Revisiting 35mm Film Scanners

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I just use a Canoscan 9000F.  It has LED light source (fast and consistent light), and holders to do 135 films to medium format negs up to 6x9. I use the included software.

It's cheap, cheerful and does a good job.

 

Dave S

Edited March 17, 2016 by david strachan

[Guest]

Having read this thread and participated in it, I’ve been thinking some more about scanning 35mm film. When I was in Chiang Mai a couple of weeks ago, I shot three rolls of Tri-X with my M6, using film for the first time in ten years. Not sure where the impulse to shoot film came from but, to say the obvious, I was blown away by how highlights are rendered in extremely bright, harsh tropical light. With the MM and the M9, I'm always fighting "those great blobs of fire", to paraphrase the song. 

 

If I intended to do darkroom printing — not an option for me — I would sell my MM and M9-P (which have had new non-corrosive sensors installed in Wetzlar, respectively, last November and this month) but the real problem is how long scanning takes. Actually, in Chiang Mai there is a marvelous small film lab that also has a rental dark room. It's owned by two young women in their mid-twenties who fell in love with film at university. They do a great job developing by hand: no dust or scratches on the film. They also scan well, at about US$4 per roll on an Epson 800 scanner at 4800 dpi. If I lived in Chiang Mai, I would have the simple solution of using this lab.

 

I thought of getting a Plustek 35mm scanner, but am concerned that the dMax is only 3.6 — you can get to 4.0 dMax using the SilverFast software with multi-pass scanning, but that takes 30 minutes per frame. Steve (250swb) suggests that you would normally have only two “keepers” on a roll and could multi-scan those to get the 4.0 dMax. I don’t see it this way because I look at “keepers” differently”, in two stages: the first level of keepers are all the frames that interest me enough to work on (the equivalent of making work prints in the darkroom) — on the three recent Tri-X roll I had 20 of these types of keepers; the second level of keepers are all the frames that one really likes after say, 2-6 months — and on that I agree with Steve that there would usually be no more than two such keepers on a roll. 

 

Steve also suggests that one can expose and develop film to fairly low contrast, so that one has all the detail in the frame that one can then scan at less than full resolution or full dMax, in an initial “fast” scan. My feeling is that this can certainly be a solution, unless one’s aim is to make high contrast prints with rich mid-tones. Also, I often do a lot of burning and dodging. For these reasons I much prefer to have an initial scan with a dMax of 4.0, which represents almost 1½ stop dynamic range more than the low 3.6 dMax that the Plustek scanners produce without a slow multi-pass scan using SilverFast.

 

Now, I have an Imacon Precision III that I gave to a friend in December, when I was “sure” that I would never do film again, but he couldn't get it going — it has a SCSI interface — and returned it to me last week. In three 10-hour days, I managed to get the old OS X 10.6.8 installed on an old Mac PowerBook to run the (legacy) Imacon ColorFlex 4.04 software and got the SCSI-to-FireWire Orange Converter and Granite (power) SCSI Terminator going so that all this works — only to learn, on the third full day of my effort, that this scanner, which does true optical resolution of 6300dpi with a dMAx of 4.2 (two stops better than the Plustek) loses sharpness at the trailing end of the 35mm frame (as the negative is fed into the scanner in portrait orientation). 

 

It looks like Wattsy is right in saying that Imacon scanners require period maintenance fairly often. After some hours of searching the web, I found out that the cause of the sharpness loss is slippage of the drive belts the feed the holder mechanism. I have to replace these belts. Although, apparently, I can buy the belts in the US or the UK at about US$5 each, I'm likely to give up because these scanners usually require belt replacement every six months or so. The belt problem also makes the film frame shift in the holder as it goes into the scanner, so that a small portion of the scan is often cut off. I now remember from ten years ago that I often had this problem, but didn't know there was a solution. By the way, there is no batch feed solution for this scanner — and one full res (6300dpi) 35mm scan takes 15 minutes — ten years ago it took 20-25 minutes.

 

As I don't want to make a career out of the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner, I'm likely to just dump it. Perhaps I couldn't sell it with a good conscience. If I had a good solution for scanning, I'd probably go back to film and sell my digital Leicas. Now I don't know what I'll do. Any thoughts?

 

 

As I don’t think that posts like this work well without pictures, the first picture below is the first one that I looked at from the three recent Tri-X — and this is the one that “made me see the light” in terms of how film can handle highlights in extremely bright and harsh light; the next two pictures are two of my favorite Tri-X shots from over ten years ago, both scanned with the Imacon:

 

M6 – Summilux-35 FLE – Tri-X @400 stand developed for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes.

Chiang Mai

 

 

M6 | Summilux-50 (v.II) | Tri-X @ISO 1600

Bangkok

 

 

M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X @ISO 200

Bangkok

Edited March 21, 2016 by not_a_hero

[Advertisement]

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

[EoinC]

I'm in a similar long-tail boat. Film (generally) handles highlights much better than my MM  246. At the moment I just get my films scanned at a Fuji shop in Singapore on their Fuji Frontier. They do an acceptable job (jpeg only), while I hum and hah about getting a Plustek 120 (I've got a MF camera headed my way, hence the choice of scanner). I want a scanner so that I can be responsible for the output.

Here's how Silvermax 100 comes out on the Frontier...

f006 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

and Neopan Acros 100 (I think)...

a017 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

[wattsy]

Having read this thread and participated in it, I’ve been thinking some more about scanning 35mm film. When I was in Chiang Mai a couple of weeks ago, I shot three rolls of Tri-X with my M6, using film for the first time in ten years. Not sure where the impulse to shoot film came from but, to say the obvious, I was blown away by how highlights are rendered in extremely bright, harsh tropical light. With the MM and the M9, I'm always fighting "those great blobs of fire", to paraphrase the song.

 

As I don't want to make a career out of the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner, I'm likely to just dump it. Perhaps I couldn't sell it with a good conscience. If I had a good solution for scanning, I'd probably go back to film and sell my digital Leicas. Now I don't know what I'll do. Any thoughts?

 

 

Is that you, Mitch? I didn't know you were still on the forum.

 

I don't think there is an easy answer to your conundrum – I think you either need to refine your method of working and have rough and ready scans made of each roll (either Fuji Frontier type scans or maybe the Pakon) and then have archive scans made of the genuine keepers or, bite the bullet, and become a slave to feeding the Imacon scanner. A compromise might be to invest in a decent multi-frame scanner like one of the Nikon scanners with the roll attachment and have it scan a roll at a time. Alternatively, you can pretend you haven't been reminded how nicely Tri-X handles highlights and carry on with the Monochrom and M9-P.

Edited March 21, 2016 by wattsy

[philipus]

Give the Imacon to me

 

On a more serious note, if you have digital M cameras why not just get a BEEON or similar stand a lightpad and begin digitizing your film?

 

I really like the first two images (and esp the second).

 

br
Philip

 

If I had a good solution for scanning, I'd probably go back to film and sell my digital Leicas. Now I don't know what I'll do. Any thoughts?

 

Chiang Mai

 

 

M6 | Summilux-50 (v.II) | Tri-X @ISO 1600

Bangkok

 

 

M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X @ISO 200

Bangkok

 

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Wow I have just read this thread and I am none the wiser.............I'm thinking the 8000i but also thinking the 120i. According to B&H the 120i dpi is 5000 the 8000i is 7200.......so I'm confused. I would like a scanner that can easily print at A2 and maybe even bigger?

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow I have just read this thread and I am none the wiser.............I'm thinking the 8000i but also thinking the 120i. According to B&H the 120i dpi is 5000 the 8000i is 7200.......so I'm confused. I would like a scanner that can easily print at A2 and maybe even bigger?

Neil - My advice is to hold off on getting a scanner until you've tried film first. Buy / borrow a film camera, shoot some B&W or C41 film, and have Bang Bang Geng in KL (or any of the equivalent shops in Singapore) develop and scan the negatives before you decide on what, if any, scanner you want to add to the equation. Be aware that scanning is very, very slow. You may find that it is preferable for you to leave the scanning to a shop, or you may want to take the leap into scanning by yourself...Actually, I just changed my mind on the above advice - Get a Plustek 120, become frustrated with Silverlight or Vuescan, then pass the scanner to me as a trade for a cup of coffee.

 

Also be aware that dpi in a scanner is not necessarily a good indicator of the quality of scan you will get.

Considerations in scanning include:

1. What is your final output?
2. Are you only going to scan 135 film?
3. Are you going to scan colour negatives / transparencies (where the infrared channel becomes useful)?
4. How much time are you prepared to spend scanning?

The other alternative, which may well fit better for you, is to digitise using your S006 (or your Nikon), a copystand, and a light table. You can get the latter two on B&H (I have a CS-920 copystand and a Porta-trace light table from there).

Edited March 25, 2016 by EoinC

[Guest]

...On a more serious note, if you have digital M cameras why not just get a BEEON or similar stand a lightpad and begin digitizing your film?

 

Philip - I saw your RFF posting on the BEEON. Do you have an idea of what the dMax would be? Anywhere near the 4.2 of my old Imacon? (It's the 3.6 dMax of the Plustek scanners that holds me back from that solution as, on the logarithmic dMax scale 0.3 is one stop, so that the Plustek have a dMax of two stops less than my Imacon: that's quite a difference and, in my view, the determining factor for the dark and contrasty look that I'm interested in.)

 

More questions on the BEEON:

Is the 35mm holder that come with it  only for slides, so that a negative strip would have to be cut into single frames?

Also, if I understand correctly, the BEEON serves as a focusing stage so that almost any lens could be focused with it — or would one need a macro lens?

I have the MACRO-ELMAR-M 90 with the Macro Adapter M is there a good solution for using this?

 

Sorry for asking so many questions.

Edited March 26, 2016 by not_a_hero

[andybiggs]

I went back to film for some work about 18 months ago and have settled on Ilford FP4 in DDX at 1:4 for 10 mins. Cut the negs up and use clear "negative sleeves" so the film can be scanned on an Espon V750, this gives me a contact sheet - as in the old days !

 

I then scan using a Nikon 5000, which work fine on Windows 7 - but you need to load Vuescan before Nikonscan - you can then use either. I scan a positive "slide" at 16 bit and 4000DPI, saving as a TIFF. In Photoshop I invert, desaturate and do any retouching before using Lightroom to do the final adjustments.

 

I only scan the negs I want to print and use the contact sheet to do a review of the film.

 

I've also had great success with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Film Scanner, as well as the III version. Both scan at 16Bit, which is more important than how high the DPI - these are around much cheaper than the Nikon. You will not achieve much by scanning above 4000DPI - at that resolution you'll get all the grain, nice and sharp.

 

I had a Xpan for a while and no flatbed will every produce good results when compared to a film scanner - I used to scan the neg in two parts on the Nikon 5000 and join them together in Photoshop.

 

http://www.ajbiggs.co.uk/gallery_656581.html

[philipus]

You mean the Dmax of the M9 and the MM? I'm afraid I don't know that (I know virtually nothing of digital cameras).

 

If one is willing to do different "scans" for shadows, mid-tones and highlights one can combine them in post in a sort of HDR way to extend the range. There's a tutorial over at photo.net by Harold Davis. For most frames I'm sure both cameras would give good results. As for a dark and contrasty look that can easily be added in post of course (it's more difficult to do the reverse).

 

Here's a page that shows how it can be done with a BEEON but there are I'm sure also other ways. For best results with 35mm film you'd want a lens that gives 1:1 magnification.

 

Philip - I saw your RFF posting on the BEEON. Do you have an idea of what the dMax would be? Anywhere near the 4.2 of my old Imacon? (It's the 3.6 dMax of the Plustek scanners that holds me back from that solution as, on the logarithmic dMax scale 0.3 is one stop, so that the Plustek have a dMax of two stops less than my Imacon: that's quite a difference and, in my view, the determining factor for the dark and contrasty look that I'm interested in.)

 

More questions on the BEEON:

Is the 35mm holder that come with it  only for slides, so that a negative strip would have to be cut into single frames?

Also, if I understand correctly, the BEEON serves as a focusing stage so that almost any lens could be focused with it — or would one need a macro lens?

I have the MACRO-ELMAR-M 90 with the Macro Adapter M is there a good solution for using this?

 

Sorry for asking so many questions.

[Broadside]

I would imagine that a Bowens Illumitran would do the job as well. Seems like not many about but worth looking out for.

[jpattison]

More questions on the BEEON:

Is the 35mm holder that come with it  only for slides, so that a negative strip would have to be cut into single frames?

Also, if I understand correctly, the BEEON serves as a focusing stage so that almost any lens could be focused with it — or would one need a macro lens?

I have the MACRO-ELMAR-M 90 with the Macro Adapter M is there a good solution for using this?

 

You slide the neg strip under the frame, it is easy to position each frame.

It is best to use a 50mm enlarging lens, as these are designed for close up work.

 

I use this set up with my MM (old school - no live view) so an MM (246) would be easier to get parallel with the image, but once set up I can whizz through each strip of 6. Using a cable release to avoid moving the camera. (the bayonet mount is a screw fitting to the device, I suppose one could glue it in position)

 

John

[jpattison]

Here's a recent Tri-X "scan" from my MM

 

 

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!

[tatetate]

Fuji Frontier 500 could be amazing work-horse too, however you first  will have to make sure that you know some-one who could provide you with software support.

Edited March 31, 2016 by tatetate

[Guest]

I take it that this is the scanner unit for for the Fuji Frontier minilab. Apart from the difficulties of the software issue, it seem that scans are a maximum of 18MB. Does it make sense to go through all the likely trouble on the software just to have a scanner that provides minicab scans? Not sure most people that are shooting with Leica cameras and lenses are dreaming about getting minicab quality in their scans and prints. Or am I missing something here?

[tatetate]

Not sure if 5500x3600 is going to be 18mb file. not that i own one. i would love to get hands on one of them.

[Guest]

The PDF spec sheet that can be downloaded after a web search states the maximum file size is 18MB.

[EoinC]

I take it that this is the scanner unit for for the Fuji Frontier minilab. Apart from the difficulties of the software issue, it seem that scans are a maximum of 18MB. Does it make sense to go through all the likely trouble on the software just to have a scanner that provides minicab scans? Not sure most people that are shooting with Leica cameras and lenses are dreaming about getting minicab quality in their scans and prints. Or am I missing something here?

All of my scans are with a Frontier - It's what the minilab that I use have. They are actually down-res'ed to ~4mb. There apparently is not too much difference between that and the full resolution, except for the increase in scanning time.

 

A colleague in KL has 2 Frontiers, and a Plustek 120, but the Plustek is seldom used. I think the Frontier is very good, but it does take up a bit of space...

[tatetate]

 

The PDF spec sheet that can be downloaded after a web search states the maximum file size is 18MB.

Can you direct me to the links pls if u dont mind, I believe that 18mb refers to max print size when connected to frontier lab printer system of the time. New machines can print up to 12x18 direct from scanner. Sadly there is very limited information as Fuji Stopped selling and making them 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

Unfortunately, I didn't make a note of the url: I tried just now and couldn't find it. Perhaps you'll have better luck if you try. In any case the dimensions, you mentions are 19.8 megapixels, which is not going to permit large prints. And the Fujifilm minicab machine, of which this scanner is a part makes prints up to only 8x12 inches.