Film + Scanning

[Guest bwcolor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is my first experience with this part of the forum, so pardon me if I am retreading old ground.

 

I have M7 and lenses, and have until now done all my own film developing and enlarging. Black and White only. But I don't want the enlarging part anymore. I can continue to develop the film, and am considering scanning on a good scanner (maybe Nikon Coolscan), and then printing on an inkjet printer, like Epson 2880.

 

My hesitation with this is that I have read that scanning black and white negs does a couple of things that are problems. 1) introduces serious dust problems (but I am very meticulous about dust); 2) results in a meaningful loss of sharpness in making a final print of perhaps 11 X 14 size: 3) results in a loss of tonal scale. My standard of comparison is conventional enlarging and wet printing which I know well and have first rate equipment for.

 

I will appreciate any comments or guidance on this subject.

[dritz]

There is no affordable perfect method for scanning silver-based films. That said, I do believe there is common agreement on the following points:

 

* Scanning is yet another critical part of the image chain, and deserves significant attention.

 

* Scanning, like darkroom printing, is an empirical practice, and every combination of scanner, software, film, and scanner profile provides us with a unique opportunity to (re)discover how to achieve and reproduce particular results.

 

* $2000 (less than the cost of Leica lens) buys scanning quality of a very high order (e.g., Nikon 9000, or used Imacon).

 

* It takes time, attention to detail, patience, and experience to produce what we all want, i.e., a repeatable, reliable process to produce a file of particular technical qualities given a particular set-up (film, scanner, software, etc.).

 

The next challenging aspect is printing. For me, I shoot silver-based emulsion, have it cross processed as slides, scan (with various degrees of success... I'm still working on it, and it's premature to say that I'm "perfecting" anything at this point), and printing with K7 neutral pigment inks. Still, nothing better than the projected slide (though a Leica super-colorplan-pro projection lens, of course).

 

If you enjoyed perfecting your practice in the darkroom, then you'll have lots of similar pleasures ahead of you!

 

Regards,

Dean

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest DuquesneG]

Scanning is tantamount to taking a digital photo of a negative, grain and all. So why not just cut to the chase and take the photo with a digital camera to begin with. Otherwise, stick to your enlarger, especially since you have honed the skills to get results that please you, and it will take you a long time to get back up to that level in terms of the learning curve for scanning and printing digitally. Hybridizing in this case just doesn't make any sense to me at all, unless someone just has a bunch of old cameras he cherishes and loves and doesn't want to just put them away.

[tgray]

Get a Coolscan V or 5000. I went for the V.

 

I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I don't think there will be a noticeable loss of sharpness introduced from scanning with a decent scanner. I think scanning actually increases your options with respect to tonal range. 11x14 prints should be no problem.

 

The dust issue... 90% of the time my negs have no dust and take maybe 1-2 mins to spot in Photoshop - thats at full resolution. These negs don't really need any work for small images (for the web, 4x6's, etc.) with regards to dust. Sure, there might be a neg with a piece of lint on it, but its usually easy to clone out, or brush off an rescan. However, every once in a while, something happens, there's a lot of dust in the air, or like last time, I accidentally hit a strip of negs up against a bathroom towel (DOH!). Those strips can be a little annoying, even for small images, but still, I can usually get through 15-20 images in about 30 mins.

 

Get a small, fine paintbrush and inspect your neg strip before you insert by getting a light reflection on the surface. If you see anything, flick it off with the brush. Then insert to scan.

[stunsworth]

Scanning b&w isn't as difficult as some make out. The key is clean negatives - or to be prepared for a session of spotting any negatives that you scan in Photoshop. You can't use dust removal functions such as ICE with silver b&w - though you can of course use them with C41 based films such as Ilford XP2.

 

Scanned b&w looks very different to a digital image, and since you already have the film camera and lenses I can see why you want to continue using them.

 

Regarding sharpness, I've never been concened about a lack of sharpness introduced by the scanning process itself. Of course a soft image will result in a soft scan. When scanning it's tempting to look at the scan at 100% magnification and wonder why the image doesn't look sharp, but remember that isn't how you look at the final printed image, and a high res scan looked at this magnification is like looking at a huge print from a few inches.

 

As for tonal scale, I scan b&w as 16 bit greyscales and haven't noticed any obvious lake of tonal scale - but then I don't have a wet print to compare it to. In other words the scan can stand up in its own right.

 

There is of course the question of which scanner to use. I've always used a dedicated film scanner - Minolta or Nikon - and currently use a Nikon Coolscan V. You can of course use many flatbed scanners, but I doubt that you'll find the results as good as a dedicated film scanner - if for no other reason that focus on a flatbed is usually fixed, where as on a film scanner it isn't.

 

If you have any further questions, either general or specific, feel free to ask.

 

It was the pruchase of a film scanner that re-lit my interest in photography 10 or 12 years ago. Just as there's something magical about removing a roll of negatives from a developing tank, there's something similar in seeing a scan pop up on the screen. There's be no problem what so ever printing to the size you mention in your original message.

[gesper]

I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with Silverfast software and print on an Epson 2880. No issues with sharpness or tonal range. I shoot a lot of 6x9 in addition to 35mm, so that leaves a lot of real estate to collect dust. The time it takes to correct for the dust is not unbearable, even for the huge negatives, and it is offset by the ability to quickly fine tune (e.g. dodging and burning) compared with the darkroom.

 

I also often use the scanned negatives as way to edit and "pre-process" the best negatives so that time in the darkroom is more efficient.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you're spotting, the healing brush is your friend <grin>.

 

Also remember that once you get a scan 'just so', you can print it as many times as you like and get consistant results. I use masks and curves to give me the equivalent of dodging and burning in a wet darkroom.

 

Once thing to bear in mind at the output end, is that not all printers are created equal when it comes to printing b&w. I have an Epson 3800 that I am _very_ pleased with. With other printers it can be difficult to achieve a newtral b&w print. If you don't already have a printer then you may need to do a little research before buying one.

[tgray]

I wanted to mention that I've had an *easier* time working with difficult negatives via scanning, either because they were too thin or needed to be printed at extreme grades. Its very easy to get all of the range in a B&W negative in a scan with a good scanner (coolscan level scanner) and once in photoshop, its very easy to apply curves to get the contrast just the way you want it. Much faster then dicking around with filters and exposure times in the darkroom.

[stunsworth]

I tend to scan with very low black and white points giving a flat, low contrast, looking scan. This lets me play around with curves in Photoshop to give the look I'm after.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Hurry up to get a mid price scanner as Nikon Coolscan 5000 or 9000, because Nikon stopped already the production and sells from stock.

 

Bad point for the Nikons is the fact that they use "cool" harsh light in comparison to the Minolta Scanners which are no longer new in the market but better for scanning especially silver based b/w film.

 

Be aware that you have to find out films and developer which are better in terms of density and grain for the scanning process.

If you stick to 35mm film take a Cool5000 because he has twice the CCD line of a Cool V and scans with a higher bit-rate, but the best scanner would be a Flextight from Hasselblad.

Then Your Leica lenses will have the same level inferface from silver to bits on your harddisc.

 

Here are three example of my experience:

 

1. Old shot with FP4,cheap Soligor 28mm around 1972:

 

klick on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

2. New from 2008 with my new M7 + Lux 50mm pre_asph. Ilford HP5+ wide open

 

laid back blues on Flickr - Photo Sharing! looks grainy ughh....

 

3. Bessa R4 with Summi 2/35 pre asph, Fuji Neopan 400 in ID11:

 

November gray on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I'm happy with the Neopan 400. It seems that this film suits the Nikon well but the base material is slightly thinner as from Ilford and will curl more. Nikons have a very small depth of focus, sometimes you'll need a dedicated film-strip holder.

 

As you can see my experiences are mixed but beside my D300 I like the look of film very much for my b/w shots, therefore the pain for grain....

 

Bernd

[Guest DuquesneG]

Hurry up to get a mid price scanner as Nikon Coolscan 5000 or 9000, because Nikon stopped already the production and sells from stock.

 

That's because shooting film and scanning is so equal to digital capture that demand for scanners is through the roof

[Guest Bernd Banken]

That's because shooting film and scanning is so equal to digital capture that demand for scanners is through the roof

 

It's so equal like a piano and a Yamaha Clavinova....

[earleygallery]

This is my first experience with this part of the forum, so pardon me if I am retreading old ground.

 

I have M7 and lenses, and have until now done all my own film developing and enlarging. Black and White only. But I don't want the enlarging part anymore. I can continue to develop the film, and am considering scanning on a good scanner (maybe Nikon Coolscan), and then printing on an inkjet printer, like Epson 2880.

 

My hesitation with this is that I have read that scanning black and white negs does a couple of things that are problems. 1) introduces serious dust problems (but I am very meticulous about dust); 2) results in a meaningful loss of sharpness in making a final print of perhaps 11 X 14 size: 3) results in a loss of tonal scale. My standard of comparison is conventional enlarging and wet printing which I know well and have first rate equipment for.

 

I will appreciate any comments or guidance on this subject.

 

Please ignore the troll.

 

I have a 'lowly' Epson 4870 and get perfectly good results even up to A3 prints. I'm no expert at scanning and just follow the instructions but I've not had any problems with sharpness or dust in B&W or colour.

 

I would suggest a dedicated film scanner however, as the Epson is a little fiddly and slow to work with but I chose it as it also scans Medium Format film.

 

Shooting film gives you the best of all worlds, you have the master copy (neg/tranny) and can choose to scan or wet print as you desire.

[Frase]

I shoot digital everyday for my work, but I enjoy shooting a bit of film for the fun of it and also I like old cameras. I still process everything myself (B+W and C41) then scan but I can't be bothered printing in a darkroom anymore!

[Guest DuquesneG]

It's so equal like a piano and a Yamaha Clavinova....

 

The closest correction I can come to for your glaringly flawed analogy is: Film+enlarger=listening to live piano. Film+scanner=listening to piano recorded on digital CD. It's not perfect, but again, your initial analogy was so far out of whack.

[antistatic]

I have the Nikon LS5000 and the Epson 2880. While I am still learning the finer points of driving these two machines, I have been very pleased with the results even up to A3+ size. Cleaning up dust spots is not the worst thing in the world. I also find that while I am fixing the spots it gives me time to think about the image, what I want to do in PP etc.

 

BTW I can't play the piano

[Michael Hiles]

I use film and will continue to do so, probably whatever "forever" means for me. I scan everything since this is how I catalogue my picture. I can find the negative/slide of anything I shot over the last 40 years, and that is absolutely FABULOUS.

 

I play in Photoshop Elements, and occasionally have digital prints made. But when I want an exhibition print, I go into my darkroom and make a silver print, usually about 10x14. Not very often, but when I want the best I can do, it is still silver. PS is a wonderful tool for planning what I will do in the darkroom.

 

I use a Canon flatbed scanner. Others here spit on the ground re: flatbed scanners, and I am sure they are reflecting their experience. My experience is that my scans and digital prints are excellent, and seem to be on a par (to my eye) with scans from other machines. One important element, IM(H)O is that the lightsource is essentially a diffusion light, which is important for conventional B&W. I think flatbed scanners need some defenders - and I am one.

[roguewave]

I use my Epson 700 for both 35 & 120 films. I get marvelous results. There is no single way to follow. Experiment with films & settings and feel free to alter the presets until you get the right look/ I use Vuescan with my Epson and although I believe there was pretty steep incline to master, it made me a much better image maker. If you love film like I do, it's worth the look.

[andym911]

I also agree with most of what has been said.

 

I use film and scan for 90% of my amateur work.

 

It really is a trial and error process and cleanliness will save you a lot of time in post processing.

most of the time I use the lowly Epson 4990 flatbed with what I consider to be good results.

 

There are many fans of the Vuescan software, I personally did not "get on with it" but that probably is down to my ineptitude to handle the user interface well.

 

Finally regarding sharpness of images printed digitally, you will I think, be surprised, as to what can be achieved if you invest time and effort.

 

Good light

 

Andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jpattison]

I have found that Silverfast scanning software from Lasersoft Imaging is superb, and available in different "levels" for various scanners. They also supply IT8 calibration targets (I have Kodak Ektachrome 35mm and 4x5 ones) to allow you to set up dedicated profiles.

I use a Microtek i900 which takes from 35mm up to 4x5 direct (ie no glass in between), and 10x8 on a glass carrier. It also incorporates a flatbed for prints!

 

I scan B&W ( usually Ilford Pan F, FP4+ and HP5) using 48 bit colour and use Lightroom to convert/modify. Once the basic conversion is done on one image, the "sync" facility lets you modify all the similar shots at once, then you can make slight individual changes where required.

 

SilverFast: Scanner Software, Printer Software and Software for Digital Camera and Imaging :: LaserSoft Imaging

 

Microtek International Inc. - Europe, Asia Pacific, & South and Central America - i900

 

Like Dean said, there's a whole new learning experience ahead!

 

John