Jump to content

Scanning: Emulsion Up or Down


Kent10D

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This subject came up on another thread a few days ago, but was slightly OT so I decided to give it a thread of it's own.

 

The question was whether, when scanning on a flatbed scanner, it is preferable to scan with the emulsion side of the film facing upward, away from the scanner's sensor, or downward, facing the sensor.

 

Epson recommends scanning with the emulsion up. But it is generally accepted that this is only because that results in proper orientation of the image.

 

At least one manufacturer of after-market film holders recommends scanning with the emulsion down. This means you have to flip the image later in Photoshop or some other image editing program, which is not a big deal since you'll probably be going there anyway for spotting and other adjustments.

 

So, I did a quick first test in which I scanned the same negative both ways and then printed out equivalent crops of each image side-by-side on the same sheet of glossy photo paper.

 

The results were subtle, and I don't think there's any point in attempting to post the images here, so I will simply describe what I see. After spending some time examining both images with and without loupe magnification I'm pretty sure that scanning with the emulsion down does provide a small advantage in resolution and contrast.

 

This is just one simple test by one (simple) individual, so I'd really like to hear from others who have the gear and the time to try the same thing. If you've already figured this out ages ago and know the answer, I'd love to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent

intersting findings you have.

I also scan on a flatbed epson and always emulsion UP.

I would not expect there to be great differences but makes sense to me that the emulsion is facing the sensor.

I may give it a try to see if I see a difference.

 

regards

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The film base is not an optically perfect medium. Seems to me that scanning through the base, like printing through the base, is bound to introduce distortions. Logically, the light should pass through the base first, then the emulsion, then hit the sensor.

 

I'd also expect there to be a focus issue. Do flatbed scanners have a fixed focus? If they do, turning the film emulsion up must render it OOF. Even if they can refocus, focus through the thick film base must surely be more difficult?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always scanned with the emulsion side down. I'm puzzled by the comment about having to flip the image in Photoshop when scanning this way, as the image has always been correctly orientated in my experience.

 

All of the flat bed scanners I've used have fixed focus.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad enough scaning thru glass, but thru the film base too? Never. Just filip the file.

 

When doing 35, if the film is not flat and it is emulsion up, sometimes the base touches the glass with resulting in newton rings.

 

I suggest you get a film scanner while you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've always scanned with the emulsion side down. I'm puzzled by the comment about having to flip the image in Photoshop when scanning this way, as the image has always been correctly orientated in my experience.

 

All of the flat bed scanners I've used have fixed focus.

 

Steve, thanks for the comment.

 

I'm puzzled by your puzzlement. What scanner and software are you using? If you scan on an Epson flatbed the image will be flipped horizontally if you scan with the emulsion down, which is why the Epson documentation tells you to scan with the emulsion up (i.e. so that the scanner "sees" the correct orientation). If you look at your slides or negatives you'll see that the orientation is only correct (including the "Kodak" or whatever labeling on the edges) when you're viewing from the base side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad enough scaning thru glass, but thru the film base too? Never. Just filip the file.

 

When doing 35, if the film is not flat and it is emulsion up, sometimes the base touches the glass with resulting in newton rings.

 

I suggest you get a film scanner while you can.

 

Thanks Tobey.

 

Right, that's the theory. Which is why I was confused by Epson's recommendation. I thought that perhaps they were focusing specifically for film with the emulsion up, which is why I did the test and am seeking confirmation. The difference was very subtle.

 

I have a film scanner (a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED) which is great, but there are a couple of good reasons for using a flatbed as well. First of all (and admittedly not apropos to this forum) is the need to scan larger film formats as well as 35 mm, and secondly it's a lot more convenient to be able to scan four strips of six frames each (depending on your scanner) when making "contact sheets". I'd rather use the Nikon for final select scans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent, it sound as if it's a quirk of the Epson software. I use Vuescan and that shows the image the correct way round on both my Epson flatbed and Nikon film scanner. In the dim and distant past when I used the Nikon software that did the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent, it sound as if it's a quirk of the Epson software. I use Vuescan and that shows the image the correct way round on both my Epson flatbed and Nikon film scanner. In the dim and distant past when I used the Nikon software that did the same.

 

OK, got it. Thanks.

 

My main concern was actually Epson's recommendation. As I mentioned in another post I wondered whether they have their optics set up for optimum focus with their recommended orientation. My experiment and the experiences of others tends to indicate otherwise, in which case it really does make more sense just to scan with the emulsion down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the Epson V700 and I do see the best results with the emulsion side down toward the scanner's lens. I did some test scans both ways, and I saw a subtle difference. If you buy those betterscanning.com glass pressure plates for 35 or 120, you will note that the advice coming from them is to follow the emulsion-side down practice.

 

I find the Epson is great for scanning to post on the web; for printing BW negatives, I haven't seen any results better than from wet-printing. Does anyone find printing scans from a dedicated film scanner to be better than from wet-prints?

 

Good cheer, TW.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good! A consensus does seem to be emerging.

 

Thanks for your comments (more wouldn't go astray).

 

So now, if emulsion-down is really the way to go, and there's a noticeable difference, don't you think that Epson is doing themselves a disservice by recommending that it be done the other way, just on the basis of simple image orientation?

 

Sometimes I just don't understand these manufacturing/marketing types.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a benefit to choosing which side to scan up or down but it's got nothing to do with the emulsion. It's actually much more practical. If the film has a curve in it then put the curved side upwards (i.e. 'n' orientation, not 'u' orientation. This prevents newton rings which you'll get if the film comes into contact with the underlying glass, and helps straighten the film.

 

Took me a long time to figure this out but I assure you it works. I very nearly returned my scanner to the store last year after getting a lot of newton rings in one particular set of scans. Then I realised what was causing it -- and several hundred rolls of film later, I can tell you that it makes no difference which way up the emulsion goes. The only thing that will really affect your scans is the straightness of the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kent

 

i was intrigued and ran a test today on the epson flatbed.

 

Without doubt, and contrary to many comments here the best results are scanning emulsion UP, as described in the user manual.

 

Whilst the comparison is difficult to see here on the web for me it is a clear result.

 

regards

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops!

 

Andy ... now you've gone and thrown a large spanner (monkey-wrench for folks in the US) in the works! OK, I guess that means I'll have to go back and run a few more tests of my own. That will be necessary anyway since my initial test was done on a 4490, but I've just recently acquired what I believe is called the 750 in the rest of the world (it's the GT-X970 here in Japan). It's already delivering the best quality I've managed to achieve with a flatbed, but I'll still need to figure out how to squeeze the max out of it.

 

I'll post my findings here when I can get past the job I'm currently working on.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

kent

 

coming back to this matter.

 

please check a thread on photo forum/people/girls room posted by me.

 

the first scan is emulsion down..the second is emulsion up.(scroll to next page)

 

clearly the emulsion up is better.

you may have to fight with newtons rings but it appears that the flatbed scanners have fix focus and indeed, as written in the manual, you must scan emulsion up for best results.

 

regards

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy.

 

Haven't had a chance to do any scanning myself. I'm right in the middle of a crazy busy period.

 

So ... does that mean that if you raised the film carrier by one film thickness then you could scan emulsion down and avoid scanning through the backing?

 

Also, if focus is that critical I suppose all your film would have to be perfectly flat for optimum results ... which lends some credence to the idea of using a film carrier with a strip of ANR glass to hold the film flat.

 

Love the "Girls Room" image, by the way. And as you say, the difference between the two versions is quite obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

Hello all.

I just stumbled on this topix because i was looking into the very thing just now.   I couldn't remember if it was emulsion up for clarity or emulsion down for orientation.

   I previously have used an Epson V600 but never got satisfactory results.  for some reason it will not do Color film AT ALL and my black and white scans are shite at best.  in the past IF i've bothered to waste all the time and trouble of scanning films it's been simply to see what i'm looking at to choose which ones to have scanned professionally.   though some sudden interest and a little research in the last few days has me considering using 2 pieces of glass from small picture frames, some tape and some black construction paper with a little more tape to make a 35mm Negative carrier, an old box from a 12pk of beer for baffles, some black cloth, a softbox and lighting stand and a tripod to try to photograph the negatives with me a99.  I've see where people have gotten "scans" on par or sometimes even better than a $60 scan of one frame by a professional service using a $28,000 drum scanner by using a Canon 5d mkII or a Nikon 5000D. I figured I'd give it a shot and see how it goes.

Just to hit on a couple things real quick,  as someone mentioned ever base has some form of density and hue to it.  I know Kentmere has a purplish tint that will give you almost a zone 5 18% Neutral Gray just with the base itself. Ilford films have a lot less color but you still get about 1/2 stop of loss of brightness AND contrast when scanning through the base.  C-41 Bases have a very heavy amber hue and are very dense.  even with black and white you'll lose a little contrast and brightness and a LOT of sharpness by going having the base facing the sensor vs having the emulsion facing the sensor.  The greatest effect is sharpness,  it may LOOK grainy but really that's just the extra sharpness.  when the light travels through the silver crystals on the emulsion and THEN through the base it has time for the light to bounce around and twist and blend and glow or fog in the base.  when the light comes through the base and then through the emulsion they are the straightest and most direct they can ever be.  its better to have an image that's a bit grainy and can be worked with than one that is not sharp at all and is "fogged" around all the edges in the detail of the image.

Also to hit on things looking their absolute best in wet printing.  wet prints are incredible hard to do BUT if you can do it without wasting too much paper your absolute best results are going to come from wet printing and then scanning the print which is already enlarged a bit.  Part of this has to do with how its generally better to work from a larger medium and work from there rather than trying to take a small 24x36mm and blow it up to a 5x7 or 8x10" print.  if you stair step it you;; have much better results.  just like if you take a 35mm negative, print it as a 2x3", scan the 2x3" print as 4x6", scan the 4x6" and print as 5x7" and so on and so forth,  each time you stair step it you're adding a bit of resolution to it instead of STRETCHING what's already there to its limits.
  However that's only part of the equation.  the other part, and most crucial part, is that the photographic paper also has an exposure latitude aka "dynamic range" that's only a little less than HALF of that of the film but generally almost, if not more than, double that of a digital sensor. less compression.  you can always increase curves or contrast in a digital post process but any information that's lost in translation is harder to get back.  if you enlarge a negative on a larger medium and then scan that medium not only are you creating more pixels but you are also preserving data and curves.  AND the biggest part?  the film has a grain of its own that is similar to that of the film over a much larger area, same concept as the upscaling. the grain of the paper helps to accept the sharpness but kinda smooth out the grain of the film a little bit as it goes.   I was on another forum where there were a few people who experimented with this very thing and the results were like night and day to each other.  on the one the woman took a picture of the inside of a tunnel under a bridge and in the scan the lights were a little more glowy and hazy and there was very little detail at on in the shadows as well you could pic every single grain in the film.  in the wet print that was scanned there was MUCH better detail around in and around the shadows and the lights and highlights were also sharp and defined with almost no hazing or fogging at all.

Going back to emulsion up or emulsion down though.  something I forgot to mention about color film.  you're getting the truest colors of the dyes in the emulsion the absolute best you can with the emulsion down for the same reason of them being closest to the sensor.  same reason when you wet print you put the emulsion facing the paper.  you're still going to get some amber from the base which will become cyan when converted to a positive.  but if you went through the same exact steps, 1:1 equally matched with a color scan where one was emulsion up and the other was emulsion down I would almost bet you that you have an almost unmatched vibrance and clarity on the emulsion down image. while the emulsion up one would be very flat, lackluster and still wouldn't be correct regardless of your efforts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting (though I note the thread is 8 years old). I always scan emulsion down but rarely see any difference if I scan the other way around.

 

 

Hello all.

I just stumbled on this topix because i was looking into the very thing just now.   I couldn't remember if it was emulsion up for clarity or emulsion down for orientation.

   I previously have used an Epson V600 but never got satisfactory results.  for some reason it will not do Color film AT ALL and my black and white scans are shite at best.  in the past IF i've bothered to waste all the time and trouble of scanning films it's been simply to see what i'm looking at to choose which ones to have scanned professionally.   though some sudden interest and a little research in the last few days has me considering using 2 pieces of glass from small picture frames, some tape and some black construction paper with a little more tape to make a 35mm Negative carrier, an old box from a 12pk of beer for baffles, some black cloth, a softbox and lighting stand and a tripod to try to photograph the negatives with me a99.  I've see where people have gotten "scans" on par or sometimes even better than a $60 scan of one frame by a professional service using a $28,000 drum scanner by using a Canon 5d mkII or a Nikon 5000D. I figured I'd give it a shot and see how it goes.

Just to hit on a couple things real quick,  as someone mentioned ever base has some form of density and hue to it.  I know Kentmere has a purplish tint that will give you almost a zone 5 18% Neutral Gray just with the base itself. Ilford films have a lot less color but you still get about 1/2 stop of loss of brightness AND contrast when scanning through the base.  C-41 Bases have a very heavy amber hue and are very dense.  even with black and white you'll lose a little contrast and brightness and a LOT of sharpness by going having the base facing the sensor vs having the emulsion facing the sensor.  The greatest effect is sharpness,  it may LOOK grainy but really that's just the extra sharpness.  when the light travels through the silver crystals on the emulsion and THEN through the base it has time for the light to bounce around and twist and blend and glow or fog in the base.  when the light comes through the base and then through the emulsion they are the straightest and most direct they can ever be.  its better to have an image that's a bit grainy and can be worked with than one that is not sharp at all and is "fogged" around all the edges in the detail of the image.

Also to hit on things looking their absolute best in wet printing.  wet prints are incredible hard to do BUT if you can do it without wasting too much paper your absolute best results are going to come from wet printing and then scanning the print which is already enlarged a bit.  Part of this has to do with how its generally better to work from a larger medium and work from there rather than trying to take a small 24x36mm and blow it up to a 5x7 or 8x10" print.  if you stair step it you;; have much better results.  just like if you take a 35mm negative, print it as a 2x3", scan the 2x3" print as 4x6", scan the 4x6" and print as 5x7" and so on and so forth,  each time you stair step it you're adding a bit of resolution to it instead of STRETCHING what's already there to its limits.
  However that's only part of the equation.  the other part, and most crucial part, is that the photographic paper also has an exposure latitude aka "dynamic range" that's only a little less than HALF of that of the film but generally almost, if not more than, double that of a digital sensor. less compression.  you can always increase curves or contrast in a digital post process but any information that's lost in translation is harder to get back.  if you enlarge a negative on a larger medium and then scan that medium not only are you creating more pixels but you are also preserving data and curves.  AND the biggest part?  the film has a grain of its own that is similar to that of the film over a much larger area, same concept as the upscaling. the grain of the paper helps to accept the sharpness but kinda smooth out the grain of the film a little bit as it goes.   I was on another forum where there were a few people who experimented with this very thing and the results were like night and day to each other.  on the one the woman took a picture of the inside of a tunnel under a bridge and in the scan the lights were a little more glowy and hazy and there was very little detail at on in the shadows as well you could pic every single grain in the film.  in the wet print that was scanned there was MUCH better detail around in and around the shadows and the lights and highlights were also sharp and defined with almost no hazing or fogging at all.

Going back to emulsion up or emulsion down though.  something I forgot to mention about color film.  you're getting the truest colors of the dyes in the emulsion the absolute best you can with the emulsion down for the same reason of them being closest to the sensor.  same reason when you wet print you put the emulsion facing the paper.  you're still going to get some amber from the base which will become cyan when converted to a positive.  but if you went through the same exact steps, 1:1 equally matched with a color scan where one was emulsion up and the other was emulsion down I would almost bet you that you have an almost unmatched vibrance and clarity on the emulsion down image. while the emulsion up one would be very flat, lackluster and still wouldn't be correct regardless of your efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...