r/AnalogCommunity

Recently shot some 120 film with a GW690ii on a special trip. I knew there were going to be some beautiful landscapes/colors and that I wanted to print some large to frame so I opted for the best quality scans I could get.

Specifically the lab I sent the film to offers
Small (6 MP)
Large (13 MP)
XL (30 MP)
XL + TIFF (8 dollars more than just XL)

XL + TIFF was a big added cost, almost $150 more, but I thought worth it as a treat and given my editing goals.

However, when I started editing both the JPEG and TIFFs I realized I wasn’t getting any more highlight/shadow/color detail.

When I dug into the file data here is what I found (in the windows photo properties info)- the TIFFs were much larger files and were uncompressed (as expected). However, both the JPEG and TIFF files both have a bit depth of 24.

I am by no means an expert on this stuff (hence why I’m asking) but doesn’t that mean the TIFF is 8 bits, 3 per color Chanel?

Does that mean the lab just saved the JPEG image as a TIFF file or am I misreading it somehow? Would you reach out to the lab if they were your images?

Edit: the lab uses a Noritsu HS1800

Hi Analoggies!

so I'm pretty new to shooting film. I picked up a Minolta x-370 a few months ago and just my first rolls back! I'm really loving the process, but I'm trying to understand some of what I got back in these pictures.

Things seem brighter than I expected and the skies particularly are almost always bright white. I was mostly using the camera's "auto' setting which I thought set the shutter speed based on the camera's light meter.

anyway, I've included a few of the scans here and a couple digital photo photos of the same situations for comparison. would love to hear everyone's thoughts!!! <3

update! I commented below some of the negatives of these photos in case that helps! thanks again!

I have religiously used my local film lab since 2023 because 1) we have a local film lab and 2) I always assumed they'd produce better scans than I could if I switched to DSLR scanning.

For the first time, I had the ability to compare a DSLR scan and a lab scan that just came in today, and I'm seriously annoyed (on the scale of First World problems)...

The first image is the DSLR scan done by a friend who has been self-scanning for two years, the second is the lab scan I got back today.

I'm now seriously questioning if this is the sort of results I've been getting back without realising as I never had a comparison! The entire lab scanned roll is like this, every pushed into yellow, highlights blown out to the point of not being able to recover highlight details, woeful dynamic range. These were TIFF scans by the way, and I'd assume they were scanned with a Fuji Frontier.

The DSLR scans from my friend were better colour balanced with FilmLab for conversion duties (using their Kodacolor 100 profile).

Should I complain? I'm really not happy with what I've seen here. Is this poor scanning, a problem with the Fuji Frontier or what?

Picked up an AF-1 for under $100 for for my wife. It has the same 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens as the Mju-II, a solid 80s build, and doesn't break the bank.

I put together a quick write-up with some sample scans if anyone’s considering one: 

What's your favorite budget point-and-shoot right now?

Probably silly question, but I am very new to film and have been really happy with some of my shots! However, sometimes despite the beautiful landscape, the shots seem off (see first two pics for examples of this). I’m assuming it has something to do with the contrast of shadowy trees vs bright snow. However, I take similar pictures with variable lighting that I think turn out in a way I’m super happy with and capture the place (see last 3 pics). I use a Fuji Tele Cardia Super Date camera, if that’s relevant.

In short, how can I tell when a landscape will photograph well and when it won’t and I should save the shot?

I picked up these negatives yesterday from a labs and when I scanned them I noticed scratches along the whole length of the film, on the emulsion side. Some of them span through a third of the roll. They are present an almost all of the photos.

I doubt it's a camera problem because the scrathes are not perfectly horizontal which would be the case it there was something in the camera scrathing them. Also I have never had that problem with that camera. Also I left the last 3 frames blank and the scrathes go through them as well. How would the camera scratch them if it didn't touch them?

I emailed the lab and they told me to come in with the negatives and my camera. I wonder how they'll handle this.

Minolta x700

So I was shooting outside like regular and suddenly after winding the film from the shot before, the camera didnt let me shoot the next shot, and after I waited for like 5 minutes, it let me shoot again just one shot, I wind the film and it doesnt let me shoot, wait for about 5 minutes and I can take the next shot, but until then it doesnt let me shoot or wind or anything.

Could it be the batteries? The lightmeter also stopped working properly, it doesnt highlight me the shutterspeed when I touch the trigger. If there was a problem with the batteries it should still let me shoot manually at 60/s shouldnt it? Also the batteries are farely new

The camera never had any problems before, I have had it for years

What could the problem be?

Sorry for the poor demonstration

I've posted this before, but there have been some price updates and new films on the market, so I wanted to update the sheet again. I've also included some additional developers/dilutions.

The aim of the document is, to compare the currently available bulk film options regarding price, especially compared to buying single rolls or bundles in some cases.
Mind you these prices are Europe based, so expect some differences in prices if you are in the US, especially Kodak vs Ilford.

The cheapest films are as expected foma, at about 2,70€ per film, but the savings are also comparably small, at about 2,40€ per roll on average.
If you want to "save the most" (Though you will spend a lot more in total at the end) you should look towards the Rollei Retro/Infrared selection, which offer great savings at about 4,50€ per roll, not bad!
The most savings per roll compared to single buying is with Ilford Delta 100, at 5,18€ per roll, but it's also one of the most expensive films overall, at over 3x the price of foma, so think twice about buying it if your purse is not very deep.

Developers are also listed, differentiated between 35mm and Medium format, as well as different dilution choices if applicable. The volumes for development are based on development by hand with the Paterson tank system, as it's very prevalent. (300ml/1x35mm or 500ml/2x120)

The winner in this category by price is (not surprisingly) Adonal/Rodinal in 1:100 dilution, at less than 10 cents per film, truly economical!
Most of the other developers hover between 20 and 30 cents per film, depending on dilution and format, some economical examples: XT-3 Stock -> 23ct | D-76 1:3 -> 23ct | Atomal -> 31ct

Notably pricy are the offerings by Ilford, at 1,68€ per roll for Microphen, and up to 2,90€(!) per roll with Perceptol, makes you think twice if you shouldn't just use XT-3...

Prices are taken mostly from Fotoimpex.de, as it has great product availability and stable prices.
Yes, you could surely find a cheaper shop, but I wanted the list to be consistent, and not scour the Internet for the cheapest shop, just to have a broken link after a few weeks ;)

If you have suggestions for improvement, additions or questions let me know :)

The pdf and xlsx versions can be downloaded here

(This post was written and translated from german by me, without any use of AI or LLMs)

From Colorspace Hong Kong, lovely people if a little hard to get in touch with at times. They allowed me to add the Lucky 400 and Fuji100 to my order just before they shipped it at no extra cost, so kind of them.

The Fuji film is all decently in date, '28 for the Superia Premium and '29 for the 100.

Can't wait to do some more shooting 😍

Hey everyone, beginner film photographer here. Whenever I get my scans back from the lab I go to, I usually go through and pick out the few I would actually like to post and edit them a bit in the photos app.

I like to think I am just giving the scans a bit more life, but I'm not sure if I am over saturating or throwing the highlights and shadows off too much. I've attached a few of my scans, both the original and edited versions. What do you think? Please feel free to add any other general advices you may have too!

I recently found my old negatives. (Damn, I shot film a lot more than I remembered) and I decided to have a little test.

Back in the day (20-15 years ago) I digitised with an Epson V700, because that was the way to go if you couldn´t afford an Imacon, and despite reading and trying everything, I was never quite happy with the results. It was one of the reasons I eventually gave up film photography.

I picked film photography up again this summer, and I'm now digitising with a Nikon Z6III and 150mm macro lens on a high quality light panel. It's pretty funny to be proven right 15 years later. (or maybe I've just discovered that tiff files lose their sharpness over time)

This was a 35mm frame on Fuji S-200, shot with a Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8.

For anyone contemplating how to digitise: I wouldn't bother with scanners if you have access to any digital cam and a macro lens.

(edit: Yes I know better scanners exist, obviously, this is just a little test to be taking at face value and nothing deep good people. ;) )

After a recent purge of my collection, I’m now a little bit richer 😅 and I get to appreciate the cameras that I have left.

Rangefinder and SLR. Olympus 35 SP and the original Nikon FM with a set of compact Chrome Series E lenses: 35, 50 and 135mm.

Still debating whether I should keep or sell the 135mm and get the more versatile 100mm instead 😄

This is also brand new