seen images from the Nikon compared to the Imacon, where folks debate the differences. No one debates the Epson v750M Pro against either. It is a great scanner – I believe that – but it is not a fair comparison.

So, if mailing off your prints is not something that is palatable, you need to find someone local. Luckily for me, there are two labs walking distance from where I work on Madison Avenue – Duggal and LTI. They both do great work, but I like the people, vibe and price at LTI. I have no doubt Duggal does a great job for their higher volume clients, but I always felt out of place walking in there and everyone always seemed too busy. LTI is a further walk but they make the time to get your order right without taking any longer than necessary. They service some big names and do not make me feel insignificant. I am after all an amateur, but I do not know anyone that wants to be treated less than professional.

My basic order is often as follows:

• Process, print, scan.
• Push 1 stop.
• Glossy with white border.
• TIFF format.

I figure, prints are not much more than contact sheets and they are larger and easier to review. Even though I have an Epson Workforce 600 All-in-One printer, my time is worth something, so I rather they scan them with their machine. They provide the images on FTP or CD which makes archiving easy. Pushing a stop is usually to compensate for over exposing and wanting to bring back some of the highlights. Until recently I did not have a film scanner, so their scans were my digital originals, hence the file format being TIFF. Regardless of the photo labs quick scan quality, why start out with a JPEG!

As a teenager I would run around with my black Olympus OM-2n wishing that one day I would find myself with a Mamiya. It was what I saw in magazines and my medium-format camera experience went from a Yashicamat TLR to a Rolliflex TLR – a story all of its own. I had nice equipment, so the Mamiya was not an obsession, more of a dream. I love Lamborghini cars and one day I will have one. For now, it is a dream.

My first few shots with the RZ were using the Polaroid back. Polaroid had announced earlier in the year that it would stop manufacturing instant film, which was fine, I loved the results from Fujifilm even better. In the first weeks, I ran through a few packs of expired Polacolor and started to realize two very important things. First, I needed a better tripod. The Mamiya RZ is heavy and my little tripod was not up for the task. Second, I needed a light meter. Using the digital camera to do meter readings was cumbersome at best and I was still often left compensating for the film characteristics. I knew I needed these things, but I waited to make sure.

Lesson: If you can afford it, do not wait, just get what you need. It moves the conversation away from the gear and into the art of making images. The catch is in knowing what you need.

This is how it all began. The dream unleashed the sleeping giant which has compelled me to share my journey on the hybrid photography jet-stream. I know I am not alone, and yet we are scattered in our sharing.