Great video, Matt. It really bothers me when film shooters obsess over their cameras and glass and film, but then accept some crummy lab scans as the true representation of what's on their negatives. Different scanners and different scanner settings will produce different digital files, and those are just one of many steps toward finished images.
this is super helpful! Always thought film was supposed to stay film, thanks for helping me understand the flexibility and control I have over how scans are made.
The part in the beginning where you say there is always editing done no matter what, this is really the truth. So many people don't realize you'll pretty much never get a scan that's absolutely perfect, there's always some corrections to be done, an yes, it is completely up to the photographer's preferences. This is even more true with darkroom prints. Even if you have a very well exposed negative to begin with, you'll always have to do some dodging and burning of your image to bring the details out, because of the nature of photographic paper and how it reacts to different wavelenghts of light.
Hello, Matt! Congratulations on an informative video tackling image toning. A very straight forward approach to toning images. Starting off with a good exposure is key. I'd like to add that I like my scans a little flat and full of dynamic range allowing me to tone the image as I envision it. Toning in a Raw state I use mostly Levels or Curves. The sliders are probably great but use with caution due to producing slight halo effect, i.e. Highlight recovery or Shadow recovery. Using Levels or Curves for me is a pure form of toning photos. Looks forward to your next video. Cheers!
I never understood why you shouldn't edit your scans, except it might comes to very specific artistic choices and when it fits your concept best (like in some of my art education studies). Every scan is different, give your negative to a couple different shops and each scan will look differently. That's also why I scan my negatives myself, it gives the most control over your pictures. What's different in my work flow is that I rather use 16bit (monochrome pics) or 48bit (color pics) and .tiff files instead of .jpeg. Thanks for the video, there are a couple new tricks I'd like to try in lightroom.
This was very helpful for me. I have resisted learning to edit well for unknown reasons. I think with digital, I have too many images to share with family that I don't spend much time on each photo unless it is obviously way off. But at least for film the volume of photos to process is manageable. So I may need to practice when my next roll comes back from the lab.
Great video as always, neat little tip there at the end. Your not the only one that's a sucker for the blacks, I also just try to get the image to what I remember from the day. I just try to keep it simple.
Great to see. Have you ever tried using your dslr and a light box to scan your negatives? Most of the editing work there is in the histogram, but I really like having the flexibility of the raw file to make edits. Also working on the histograms for my negatives has made my digital photo processing sills a lot better too.
@@deadbadugly Imagine buying a photo book, skipping through it, thoroughly enjoying it, and on the last page it says "All of these were edited from JPG". And you immediately return the book because now it's not legitimate photography anymore. That's you.
I really appreciate this video. Sometimes I feel like I am cheating tweaking my scans in lightroom but I can better communicate why its ok thanks to this video. Its the same with why its ok to edit a RAW file.
Great video Matt, I used to scan everything to tiff and my work flow crawled as a result, I have been scanning jpegs for the last few months and it's made a massive difference to my output. Just cleaning the dust off is a pain!
from my experience its the best to get it scanned in as a negative then flip It. This way you have complete control and can extract as much information as possible when editing
Matt, Why do you have the files delivered to you as JPG ? First off, JPG are stuck at 24 bits per pixel, 8 per Red, Green, & Blue channel. Second, JPGs are a lossy file format. Just as shooting digital, it's best to shoot raw, I do not scan into JPGs. When I scan with my Canon CanoScan 9000F, I out put lossless TIFF format using 48 bits per pixel, 16 bits per channel. My medium format TIFF files are typically between 800 & 900 MB, but I feel maximizing the dynamic range a high priority. Later edits are less prone to banding with the high bit depth.
Steaphany not much point scanning medium format more than 2400 with that scanner. You end up with bloated file sizes as the scanner truly resolves around 2000.
Steaphany Hi, I'm looking to buying my first scanner for negatives, I shoot Canon digital and 35mm and my printer is a Canon so I was thinking about getting the 9000f mkII, but the reviews are so mixed leaving me more than a little confused. I will be mainly scanning 645 120 film, and I too see the benefits of using tiffs. Please can you tell me if you would recommend this scanner?
Lots of great photographers are using their digital cameras with a macro lens and a tripod or a copy stand to take several images of their medium format negatives/slides and then using PS to stitch together a RAW file. Flickr has several groups that discuss this in great detail. I'm planning on doing it in about a month after I move next week. JPEGs have almost no headroom to make any meaningful adjustments to an already scanned image. The majority of people use tiff or RAW to manipulate their images when using this technique. I'm also going to give it a shot being my own lab. You keep all the control and the price might just drop
In pre-digital days neither was there a “straight” print: every analog picture I made using an enlarger in a dark room was somehow “edited” off the neg. you’d pick your grade of paper ( contrast), use filters on monochrome (highlight or darken values), burning, dodging, etc. The choice of developer for both film and print had a bearing, and a bunch of other things. Colour pictures you’d adjust the enlargers colour head for different cyan, magenta and the third one ...I forget. Lightroom, photoshop do the same, but a lot easier.
Aren't you afraid of getting tonal breaks when increasing contrast on an 8-bit JPEG? I normally prefer to do all my editing with 16-bit TIFF files so I don't loose any tonality.
newFaction64 The bit depth of an image is how many colors it can have. 8-but is more limited, and so pushing and pulling information is more likely to cause problems or break the image (look at gradients and you'll see blocking and stripes and such). 16-bit is an astronomically higher amount of color information, so it can be manipulated more easily and with better results.
Great video as always. Thanks Matt! Where do you fall in the Noritsu vs. Frontier debate? I know you scan at home, but when you send stuff out what do you prefer?
Should I tell my technician to just scan and no manipulate my Black and white film ad get the TIFF files to do my own post processing? There is any difference doing the post processing on the scanner software, or getting the “plane” scan and making the changes on LR, thank you so much!
Thanks for the video, Matt. Are your scans done on lab scanners, noritsu or frontier machines? I'm looking for help with negative inversion and raw colour correction, for flatbed or DSLR scanning. I'm struggling to get reliable, neutral home scans of my negs.
Cool to see your process of editing Matt! Is there a reason you edit JPEG files as opposed to TIFFS? I usually scan my film into TIFF files and then edit in Photoshop. Just curious from a workflow standpoint.
Hey Matt! Love this video! Could you please make a video on export settings for making prints from RAW files and film scans? Or how to do at home film scans?
Hi Matt, great job on the photos. What are your thoughts on sharpening? I find scans often come out soft and I have to apply a slight unsharp mask to bring the detail back. Although it does obviously enhance grain, which can be distasteful to some.
Hello Matt... I recent purchased a Optek 8200i 35mm film scanner. I want to scan all of my films that I shot from the 80s and 90s. I've been scanning my film to jpegs, but was wondering if it was worth it to scan as tiff? I've heard its better to edit tiffs over jpegs, but is it worth it to scan as tiff over jpeg when scanning 35mm film?
Thanks Matt for the input on your workflow. One question if I may: what resolution do the labs provide for these scans? Is there a quality threshold that provides more capability for your adjustments?
Lol just reading the comments of all the same people that asked you "omg how you get those awesome edits from the 35mm??" Are now like "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID IT ON JPG INSTEAD OF TIFF!!"... Those jpg are the same pics you people were amazed at before knowing his editing process.
@@mattdayphoto just saying the truth. Keep up with the good content bro 👍 And if you could critique my film edits I would appreciate it a lot @mathy.stambuk (IG) cause I had no idea of what to do but tried my best lol
Thank you. An excellent video for someone, like myself, new to scanning. I know others have asked similar questions or made statements, but why jpeg and not tiff please?
Hi dude! In one of your videos you said that you don't use the sharpness tool of your scanner 'cause you don't like how it works and you add sharp at your picture later in Lightroom. I have an Epson Perfection V600 Photo. Do you scan films with sharpness tool off? Love so much your videos, keep on this way! Melo, Italy.
You are the worst at dropping names of super helpful people, websites, etc and putting zero links below!! lol Love the work and use so much of what you do as my reference for growing into film photography for personal work.
4:00 was this slide film or print? If it was print, it would have had to be inverted from the negative, which is necessarily an editing step in itself and which ought to be discussed in its own right.
Matt - why receive scans in JPEG instead of TIFF? TIFF contain almost as much data as a RAW, seems like that would be more useful for the workflow you have.
hey, just wondering do you ever print in the darkroom or do you scan all your negatives? if you do print in the darkroom i would love go see a video on it.
Aloha! How do you organize your photo work both physical (i.e. negatives) and digital scans. And do you have system that correlates to each other? Thanks, Kali Wiz_kali
My biggest problem with scanning film is the scanning itself. I seem to get pretty bad results from an Epson V600. How do you get your scans to come out so nice?
Thumb rule is the more you fork out for a scanner the better the result. There are really no cheap scanners that are good. Mat has his negs scanned at the lab that uses professional grade film scanners. I would look into the Pakon f135 film scanner which is a great scanner with a reasonable price tag. Mat has a video on that particular scanner.
I've seen some really good results from the V600 on flickr etc. I guess it comes down to practice. Some scanning software offers a better result that others as well. I don't personally scan myself (Yet) but have done a bit of research.
andrewford80 The bad thing about flatbed scanners in general is that you have to do quite a lot of the work yourself if you want it to look good. The Pakon f135 scans an entire roll in a single feed in about 7 minutes and the files look great straight from the scanner. Grain isn't visible on the V600 either.
Use a third party scanning software like VueScan. I use an epson 4490 and when I switched from using the stock software to vuescan, there was a huge spike in the quality of my images.
First of all I have to say that I really like your workflow an and just the slighty little changes which work really great in my opinion. But why do you work on 8-Bit jpg? I mean thats a huge bottle neck. Than you could even shoot on your iPhone an use some VSCO-filters. What about processing 16-bit tiff if you are going to edit your shots?
I knew it was possible scanning films negative directly as RAW and then edit them properly and not as Jpeg. There should be softwares like VeuScan Professional Pro to make so. In this way you can operate in a better condition. Am I right?
hey ive been having trouble developing! i already fucked up 3 rolls and im super upset about it i dont know what ive been doing wrong but i followed the same steps as i did the first time wehen my rolls came out perfect but then this last 3 rolls i tried ended up comming out 100% translucent like no pictures where on them i dont get it! help please
Really needed some Matt Day in my life during these stressful times. Thanks buddy.
Great video, Matt. It really bothers me when film shooters obsess over their cameras and glass and film, but then accept some crummy lab scans as the true representation of what's on their negatives. Different scanners and different scanner settings will produce different digital files, and those are just one of many steps toward finished images.
This is exactly the way I edit my scans :) I'm glad you debunked the whole "why would you shoot film if you edit it digitally" myth!
this is super helpful! Always thought film was supposed to stay film, thanks for helping me understand the flexibility and control I have over how scans are made.
Thanks for the video. It's awesome to see another photographer's workflow
It's amazing how tiny adjustments bring out the beauty of your photos, great video Matt!
glad to see you back for more useful information
Yeah, I totally agree. You took the words right out of my mouth! 👍
The part in the beginning where you say there is always editing done no matter what, this is really the truth. So many people don't realize you'll pretty much never get a scan that's absolutely perfect, there's always some corrections to be done, an yes, it is completely up to the photographer's preferences. This is even more true with darkroom prints. Even if you have a very well exposed negative to begin with, you'll always have to do some dodging and burning of your image to bring the details out, because of the nature of photographic paper and how it reacts to different wavelenghts of light.
Thanks Matt that helped a lot! Glad to see you back at making the vids!
Hello, Matt! Congratulations on an informative video tackling image toning. A very straight forward approach to toning images. Starting off with a good exposure is key. I'd like to add that I like my scans a little flat and full of dynamic range allowing me to tone the image as I envision it. Toning in a Raw state I use mostly Levels or Curves. The sliders are probably great but use with caution due to producing slight halo effect, i.e. Highlight recovery or Shadow recovery. Using Levels or Curves for me is a pure form of toning photos. Looks forward to your next video. Cheers!
I never understood why you shouldn't edit your scans, except it might comes to very specific artistic choices and when it fits your concept best (like in some of my art education studies). Every scan is different, give your negative to a couple different shops and each scan will look differently. That's also why I scan my negatives myself, it gives the most control over your pictures. What's different in my work flow is that I rather use 16bit (monochrome pics) or 48bit (color pics) and .tiff files instead of .jpeg. Thanks for the video, there are a couple new tricks I'd like to try in lightroom.
This was very helpful for me. I have resisted learning to edit well for unknown reasons. I think with digital, I have too many images to share with family that I don't spend much time on each photo unless it is obviously way off. But at least for film the volume of photos to process is manageable. So I may need to practice when my next roll comes back from the lab.
Would love to see you walk us trough your scanning process as well.
He has several videos on that subject.
Great video as always, neat little tip there at the end. Your not the only one that's a sucker for the blacks, I also just try to get the image to what I remember from the day. I just try to keep it simple.
Thanks Matt for this video as i just got into scanning my negatives.
I'm hype to post my photo tomorrow.
Great to see. Have you ever tried using your dslr and a light box to scan your negatives?
Most of the editing work there is in the histogram, but I really like having the flexibility of the raw file to make edits. Also working on the histograms for my negatives has made my digital photo processing sills a lot better too.
Can't believe you're editing 8 bit JPGs instead of 16 bit TIFFs. Especially if you've gone to all the trouble of medium format film.
@@deadbadugly Imagine buying a photo book, skipping through it, thoroughly enjoying it, and on the last page it says "All of these were edited from JPG". And you immediately return the book because now it's not legitimate photography anymore.
That's you.
I really appreciate this video. Sometimes I feel like I am cheating tweaking my scans in lightroom but I can better communicate why its ok thanks to this video. Its the same with why its ok to edit a RAW file.
Great video Matt, I used to scan everything to tiff and my work flow crawled as a result, I have been scanning jpegs for the last few months and it's made a massive difference to my output.
Just cleaning the dust off is a pain!
from my experience its the best to get it scanned in as a negative then flip It. This way you have complete control and can extract as much information as possible when editing
Matt, thank you so much for sharing this with us! It helped a lot!! cheers man
Beautiful shots! But for curiosity sake, I wish I knew what film you shot on. Keep up the good work !
You have earned my subscription with this video. Great content
Matt,
Why do you have the files delivered to you as JPG ?
First off, JPG are stuck at 24 bits per pixel, 8 per Red, Green, & Blue channel.
Second, JPGs are a lossy file format.
Just as shooting digital, it's best to shoot raw, I do not scan into JPGs.
When I scan with my Canon CanoScan 9000F, I out put lossless TIFF format using 48 bits per pixel, 16 bits per channel.
My medium format TIFF files are typically between 800 & 900 MB, but I feel maximizing the dynamic range a high priority. Later edits are less prone to banding with the high bit depth.
Steaphany not much point scanning medium format more than 2400 with that scanner. You end up with bloated file sizes as the scanner truly resolves around 2000.
Eddie Hawe depends which scanner you're using
yes, but Jpg is compressed!
Steaphany Hi, I'm looking to buying my first scanner for negatives, I shoot Canon digital and 35mm and my printer is a Canon so I was thinking about getting the 9000f mkII, but the reviews are so mixed leaving me more than a little confused. I will be mainly scanning 645 120 film, and I too see the benefits of using tiffs. Please can you tell me if you would recommend this scanner?
Lots of great photographers are using their digital cameras with a macro lens and a tripod or a copy stand to take several images of their medium format negatives/slides and then using PS to stitch together a RAW file. Flickr has several groups that discuss this in great detail. I'm planning on doing it in about a month after I move next week. JPEGs have almost no headroom to make any meaningful adjustments to an already scanned image. The majority of people use tiff or RAW to manipulate their images when using this technique. I'm also going to give it a shot being my own lab. You keep all the control and the price might just drop
In pre-digital days neither was there a “straight” print: every analog picture I made using an enlarger in a dark room was somehow “edited” off the neg. you’d pick your grade of paper ( contrast), use filters on monochrome (highlight or darken values), burning, dodging, etc. The choice of developer for both film and print had a bearing, and a bunch of other things. Colour pictures you’d adjust the enlargers colour head for different cyan, magenta and the third one ...I forget. Lightroom, photoshop do the same, but a lot easier.
Good video Matt Day Here, lots of photos, thanks for sharing
Aren't you afraid of getting tonal breaks when increasing contrast on an 8-bit JPEG? I normally prefer to do all my editing with 16-bit TIFF files so I don't loose any tonality.
David sorry for the noob question but can you explain what that means?
newFaction64 The bit depth of an image is how many colors it can have. 8-but is more limited, and so pushing and pulling information is more likely to cause problems or break the image (look at gradients and you'll see blocking and stripes and such). 16-bit is an astronomically higher amount of color information, so it can be manipulated more easily and with better results.
Gabe DC thanks!
Editing my color scans was alway painfull for me, but now I see, there is an easy way to do it. Maybe in spring I will shoot few rolls of color film.
Thanks Matt. Have you done a video on your scanning process? I'm just about to invest in a scanner and it would be helpful to see how you do it.
Great video, these are the tips I'm searching for!
Thanks Matt, this is the vid I have been waiting for,
The "J" trick is just pulling in your endpoints, which is pretty standard practice whenever scanning film.
Great video as always. Thanks Matt! Where do you fall in the Noritsu vs. Frontier debate? I know you scan at home, but when you send stuff out what do you prefer?
Thanks for sharing your knowledge again. missed this kind of videos from you
great video matt, thanks for the help.
This is great...and that Old Milwaukee hat!!!!!!!!
Shouldn't the lab give you 16 bit TIFF files instead of 8 bit compressed JPEGS?
Not if you don't pay for it.
you said what i was thinking in this vid. thanks dude.
Should I tell my technician to just scan and no manipulate my Black and white film ad get the TIFF files to do my own post processing? There is any difference doing the post processing on the scanner software, or getting the “plane” scan and making the changes on LR, thank you so much!
Thanks for the video, Matt. Are your scans done on lab scanners, noritsu or frontier machines? I'm looking for help with negative inversion and raw colour correction, for flatbed or DSLR scanning. I'm struggling to get reliable, neutral home scans of my negs.
Cool to see your process of editing Matt! Is there a reason you edit JPEG files as opposed to TIFFS? I usually scan my film into TIFF files and then edit in Photoshop. Just curious from a workflow standpoint.
Hey Matt! Love this video! Could you please make a video on export settings for making prints from RAW files and film scans? Or how to do at home film scans?
Hi Matt, great job on the photos. What are your thoughts on sharpening? I find scans often come out soft and I have to apply a slight unsharp mask to bring the detail back. Although it does obviously enhance grain, which can be distasteful to some.
Hello Matt... I recent purchased a Optek 8200i 35mm film scanner. I want to scan all of my films that I shot from the 80s and 90s. I've been scanning my film to jpegs, but was wondering if it was worth it to scan as tiff? I've heard its better to edit tiffs over jpegs, but is it worth it to scan as tiff over jpeg when scanning 35mm film?
Thanks Matt for the input on your workflow. One question if I may: what resolution do the labs provide for these scans? Is there a quality threshold that provides more capability for your adjustments?
big up on the artist spotlight in the ccs catalog
Love your videos. I hav recently begin to shoot film again and develop film . i shoot fim in my Mamyia 330 and it feels great !
Lol just reading the comments of all the same people that asked you "omg how you get those awesome edits from the 35mm??" Are now like "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID IT ON JPG INSTEAD OF TIFF!!"...
Those jpg are the same pics you people were amazed at before knowing his editing process.
Kubmats THANK. YOU. 🤣🙏🏻
@@mattdayphoto just saying the truth.
Keep up with the good content bro 👍
And if you could critique my film edits I would appreciate it a lot @mathy.stambuk (IG) cause I had no idea of what to do but tried my best lol
Kubmats Just checked it out. Your first 35mm color roll? Colors look great, man. 👍🏻
@@mattdayphoto thanks man I appreciate the feedback
@@kbmats 2020 your feed looks great
Thank you. An excellent video for someone, like myself, new to scanning. I know others have asked similar questions or made statements, but why jpeg and not tiff please?
great tips, thank you.
Very informative. I don't use lightroom but will give it a look with my next set of negs.
Hey Matt great video! Do you ever adjust sharpening or clarity on your film scans? Why or why not. Thank you for your time!
Hi dude!
In one of your videos you said that you don't use the sharpness tool of your scanner 'cause you don't like how it works and you add sharp at your picture later in Lightroom.
I have an Epson Perfection V600 Photo.
Do you scan films with sharpness tool off?
Love so much your videos, keep on this way!
Melo, Italy.
You are the worst at dropping names of super helpful people, websites, etc and putting zero links below!! lol Love the work and use so much of what you do as my reference for growing into film photography for personal work.
Hey, do you ever use the contrast tool rather than the blacks? How do they work differently? Thanks
Hey Matt good video. My question is, do you typically ask for all neutral settings when filling out the order form? -Thanks
Great info, it will cut down my editing time quite a bit.
Beautiful photos! What camera and film did you use? I'd love to know. Thank you!
Hi Matt. Do you see the big difference of sharpness, dynamic range between 35mm film and 35mm full frame leica m9?
Thanks for making your videos.
Great videos! This inspires me to get into film photography again. Thinking of buying a 500cm, too bad they are so damn expensive
Keep up the great work
Newbie question:If you scan the film,how does it get the color from the film?
This is why I scan my own photos now.
Thanks, I just learned some new techniques.
solid teaching dude.
Is that Red Rock in NV as the background on your monitor?
matt, is it a good idea to take photo instead of scanning the film by dslr and did u ever try this method out?
4:00 was this slide film or print? If it was print, it would have had to be inverted from the negative, which is necessarily an editing step in itself and which ought to be discussed in its own right.
Hi Matt. Can i ask what screen size Mac book you use? Great channel BTW, keep up the good work :)
Hello Matt, I would like to know what is the masterlab that you mentioned in the video :) Thanks :)
Matt - why receive scans in JPEG instead of TIFF? TIFF contain almost as much data as a RAW, seems like that would be more useful for the workflow you have.
Usually, labs scan JPEG because of the price.
What's a good scanner to use? been looking for one for a while
Beard's coming in nicely.
Do you know what film you were shooting?
Hey Matt do you have a video editing black and white film?
Do you ever use noise reduction on film scans?
hey, just wondering do you ever print in the darkroom or do you scan all your negatives? if you do print in the darkroom i would love go see a video on it.
If you don't send it to the lab and you do the scanning yourself, i think its better to start with Temp and Tint (for color).
Aloha!
How do you organize your photo work both physical (i.e. negatives) and digital scans. And do you have system that correlates to each other?
Thanks,
Kali
Wiz_kali
what film stock are these negatives of? Looks like a portra stock?
My biggest problem with scanning film is the scanning itself. I seem to get pretty bad results from an Epson V600. How do you get your scans to come out so nice?
Thumb rule is the more you fork out for a scanner the better the result. There are really no cheap scanners that are good. Mat has his negs scanned at the lab that uses professional grade film scanners. I would look into the Pakon f135 film scanner which is a great scanner with a reasonable price tag. Mat has a video on that particular scanner.
I've seen some really good results from the V600 on flickr etc. I guess it comes down to practice. Some scanning software offers a better result that others as well.
I don't personally scan myself (Yet) but have done a bit of research.
andrewford80 The bad thing about flatbed scanners in general is that you have to do quite a lot of the work yourself if you want it to look good. The Pakon f135 scans an entire roll in a single feed in about 7 minutes and the files look great straight from the scanner. Grain isn't visible on the V600 either.
Use a third party scanning software like VueScan. I use an epson 4490 and when I switched from using the stock software to vuescan, there was a huge spike in the quality of my images.
Put your fìlm straight on the glass of the scanner without the plastic holder. You'll se your scanning come out more sharp.
First of all I have to say that I really like your workflow an and just the slighty little changes which work really great in my opinion. But why do you work on 8-Bit jpg? I mean thats a huge bottle neck. Than you could even shoot on your iPhone an use some VSCO-filters. What about processing 16-bit tiff if you are going to edit your shots?
Hi , Matt , can you give me the link of the masterlab website you mention in the vdo?
Thank you!
Did you develop these images yourself or is it a lab? Maybe you said it in the video but i'm french... :/
Would have been interesting to see you edit a landscape as well.
I knew it was possible scanning films negative directly as RAW and then edit them properly and not as Jpeg. There should be softwares like VeuScan Professional Pro to make so. In this way you can operate in a better condition. Am I right?
You can't get a "RAW" file from a Fuji Frontier/Noritsu scanner. I believe the biggest possible file is a TIFF.
Where do you get your film processed ?
why don,t you have your scan outputs on tif? I mean... 16bit tif is ways more flexible than a compressed jpeg
Every film scan is an edit. It helps to scan your own.
What iso film did you use for these photos?
Detail is detail .... preserving is a normal scan all labs should do ... anything less or more is subjective after that ...
isn't it right that tiff data has more information than jpg, even in scanns?
It would have been much more helpful to know what camera format you shot these with and the film used.
hey ive been having trouble developing! i already fucked up 3 rolls and im super upset about it i dont know what ive been doing wrong but i followed the same steps as i did the first time wehen my rolls came out perfect but then this last 3 rolls i tried ended up comming out 100% translucent like no pictures where on them i dont get it! help please
Maybe its your camera or lens. Have them check out.
awesome
thanks matt! :D
The FP-100c and 3000b film