Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I tested my first roll of film on the EOS 1V. I am not sure if the problem is with the expired film or is it the lousy processing at Shoppers or a problem with the camera itself? I doubt that is it the camera (or at least I hope not). Why are there all these random white flakes and hair? Is it because they did not process the film is a dust free environment? I remember the old days when I shoot film using P&S,, never have quality this bad. Any suggestions?

Here are a few of the shots :

The "random white flakes and hair" is dust on the film when it was scanned (kind of like dust on a digital camera sensor).

Dust is generally due to careless handling by the film processor, not film expiry. So really, a simple solution would be to just use a different store for your film processing.

Shoppers is the cheapest processor of C41 (that I know of), so you get what you pay for, right?

What type of film is this? C41 B&W? Did they scan it or did you? This time of year dry film acts like a dust magnet and any place that doesn't have a dust free environment is going to give you dust and hair. With c41 digital ICE will digitally remove (cover up) much of the dust in a scan. It uses infrared to differentiate dust from image.

Shoppers is worse but even the better labs introduce some to varying degrees (I won't mention names). I scan and develop B&W at home: a very soft brush; rocket blower and anti static cloth are my constant friends. When I first started out I used a fortune in canned air. If you do 120 film at Shoppers you have to give them sleeves if you want a reasonable clean result

It is the C41 B&W. Shoppers did the processing and gave me the CD for $2.99 + tax. I can see that you get what you paid for but I don't remember this kind of dust problems appear on photos in the old days. Photos are crystal clean back then, is it because they are scanning it now versus printing? Would these dust spots appear on photos if I want them printed?
I don't mind it now because I am just getting familiar with the camera and just playing around. later I would be getting it done at better shops. But would it make a big difference based on your explanation?

u do get what you pay for, but you shouldn't get dust with your scans. ask for a refund or a dust free rescan.

I'm surprised with digital Ice that is that bad. I can't tell for sure but they look drastically under exposed with no contrast. This causes the grain to appear like noise.

Their quality has drastically gone down over the past two years. For one your film doesn't look contrasty enough. I had the same issue and I think that's related to developing. As for the scans and hair, I've had whole rolls ruined, finger prints, light leaks, scratches across the whole negative. This is the one reason I hardly shoot 35mm anymore. As soon as finish off my Kodachrome I'm only relying on the toy cams I have and a good lab.

so they can damage it some more? I've seen negatives being dragged across the floor and handled without gloves regularly.

Can you mention names so we know to avoid them?

I had similar issues with Downtown camera's scanning.... and that was what made my decision to buy the Epson V700 - so I do my own scanning. Better control over output. I really want a Nikon Coolscan 9000, but can't justify the cost.

Not going to mention names because different photographers I know would have very different ranking lists.

Even the two shoppers that I have used are not that bad if you clean and scan your own I just use their scan as rough proofs. For 120 film if I give then protective sleeves they are quite clean because they bypass the scanning step.

I personally have never had a low contrast negatives like above unless it's a shot or 2 with bad exposure (my fault)

In total they only have damaged part of a roll of film which they made good by giving me free film and developing.

I suspect that it is possible that the images above lack contrast because of under exposure rather then poor development. This when scanned would result in noisy scans where any dust and grain is exaggerated by the scanner trying to auto adjust and expand the contrast of the image from a very thin negative. Under exposed negatives also make it harder for digital ice to work. Thats not to say that hair and flakes should be there in the first place.

From my home developing dry winter air makes film act like a dust magnet. You don't want to see one that has been dropped.

I wonder why these are underexposed.... for a controlled test, I will used a new (not expired) roll of film and note my exposure settings and then run it through Shoppers again.
I am pretty sure that the exposures are set correctly because I in parallel shot some digital with my 5D2 and the result came out great. Could well be user error cause its my first time shooting the 1V.

I can't say for a fact they are under exposed without looking at the negatives but thats what an under exposed scan looks like. When I don't really care about content I've ran a lot of film through shoppers with pretty consistent results. Not every shoppers is going to be the same but the one at King and Yonge check there chemicals once a day.

Even film expired in early 2000 and 1997 64T x processed seems to work although with muddy shadows. Once in a long while I get a batch of expired film that doesn't seem to work maybe because of incorrect storage.

I don't care much for there scans but since I do my own it's not really a problem.

If you are going to shot another roll you might try bracketing a shot or two to see if it is your camera.

The only place I have not had issues with was colorgenics. I have yet to try elevator labs, but I have heard good things about them. Shoppers @ king has hit and miss processing quality.

Elevator is really good but at last check they don't do individual rolls you have to batch them

http://elevatordigital.ca/film.html

BTW colorgenics is good but on that exact other end of the price scale when compared to shoppers.

I should have made myself clear...I only use them for 120, I have tried 120 but not 220 at vistek because its apparently the same price as 120, but I've gotten back crumpled negatives. I don't really use 35mm for much other then my toycam stuff and its been hit or miss.

I am willing to pay more to not have my stuff damaged, but most other labs don't care to much to provide 'pro' level service that they are supposed to be offering. Buyer beware, for the most part pro labs are concerning themselves with printing and not developing, so this won't get better.

well its looks like under exposed film to me, that was explain just the contrast not the scratches though

Looks like film dust to me. Out curiosity, did you use any B&W filters when you took these?

Tested another roll with a fresh roll of film. Took it to the same Shoppers for processing. The result is way better than the last roll. I don't think there is any exposure problems. But this time I did mention to the guy that the last roll has some serious dust and hair problems and he said he will take a note of that this time. I wonder if that is why it is better this time? Mind you that looking closely, I can still see dust spots here and there. I think the problems I had last time was related to bad film quality.

Here are some snapshot from this test :