plustek

[Guest ccmsosse]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no idea what you expected, but digi will produce a cleaner file givin the same size sensor/film. Portra 160 or Ektar are films made to be scanned and will preoduce file visably superior to Fiji consumer films. The good Fuji was the discontinued 160S.

 

I have seen some three dimensional "look" to scanned Leica film I never saw with digi.

 

I looked at the second batch of pics, and the color does not match when you have the same scene. One seems cyan and the other red, see 8&9 . I find all sorts of problems when I let the camera do WB or allow the scanner to decide. Best if if you put the camera on sun light and then manually control color to match when scanning. You then save those settings and apply to the next scan. The color on the first batch was more consistent.

 

Thanks great advise - I have Portra 160 and Ektar 100 coming tomorrow from B+H

[Advertisement]

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

[Nikkor AIS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not sure if I understand what is being said in this thread. I do know that I shoot quite a lot of film and Ektar 100 and XP2 film with Leica M bodies and a variety of lenses. More often than not I have the results scanned from a local super store as well as on my Nikon 5000 Ed scanner. I still think if the goal is prints than wet process is the best for analog. However, for ease of getting the film souped at the local super store and having CD to proof the results is for me, completely acceptable. The scanning is but part of the image chain and the post processing is just as important IMO. Just like exposer, focus ..OO. As far as the M9 being film like. It not film. Never will be. It's just different.

 

gregory

[Guest ccmsosse]

Im not sure if I understand what is being said in this thread. I do know that I shoot quite a lot of film and Ektar 100 and XP2 film with Leica M bodies and a variety of lenses. More often than not I have the results scanned from a local super store as well as on my Nikon 5000 Ed scanner. I still think if the goal is prints than wet process is the best for analog. However, for ease of getting the film souped at the local super store and having CD to proof the results is for me, completely acceptable. The scanning is but part of the image chain and the post processing is just as important IMO. Just like exposer, focus ..OO. As far as the M9 being film like. It not film. Never will be. It's just different.

gregory

 

Great Photos - beautifully done

Do you find that scanning yourself (Nikon 5000 ED) vs using the scanned CD from the local super store makes a difference?

Thanks

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks Michael

Oh yes there is a huge difference in IQ from the Nikon 5000 ED and "stupid store" scans.Im not much computer guy. In fact I can barely turn my P.C or my Mac book pro on . I just never got into the whole photoshop thing. Which Im sure is to my detriment I might add. Coming from traditional based photography the whole digital post processing makes my head spin. For me the CD are a temporary solution until I get a chance to make real prints. Scanning and post processing is my mind a compromise to burning, dodging and hanging prints to that I watched come up in the red light glow. However, it's fun to share images on the forums and for that I think scanning negs is more than fine. A couple more from "SS' scans.

 

 

 

Leica M3 and 21 Super Angulon on XP2

 

 

Gregory

 

Lecia M6 and 15 Voitglander 4.5 ASPH on XP2

[cheewai_m6]

you can compare a scanned film file with a digital file. but you can't say which one is better or sharper by those results. i didn't think that needed to be explained. you can compare anything with anything. you can compare a radio with a shoe. i wore the radio out walking, it wasn't very comfortable, but the shoe was a lot more comfortable, therefore a shoe is superior. YES it is, but a radio isn't designed to be used as a shoe.

 

film was not designed to be scanned and reproduced digitally, it was designed to be printed on paper. scanners do a great job these days, yes but you can also retro fit a radio to be a more comfortable shoe, but that radio will never be as good as a shoe.

[j. borger]

[quote=tobey bilek;1324864

 

I have seen some three dimensional "look" to scanned Leica film I never saw with digi.

 

There you have the reason i shoot more & more film instead of digital despite less resolution/ detail/ sharpness

Judge the prints and do not pixel-peep the files by zooming in the digitized files.

[Nikkor AIS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

 

 

All taken with Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux and XP2 film scanned at Super store . With these Im using "I photo" post processing. I drop the highlights and sometimes I will bump contrast a couple of point and thats it. I still believe getting it right in the camera.

 

gregory

[Stealth3kpl]

you can compare a radio with a shoe. i wore the radio out walking, it wasn't very comfortable, but the shoe was a lot more comfortable, therefore a shoe is superior. quote]

 

I'm not sure what your point is but I do know that you owe me a new radio.

Pete

[Guest ccmsosse]

All taken with Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux and XP2 film scanned at Super store . With these Im using "I photo" post processing. I drop the highlights and sometimes I will bump contrast a couple of point and thats it. I still believe getting it right in the camera.

 

gregory

Great shots and great encouragement

Cheers

[cheewai_m6]

the cat looks so evil with the black eyes!

[tobey bilek]

Glad you have some film coming.

 

Now my advice is to scan for color and density, ie no clipping. Save all the other adjustments for Photoshop. I don`t really want Silverfast of any other scanner software deciding what my color/density or anything else should look like.

[colin_d]

Now my advice is to scan for color and density, ie no clipping. Save all the other adjustments for Photoshop. I don`t really want Silverfast of any other scanner software deciding what my color/density or anything else should look like.

 

tobey, excuse my ignorance as i'm a dummy at scanning but what do you mean scan for colour and density? I use a Plustek 7200 that have silverfast software with it which is the default for scanning, are you suggesting this is not the best approach? thx

[Guest ccmsosse]

tobey, excuse my ignorance as i'm a dummy at scanning but what do you mean scan for colour and density? I use a Plustek 7200 that have silverfast software with it which is the default for scanning, are you suggesting this is not the best approach? thx

 

Great Question

I am in the same boat - I am using Silverfast and Plustek7600 and feel ok scanning B+W

I have not figured out how to "white balance" the scanner or software for color film. Yes I can do a color calibration using the supplied slide but then when I scan my color negatives, I am unsure that the colors are accurate - so I may have to "white balance" in photoshop or LightRoom.

Any hints?

[gregoryniss]

A little off topic, but how do you guys deal with the enormous file sizes from the plustek? I read a detailed review that the 7600 setting is really only like 3700 or something like that. Are you satisfied with your scanner and image quality? Ive been thinking of upgrading from an epson 4490.

[Guest ccmsosse]

A little off topic, but how do you guys deal with the enormous file sizes from the plustek? I read a detailed review that the 7600 setting is really only like 3700 or something like that. Are you satisfied with your scanner and image quality? Ive been thinking of upgrading from an epson 4490.

 

Good question and not off the topic at all

If I scan Plustek 7600i @ 24x36 inch print output @ 300 dpi print setting (the scanner used max resolution) and save the files as a JPEG, they are usually < 20mb - so not "too" bad, a tiff file is huge and as I understand it has redundant data.

 

The quality of the scan ... well - I don't know ... judge for yourself

Michael Sossenheimer | Hot Air Balloon

Michael Sossenheimer | Miscellaneous

 

I have an Ilford XP2 coming from NCPS http://www.northcoastphoto.com/ scanned at high resolution and hope to get the disc Saturday - I can then scan the 35mm negatives with the Plustek and post these images for comparison .... I can't wait myself to see how the Plustek compares to a professional lab service...

Cheers

[colin_d]

Great Question

I am in the same boat - I am using Silverfast and Plustek7600 and feel ok scanning B+W

I have not figured out how to "white balance" the scanner or software for color film. Yes I can do a color calibration using the supplied slide but then when I scan my color negatives, I am unsure that the colors are accurate - so I may have to "white balance" in photoshop or LightRoom.

Any hints?

 

I only ever scanned negatives once with poor results, colour was nowhere near what it should have been, now I scan transparencies or b&w with much better success. Still, I am not that convinced the Pulstek or Silverfast software is doing justice to my images and I don't like to do post scanning changes.