Scanning vs Digital caputre

[Guest bwcolor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would appreciate thoughtful and knowledgeable comments on the subject of whether the quality scan of a black and white negative, as produced by a good film camera like the M7 with a Leica lens, will be equal to or inferior to or better than the identical image captured by an M8/8.2 using the same lens, and all other data for the compartive images being the same. My assumption would emcompass the fact that the comparative prints produced would be made on the same printer, appropriately adjusted. The impetus for my question is whether I should buy an M8.2 or try buying a good modern film scanner for M7 negatives. I use modest film speeds (100, 200). My maximum print size would be c. 12 X 18. My inquiry is limited just to matters of sharpness and overall print quality, not other matters of difference between film and digital, or features of the two cameras. Factual information as opposed to specualtive opinion will be most valuable to me.

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

They'd be different <grin>. In terms of sharpness - and retrieved detail - the M8 wins hands down in my experience - I've owned the M8 for nearly two years and scanned hundreds of rolls of film. That doesn't mean that scanned film looks bad.

 

This is using a Nikon Coolscan V to scan the film.

[wparsonsgisnet]

My take would be that you should both get a scanner and an M8.x.

 

First, you have a set of negatives that need to be processed digitally if you wish to handle them that way. A high-quality neg scanner can be had for $500 or less, particularly if you buy used.

 

Second, the digital workflow is much faster than having to have negs developed. Being able to *deliver* output in less than an hour is true liberation for the photog.

 

I will say that the images from my M8 -- using all the same lenses -- are better than those I was able to obtain with my M6 and M4, using any scanning or printing method. Also, I'm pleased to be out of the darkroom. The "mystery" got old after a few decades of one-hour setup and one-hour cleanup for every dr session.

 

I miss silver prints, but what I am getting thru the piezography process suits me just fine. I use a newly acquired, Epson 1400 printer with piezo-K6 inks and a CIS from Jon Cone (InkJetMall.com). [Of course, there's no free lunch: I have to make sure to exercise this hardware and ink several times a month to avoid clogging.]

 

My color process includes: M8, Capture One, Image Print, and an Epson 2400 with Epson's K3 inks.

 

B/w includes: M8, C1 to produce the TIFF file, PSCS3 to activate the also-newly acquired Silver Efex Pro (really nice software), and Harrington's QTP software with drivers from Cone.

 

I've been waiting for a long time to do "real" b/w, as opposed to trying to produce a b/w print from the color ink set in the Epson printers. I'm really pleased.

 

And -- I hope I'm done spending money for a while! Maybe I'll even take some pix.

 

G'luck with your decision. You might borrow or rent an M8.x and have someone process the image for you to see what you can get.

 

BTW, if thieM8.x were not doing the job, you would not be able to see the euphoria of the members on this site. There is a long list of lurkers here who love this camera.

 

Check out the M8 Anniversary book on Blurb. You can see a preview here:

 

Many Eyes, One Camera | By William Parsons, editor | Category: Portfolios | Blurb

 

All the pix in this book were taken with the M8[.0]

[tgray]

This is going to open a potential can of worms.

 

Define better. I would imagine the M8 print will have better resolution, and processed correctly, better sharpness in fine details. I think this fits your definition of better and you will probably be very happy with it. However, the dynamic range of the original scene, depending on what you are shooting, might be compromised in the digital image as compared to the film image.

 

The grain of the film image might add some zest to the print which may make it better for you. I don't know - this is a subjective thing.

 

Lastly, if you will miss out on traditional wet printing of the negative, which many say produces a superior print. However, since you are discussing scanning, you are already forgoing that.

 

I would recommend renting/borrowing and M8 (or even something like a 5D with a lens which should be 'close enough'). Take a picture with that and your M7 and get a good scan of that negative. Then process them and get them printed at the same size. It should only cost $100ish dollars for that comparison, which is peanuts compared to the $6k of the M8.2.

 

At the same time, a good film scanner, the Nikon Coolscan V costs ~$500, which isn't much in Leica-land. If you already have the M7, buy the scanner and the M8...

[stunsworth]

Since printing's been mentioned - and it's very relevant of course - I should perhaps mention that I use an Epson 3800 and get very good b&w prints. Thankfully the frustrations of trying to get a neutral print are behind me.

[jaapv]

Since dynamic range was mentioned, is the dynamic range of a scanner better that of a high-end digital camera? I would guess about the same.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My inquiry is limited just to matters of sharpness and overall print quality, not other matters of difference between film and digital, or features of the two cameras.

 

M8 or M8-2! I and some colleagues just carried out a project using digital photography as a means of identifying certain difficult subject matter (not on Leica M as RF was not suitable but with a not dis-similarly specified dSLR). When we compared the digital files with film scans it was absolutely evident that the 10MP raw files contained sufficiently more detail to reveal minute structures not visible on the film images, and hence aid identification. As far as I am concerned this was enough evidence to prompt me to sell my own last film camera (an M6) which I regret on one level (it was a lovely camera) but not on image quality grounds.

 

However utilising this information interms of producing 'better' prints is something else and will depend on your own abilities, equipment and workflow. At the relatively modest 12" x 18" I would say that it should be possible to utilise the more detailed M8/8-2 derived files to make a visible but not dramatic difference in print quality.

[charlesphoto99]

Years back when everyone else was buying canon mkii's I went for an Imacon scanner instead (first a 343 and then a refurb 646). Considering I have maybe around 10,000 rolls of film I've shot over the years, it's paid itself off over and over again (keep in mind one does need to have the Imacon serviced/maintained occasionally).

 

So I guess it's a matter of what you have from the past that you want to bring into the future more than anything else. Otherwise, yeah, I would probably go with the M8, esp if you want to do color. But If you are only interested in b&w then I would continue to shoot film. One can do very nice conversions with the M8 but it's really not the same. And keep in mind that with your M7 a 35 is a 35, a 28 a 28 and so on. Moving to an M8 you may need to rethink your lens set up (and/or get your current wides coded).

 

I'm glad to have both, but of course that's not possible for most.

 

Good luck!

[tgray]

Since dynamic range was mentioned, is the dynamic range of a scanner better that of a high-end digital camera? I would guess about the same.

 

That may be true, but neg film, especially B&W is able to capture more dynamic range. Doesn't matter if the scanner has the same (or more or less) dynamic range than the digital, the film capture step compresses the dynamic range down to the point where the scanner can handle it no problem.

 

Slide film of course is different. It can't handle the full dynamic range of the scene oftentimes, and most scanners have a problem with the dynamic range in the actual slide.

 

But I'm sure you knew all of this.

[Printmaker]

The "mystery" got old .0]

 

Take it from someone who has used scanners since they replaced enlargers (direct screen) in the late 70s (yes, those beasts from Hell and Crosfield), scanning gets old. I dread working from film. Its a slow and tedious process that seems to always produce digital looking results.

 

If you're going to work with film, go all the way and slosh some silver paper in dektol. Once you master the craft, your prints will look great and the process will satisfy your creative soul. Otherwise, just go digital all the way. Its a different look but one you'll grow to love.

 

Give me a M8, a 9800 or 9900 series Epson and some photo rag any day.

 

Tom

[jaapv]

That may be true, but neg film, especially B&W is able to capture more dynamic range. Doesn't matter if the scanner has the same (or more or less) dynamic range than the digital, the film capture step compresses the dynamic range down to the point where the scanner can handle it no problem.

 

Slide film of course is different. It can't handle the full dynamic range of the scene oftentimes, and most scanners have a problem with the dynamic range in the actual slide.

 

But I'm sure you knew all of this.

I don't think so. B&W film has a DR of about 13-14, scanners 9-10. Inevitably you lose your advantage when scanning. Want film and chemical ? - stay with chemical. Don't compromise your quality down.

[Frank Sprow]

Although there are obviously a lot of qualitative factors here, my favorite (notice I didn't say "best") B&W images come from my M7, with the negatives scanned in a pro lab (BWC in Dallas TX) and printed there. This regards both contrast and perceived resolution. Next would be files from my M8 (DNG with post-processing), printed in the same lab. And last would be M7 negatives scanned on my Nikon scanner, which I rarely use now as I like the M8 results better.

[Riccis]

I've done both and me and my clients are very happy with the results... Please keep in mind that I really don't care about extreme sharpness or pixel peeping, and IMHO, the major differences will be in the look between film and digital out of the box since once you start post-processing your files, you can definitely give the M8 files a film look.

 

M8, 35/1.4 ASPH, ISO 160

 

M8.2, 50/1.4 ASPH, ISO 160

 

M7, 35/1.4 ASPH, Fuji Neopan 400 @200

 

M7, 50/1.4 ASPH, Fuji Neopan 400 @200

 

Feel free to visit my blog if you want to see more. Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

[Printmaker]

Your photos are wonderful Riccis, so please don't take this as a criticism. When people start talking about dynamic range and whether film gets 13 or 14 stops vs the 9 to 10 stops of digital, they're talking about prints showing shadow detail and highlight detail. Your photos are sensuous, dramatic and emotional but do not (at least on the web) demonstrate those few extra stops everyone seems to demand. So let me congratulate you on being a great photographer and a dismal pixel peeper.

 

Tom

[tgray]

I don't think so. B&W film has a DR of about 13-14, scanners 9-10. Inevitably you lose your advantage when scanning. Want film and chemical ? - stay with chemical. Don't compromise your quality down.

 

I don't think this is the way it works. B&W film might have a DR range of 13-14, (11 or 12 might be more commonly obtainable), but that's what it is able to capture. There's not 13-14 stops from the film base to completely exposed film (dmax). The curve compresses that 13-14 stops into a much smaller range, which is able to be captured by scanners.

 

By my understanding of looking at the Tri-X pdf (for example), max density you would build up on a negative at 68 degrees in Tmax developer is around 3, which corresponds to 10 stops.

 

However, typical densities (normal exposure and normal development for EI 400) are a bit over 2. Let's say dmax of 2.2, which equals 7.3 stops of range on the negative. That's *not* the dynamic range of the scene recorded on the negative, but the negative itself. So you can scan that relatively easily.

 

Again, slide film is a whole different ball game. Scene dynamic range is much less, but the dmax of the slide is larger. Looking at the pdf for Kodak E100G (I have it on hand) it looks like there is roughly a range of 2 for recorded log exposure (probably less in reality), which corresponds to about 6 stops of scene dynamic range, but the dmax of the slide is anywhere from 3.2-3.75ish, which puts the dynamic range of the slide itself at 11-12.5 stops. It starts getting really hard for a scanner to punch through those darks.

 

All of the above is ignoring that fact that the film base has a density too. So if that is .2, than the nominal dynamic range of a normally developed Tri-X neg would be 2 (dmax - filmbase), meaning the scanner really only has to manage a dynamic range of about 6.5 stops to capture the whole range.

[jaapv]

In that case, the whole argument about "better dynamic range" by film adherents seems to be false.

[Riccis]

So let me congratulate you on being a great photographer and a dismal pixel peeper.

 

Tom

 

:D

[tgray]

In that case, the whole argument about "better dynamic range" by film adherents seems to be false.

 

Not really. I think you are missing the math or something.

 

B&W film can capture better scene dynamic range, about 11-12 stops. It's all there in the negative, waiting to be printed or scanned. However, its not linear, so that 12 stops of info is captured in 7 stops of exposed silver.

 

Almost exactly how you can take your 12-bit RAW image image (or whatever it is nowadays) and process it in your RAW software down to 8-bits, without blowing out any highlights or crushing any blacks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I see. You are saying film compresses the captured dynamic range. Which does not alter the fact that by scanning film you add the disadvantages of film to those of the digital capture you turn it into. Better to eliminate one quality-lessening step by either cutting out the film part and going digital all the way, or staying with film and paper and leaving out the alien digital process.

[tgray]

If that works for you, sure

 

I'm not saying film is superior. I just think that it's large dynamic range is one of its objectively superior traits. Maybe its last.

 

I don't think any reflective printing process, be it traditional silver wet printing, inkjet printing, etc., has a dmax of much over 2. So as long as you're capturing scenes with more than 7 stops of range, you are going to be compressing the range in order for it to get rendered out on paper. This is true if you are doing digital capture -> inkjet, film -> scan -> inkjet, OR film -> enlarger -> fiber paper.

 

Film is nice in this respect since it does the compression for you. Digital just chops off anything above its well capacity (unless you go HDR, etc).