Scanning the weakest link

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love film. Mostly slide film. Wonderful saturation, images with real depth and that special character to them. I also love seeing slides on a screen from time to time, but of course I do need digital versions, too, quite a lot of the time -- and here's where the problems start. Those who maintain digital beats film aren't really comparing film at all -- they are comparing scanned film. (And even then, IMO, it often beats digital capture for detail.) The film itself preserves a wonderful jewel-like image. How do you extract that quality? The whole process of scanning seems to be infinitely complex, even more so than uploading an SD card from a digital camera, requires hours in front of the computer screen, and is inconsistent and hit and miss, with vast differences between proprietary and non-proprietary software. It's also very time-consuming.

 

Until now I have simply had my slides scanned at a lab, but the quality from the Noritsu machine, although often fine, can be variable (banding problems, for example). I have just tried a Canoscan 9000F flatbed, which many reviews have raved about, but I am not impressed. It's fuzzy. The shop said it might be faulty, as it doesn't seem to be focusing on anything. Detail is muddy and indistinct. Just not a goer when I am shooting with Leica lenses! It's going back. There are no other scanners available locally apart from other flatbeds and the very pricey NZD 6,000 Nikon LS9000.

 

So what to do? Keep with value lab scans? Go for pricier custom scans (new Hasselblad lab scanner) for special prints? Or do should do my own scanning? The Plustek 7600, described in another post, is another possibility, if I can source one. Simply use more digital? But see my first sentence. I guess my main question is how do I go about getting the best scans as simply and economically as possible? What do others do?

Edited December 3, 2010 by NZDavid

[andybarton]

Flatbeds just don't cut the mustard for 35mm. I have both a v700 and a Coolscan V - the latter is far superior, IMHO.

 

The Nikon 9000 is an excellent scanner, but if you really want to get the best from your scans, you have to spend serious money on a Hasselblad/Imacon. Rolo has one and I have seen what he can do with it.

 

If you are really serious about high quality, you then need to move onto MF and beyond, as the Hasselblad scanner will get to the limit of what 35mm can produce.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[NZDavid]

Thanks Andy, so I have heard, but why the good reviews on several test sites for the Canon? It's described and marketed, btw, as "professional film scanning quality" with 48-bit 9600 dpi output capability. And I have no idea where to find any of the other scanners as they are not sold locally.

[andybarton]

Sorry, I have no experience of the Canon scanner, but I would always take the marketing hype with a large pinch of salt.

 

However, virtually any scanner you use at home will give you better results than those from value labs, which will almost certainly be jpg only.

 

Scanning is a whole black art in itself. I have been doing it for about 8 years now, and I am still learning but scanning is only as time consuming as wet darkroom work. When funds allow, for both my Leica and Hasselblad film, I will trade my v700 for an Imacon and start re-learning all over again...

Edited December 3, 2010 by andybarton

[wattsy]

but if you really want to get the best from your scans, you have to spend serious money on a Hasselblad/Imacon.

 

The cost of a perfectly decent car (assuming you are not a petrolhead) but if you are not a very heavy user there's no need to make that kind of capital investment. I don't know about Christchurch, but many major cities will have somewhere where you can rent an Imacon by the hour.

[Adam Marelli]

Hey Andy,

 

Like you, I tried lab scans at a number of places in NYC. The only scans I liked were the high res ones, done on the Hasselblad Imacon X1 and then the X5. Then I found out that Photo Village actually had one you could rent by the day.

 

The Imacon scanner allowed me to scan 35mm and 120mm color slide film, which is what I shoot 98% of the time. It will do black and white and regular film well too, I just prefer slide film.

 

Its not a cheap scanner, but I think X1s are becoming available on eBay now that the X5 is out. Some people reported that the get good results from the cool scan, but the Imacon is way better. If you want to make prints the Imacon is a must, if its only for computer viewing the Coolscan will work great and save you a bundle of money.

 

Attached are two scans, first one is a RAW lab scan, the second is a RAW Imacon Scan. I am planning on doing an article on my website soon about this because it keeps coming up. The whole thing frustrated me for so long and I would like to save some people the grief I went through.

Adam Marelli Photo

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The others are right, no consumer flatbed is going to get the most out of your film.

 

One big advantage of pro-level scanners is the consistency and repeatability. The Trident software I use with my Howtek drum scanner is capable of a very high level of control. After some initial testing and a (relatively small) learning curve, there's really no more trial and error involved, I know when I do a scan that it will work and work the first time. My preview looks like the final file. And (because of the hardware) the focus is perfect. Every time. From center to the corners.

 

I wouldn't say that the Nikons and the available software for them give this level of service. I was always fiddling with software, rescanning due to out-of-focus scans or scans where the center was sharp but the edges were soft.

 

Having said that, I think the Nikon film scanners are the best value short of a drum scanner. (I also think my drum scanner was an incredible value, but I'm a pro doing high-volume work and very large exhibition prints.)

 

The Nikon LS9000 and the smaller 35mm siblings can produce very good scans, though it may take more fiddling than with a drum scanner. I had settled on Vuescan which works well, although it's not as powerful or intuitive as Trident.

 

 

I've had imacon scans done but I've never used the machines myself. They're very good, but I'm not sure that they're all that far ahead of the latest Nikons in terms of quality. The difference is that I assume the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are more consistent and have better software.

 

I'd suggest giving up on the minilab scans. A dedicated film scanner, even a cheaper model, will probably be much better. And yes, getting imacon or drum scans of special negs once in a while is a good solution for nice prints.

[miklosphoto]

It took me maybe 3 years to nail it down. Now I am using a Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED with the Nikon SA-30 35mm Roll film Adapter and SilverFast Ai. Scanning positives is very easy, the only problem is the shadows with Kodachrome. Color negatives require some post processing - the white balance is tricky sometimes. BW is very easy. I can print 11x14 or 11x17 without a problem (on Epson R2400). The scanner cost me USD 800 on craigslist. Forgot to mention, it is all 35mm.

For MF I tried flatbad (Epson V700) - there is nothing else you need.

[M7Paul]

Bang for buck, try Nikon film scanner 5000 or 9000 and fluid scan them via scanscience.com. Very straightforward to fluid scan. Results are significantly better than dry scanning. Have never used an Imacon so can't compare but have spoken to a few who have tried both who say the results are not far off the Imacon for a fraction of the price. Good luck.

[tobey bilek]

If my KM5400 dies, I would get the Plus Tech 7600. If I wanted to invest more than it is worth to me, an Imacon scanner.

 

But honestly, a digi file wth a contrast increase curve in the raw converter can be made to look like film. Digital is flat from the camera OR SCAN and you MUST fix it.

 

Then dup the layer, add some grain, small or large, sharp or soft, color or mono, then use "blend if" to keep the GRAIN from the shadows and highlights just like film prints. Never see the difference guaranteed. Split the sliders to soften the transition.

 

Scanned film shows hugh grain, and the better the scanner, the worse it is. I use Nik Defin 2 and it cleans it up nicely. Use a layer mask made from "find edges" to retain 100% sharpnesss of the file. The mask looks like a pencil sketch of the pic and confines the softening to large areas.

 

The best film for scanning is Kodak Portra and discontinued Fuji 160S.

 

Do not use any sharpening until you do noise reduction because you make NR work harder on a sharpened image.

 

Do nothing with the scanner software except get a good exposure.and proper color balance. EVERYTHING else is better done in photoshop.

 

Pay or do whatever you have to to get clean dust free negs. No scanner software cleans dust without making a mess of the file. This inclused air filters, water filters, clean glass bottles or a pro lab. Clean is better than any fix. Same goes for digi camera sensors.

 

My Nikon digitals outperform any film from my Leicas and they equalize if I take extraordinary care with the film. You probably ill not want to work that hard.

 

An M9 has to be a better M8 which is a very good camera in its own right. I am considering.

[NZDavid]

Some very interesting replies here, I shall have to mull it over and see what's available. Plustek could still be an option, or a Nikon -- Imacon may just be too pricey. Thanks Adam for posting those pictures, they reveal exactly the huge variation in scans. At least with slides what you see is what you get, and it makes it easier to compare the originals. And yes, cranking up the contrast on digital images does indeed make them look more "film like", but I'd have no need of introducing grain. I have found Fuji Astia 100F has infinitesimal grain but other emulsions like E100G are not that far behind.

[redbaron]

Tobey, when you say your Nikon digital files 'outperform' film, do you mean scanned film or silver prints?

 

And what, exactly, do you mean by this? Do they run faster? ;-)

[Bo_Lorentzen]

One more vote for the Nikon CoolScan - Im sure the imacon out-performs the nikon, but this is really a matter of 80/20 80% of the performance for 20% of the price, or less. the jump in quality from fladbed and lab-scans to the nikon is huge very real, the next qustion is if the size of quality increase from the nikon to the imacon is really worth it.?

 

I was using lab-scans but gave up and got a nikon CS, only regret was waiting as long as I did. wrote up a little comparison on my blog BoPhoto.com: Scanning - its in the details

 

.

[Archiver]

I saw a very interesting alternative cooked up by Dirk Steffen (menos). He was using a Nikon D700 attached to a tripod, shooting the negs on a lightbox with a high grade macro lens. The results he got were far beyond the lab and home scans in terms of sharpness, detail and dynamic range.

 

When I have time and a bit more cash, I will give that a try with my 5D Mark II. Just need to get a decent macro lens, tripod and lightbox...

[AlanG]

I saw a very interesting alternative cooked up by Dirk Steffen (menos). He was using a Nikon D700 attached to a tripod, shooting the negs on a lightbox with a high grade macro lens. The results he got were far beyond the lab and home scans in terms of sharpness, detail and dynamic range.

 

When I have time and a bit more cash, I will give that a try with my 5D Mark II. Just need to get a decent macro lens, tripod and lightbox...

 

I just copied an 8x10 transparency for a friend this way. It came out very good and was fast and easy to do. There are all sorts of slide duplicating devices that can be used with digital cameras. Alternatively, scanning does take some practice and can be slow and frustrating at times. But my first film scanner many years ago was a Polaroid Sprint Scan 35 Plus and I got very good results from it pretty easily.

[EJohnE]

I saw a very interesting alternative cooked up by Dirk Steffen (menos). He was using a Nikon D700 attached to a tripod, shooting the negs on a lightbox with a high grade macro lens. The results he got were far beyond the lab and home scans in terms of sharpness, detail and dynamic range.

 

When I have time and a bit more cash, I will give that a try with my 5D Mark II. Just need to get a decent macro lens, tripod and lightbox...

 

I use a 5D-II with a 60 Macro-Elmarit-R on a copy stand with a Bowen Illumitran of ancient vintage. That has an averaging selenium meter, a focussing lamp, and a built-in electronic flash. I find it excellent of my purposes for b/w and slides. For colour neg, it is better to use the Plustek 7300/Silverfast scanning which will give correct colour. I'm not skillful enough to be able to copy/render C/N using the Illumitran set-up.

 

As the Plustek 7300 is a rather despised model, I would assume the later versions should be even better.

 

John

[wildlightphoto]

Those who maintain digital beats film aren't really comparing film at all -- they are comparing scanned film.

 

I don't know how you reached this conclusion. You certainly did not consider my comparison methodology: I compared the DMR's files with slides as viewed through a Schneider loupe and projected with a Colorplan lens.

[NZDavid]

I wasn't actually referring to your conclusion, Doug -- that sounds like a scientific comparison -- just to the blanket assertion by many that digital beats film, when really all they are comparing are two forms of digital images, one captured with a digital camera and the other with a scanner.

 

Copying slides with a digital camera and macro lens certainly looks like an innovative idea, and really not too different to scanning, in concept at least.

 

In effect scanners are analogous to enlargers in that they are creating a second generation copy. No matter what technology you use, surely a lot still depends on the quality of the copying lens (whether Leitz/Leica, Rodenstock, Nikon or something else), together with the sensor and the software. The challenge is to get the copy as near to the original as possible.

[russell]

Bang for buck, try Nikon film scanner 5000 or 9000 and fluid scan them via scanscience.com. Very straightforward to fluid scan. Results are significantly better than dry scanning. Have never used an Imacon so can't compare but have spoken to a few who have tried both who say the results are not far off the Imacon for a fraction of the price. Good luck.

 

I've been searching for a scanning workflow for years now. I used a MK 5400 for a long time but suffered without having a glass plate to hold the negative flat.

Silverfast makes very good software once you get over the learning curve.

 

I've finally caved in and bought a used Nikon 9000 on Friday. It's still in the mail so I can't give specific feedback on it yet.

On reason I caved in is that wet mount is really not easy on the 5400.

 

The plan now is wet mount -> Nikon 9000 -> Silverfast

 

 

The Imacon route does seem to be give slightly better scans if one reads the internet. However, since most of my negatives are all scratched up I'll want to wet mount anyway and that looks like the 9000 will be close enough to the Imacon to not be worth the extra $$$

 

The real cost is your time. So might as well get the best you can afford.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

I wasn't actually referring to your conclusion, Doug -- that sounds like a scientific comparison -- just to the blanket assertion by many that digital beats film, when really all they are comparing are two forms of digital images, one captured with a digital camera and the other with a scanner.

 

So let's not make blanket assertions about those who prefer to use a digital camera.

 

In my case, I found that digital printing of my slides gave me much better prints than optical printing so even if I were to compare a scan to a file from a digital camera it would have been a valid comparison, because no matter how much better the slide or negative was than the scan, the scan is what I am going to use. If a US$40 drum scan is required get the most from the slide (16-bit 200MB scan, West Coast Imaging's FAQ recommendation for 35mm RGB) and I'm making several prints, economics play a role in the decision process as well.

 

In practical terms the biggest difference I saw between WCI's drum scans and the 16-bit 4000 dpi scans from my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 result from film flatness. The scans from the SprintScan 4000 were somewhat softer in the corners (and MUCH better than the scans from some other very popular 4000 dpi desktop scanners).