You really don't need a $20k+ scanner

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Closest I could get from a reputable source, though there are plenty of examples.

Their example of XRay problems is at 'Cloudy negative'.

 

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!

 

From Olympusmicro dot com processing errors.

[Advertisement]

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

[plasticman]

I realize the sidetrack wasn't intentional, but my original idea was to stress the positive in choosing film, and the importance of not being put off by the internet chatter of obsolescence and complexity, and so on.

 

In all seriousness, other than the marginal difficulty of getting hold of a new 9000ED, I've found switching to film has been the simplest of processes. I asked here for good recommendations for labs in Stockholm, and the result has been zero problems with my films since then.

 

I've never experienced fogging through airports either - but then my recent travels have only involved maximum two x-ray scans. I don't know what I'd choose to do, if I got lucky enough to have the time for a round-world trip.

 

Let's face it, for many people film would actually be so much simpler than digital if only they were aware of it as a possible option. Mums who find that printing their iPhone pix is both complicated and disappointing would benefit from the ease and directness of just taking their films to the local one-hour lab, and getting them printed with a bonus jpeg CD for Facebook upload.

 

The sad thing is, the manufacturers have convinced them that this is simply not an option - and everyone believes it.

[elansprint72]

Rob, here is a typical effect I suffered. At first I thought it was processing marks, but I am pretty confident now that it is not. Note the 'stain on top and bottom edges show sprocket hole marks, as though some 'exposure' has occurred through them.

 

The film was processed (by me) in a JOBO auto processor. I have every confidence in it for consistency.

 

[ATTACH]220015[/ATTACH]

 

 

Pilot error.

[Allen in Montreal]

A $200 enlarger beats them both. ;-)

 

 

??

Are V35s that cheap these days? :)

[redbaron]

Yep.

 

Ampliadora Focomat V35 Enlarger en venta en eBay.es (finaliza el 08-sep-10 19:53:41 H.Esp)

[StS]

I guess it depends on the number of scans.

 

For my one-roll-a-week, a professional service typically is the best choice, especially, since the people running their scanners know, what they do. I found a company, who do a very decent Nikon 5000 scan at maximum resolution TIFF for 0,50 Euros each. They are my choice, if a major batch needs to be scanned (shipping effort,...).

My lab charges 30 Euros for development and 36MB scan on a Noritsu or Imacon. They also do all kind of extras, like push development, even on C41. They have a special 1hr service, if needed. Finally, they are halfway between my company and my sports club. I call this an optimized workflow.

 

Finally, I'm getting quite pleased with black-and-white scans from my 300 Euro Quato5000 now. It appears I have done part of the learning curve now. I just need to bring some time, I can make a fresh coffee during every frame.

 

Stefan

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having done it all, film is best and it better if you do not digitize it. Make an optical print. A laser print on real photopaper is second best,and ink jets are but fair. Epson sent me samples of their latest offering and they do not impress me one bit. They look painted.

Calumet always has a bunch of samples around and they look the same. Dye sub prints are between laser and ink jet, closer to laser.

 

Scanning is time consuming project for more than a few frames if you want to do it well.

Auto settings and come back in an hour do not work any more than auto settings in optical printing ever did. Basically it was junk.

 

Drum scanns are better, but up to a certain size a quality home scanner is sufficient.

Nikons are good. My MK5400 does fine to 16x20.

 

Put the film in a sleeve and weight it with a book for 24 hours + and it will be flat enough for scanning. Pay for a drum scan if you need a poster print.

 

I have to agree, the debth and three dimensional quality is gone with digital capture, even Leica.

[plasticman]

Auto settings and come back in an hour do not work any more than auto settings in optical printing ever did. Basically it was junk.

 

I batch-scan a linear 48bit (or sometimes 64bit) negative of my films, using between 2 and 4 samples depending on shadow detail. The range I get out of this when converted to positive in ColorPerfect is amazing.

 

I'm frankly at a loss for words when people describe this output as 'junk'. The attitude that everyone 'needs' a $30 drumscan of every one of their images is one reason why so many people don't even try film: as I said at the opening of the thread, these sorts of statements scared me away from film for a year, which I now bitterly regret.

 

When I was able to see with my own eyes how good a final image could be got from a film-scanner like the 9000ED, I could've personally strangled all the bullsh*tters who'd said that nothing but a drumscan would do.

[erl]

It has always been the case that so often poor workmen blame their tools or some other scapegoat instead of examining their own shortcomings as the root cause of their problems.

 

I think there may be a bit of that here with the scanner argument. Certainly the scanners themselves are a variable, but so to is 'the scanner', if you see the difference. It's a bit like the old chestnut of which film or developer is best? Well the answer is known to be different for different photographers. The bottom line is that each must find his/her preference for themselves. (I can see this developing into: which the best lens for ....... Venice?).

[anabasis]

What software are you using with your 9000ED?

 

JCA

[plasticman]

What software are you using with your 9000ED?

 

JCA

 

I'm personally using Vuescan - but I stress that I'm not using any of Vuescan's color profiles, but capturing a linear negative file at the scanner's highest resolution and at the optimum bit-depth.

The settings are described here.

 

It's important to use CF Systems ColorPerfect to then 'develop' this negative file within Photoshop.

[Stealth3kpl]

I'm personally using Vuescan - but I stress that I'm not using any of Vuescan's color profiles, but capturing a linear negative file at the scanner's highest resolution and at the optimum bit-depth.

The settings are described here.

 

It's important to use CF Systems ColorPerfect to then 'develop' this negative file within Photoshop.

 

I'm doing the same with my V700. I've been very pleased with this low grade consumer scanner. Quite adequate for viewing on the computer.

Pete

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!

[noah_addis]

I'm personally using Vuescan - but I stress that I'm not using any of Vuescan's color profiles, but capturing a linear negative file at the scanner's highest resolution and at the optimum bit-depth.

The settings are described here.

 

It's important to use CF Systems ColorPerfect to then 'develop' this negative file within Photoshop.

 

Not to get off-topic, but have you had good experiences with ColorPerfect? I stumbled upon the website and was thinking of giving it a try. I've been using viewscan with the generic color negative setting and making scans that are a bit dark and flat but with as much detail from the neg as possible, then doing final adjustments (setting white and black for each color channel) in photoshop. The files require very little work, but I'm wondering if the CP software would be faster and/or more accurate.

[Stealth3kpl]

Not to get off-topic, but have you had good experiences with ColorPerfect? I stumbled upon the website and was thinking of giving it a try. I've been using viewscan with the generic color negative setting and making scans that are a bit dark and flat but with as much detail from the neg as possible, then doing final adjustments (setting white and black for each color channel) in photoshop. The files require very little work, but I'm wondering if the CP software would be faster and/or more accurate.

 

Noah, I think it is this you are describing. Yesterday I compared this method with the ColorPerfect method using a linear scan. The ColorPerfect method was much quicker but looking at the histograms I get the impression that there is more black clipping of all channels. However, paradoxically I felt there was more detail in the dark tones of the ColorPerfected version. Perhaps someone could comment on whether or not they've found the same. On the whole I was happier with the ColorPerfected image and suspect the colours will be more accurate. It's certainly worth getting for speed alone. I find that I don't make any adjustments usually when the image is opened up in CP. I just hit OK. I'm sure some images won't be so easy.

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

This is the ColorPerfect method that took seconds. I think the colours are more accurate here.

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!

 

 

This is the levels method that took couple of minutes messing around. The red on the far boat doesn't look right.

 

 

(Sorry for cutting the mast off. I took a better one but scanned the wrong one in!)

Pete

[plasticman]

I find ColorPerfect is an invaluable means to develop the 'negative' - but there are occasions when the result needs to be tweaked within the plug-in (I find it corrects poorly for certain color-casts, and interprets certain scenes - an image consisting exclusively of sky and sea, for instance - somewhat wrongly).

 

When a true grey is present, then ColorPerfect can correct pretty well with a single click - but even then, one has to be careful not to be adjusting the wrong setting (all too easy to do by accident in this quirky user-interface).

 

The tweaks are easy to make and automatically applied with 'head-and-tail' curves, but as mentioned the interface is a serious mess, and it really takes some getting used to. I find the final result is worth the trouble - even if sometimes I find it easier to get the image 'close enough' within the plug-in, and then do some extra fine-tuning with curves in PS.

 

I don't bother with the in-built film types, incidentally. I find they take skin-tones further from 'real' than the tweaked default settings.

[noah_addis]

I may just stick with what is working for me. I scan as a negative, so I don't need to invert in PS. I don't use the film profiles though, since I found they don't really work. I just use the generic color negative setting. As I said I scan kind of flat and try to get the most detail out of the neg on the original scan.

 

In photoshop I use levels. For each channel I slide the black and white points in to where the detail begins on the histogram while holding the 'option' button (on a mac) to check for clipping.

 

This is usually all my scans need, other than cropping and maybe removing a few dust spots.

 

It's really very easy. The only downside is that the actual scans take a bit of time. I may set up my old G4 computer to use as a scanning machine so I can use my main computer at the same time for something else.

[plasticman]

Noah - definitely stick with your existing workflow if it's already working for you.

I really like the rendering from ColorPerfect, but the plug-in is a serious UI car-crash...

 

Just as a PS - I hadn't looked at your site for a while, and I just swung by for a quick look. Have to say, those Lima images blew me away! AWESOME work!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

Noah, I concur with your workflow for scanning. Virtually identical to mine.

 

To anyone trying to learn VueScan, take careful note of Noah's points about NOT using profiles. The generic setting gives what you want in a full range scan that MUST be adjusted for tone (Bl & Wh pts.) afterwards in P.S. or similar. It is relatively quick and does produce very good scans.

 

For colour, I still trust my own judgement, largely because so many of my subjects are in 'strange' light and does not conform to 'accurate' ideas of colour.

[ndjambrose]

When I was able to see with my own eyes how good a final image could be got from a film-scanner like the 9000ED, I could've personally strangled all the bullsh*tters who'd said that nothing but a drumscan would do.

 

I have a 20"x30" print on my wall made from 35mm scanned on a 9000ED. It looks excellent even though nominally is beyond reasonable enlargement size for a 24x36 frame. Multipass scanning preserves a large amount of detail.

 

I use that scanner for my commercial work. With the right film holder (the glass one is essential for medium format) the results are very good indeed. When printed on fine-art baryta paper using a 3880 the results are as good or better than any premium work I've had from a pro lab.