Scanning the weakest link

[StS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(...)

Until now I have simply had my slides scanned at a lab, but the quality from the Noritsu machine, although often fine, can be variable (banding problems, for example).(...)

 

 

The Noritsu is an excellent machine, which costs as much as a decent car. I'm in the lucky situation to have a lab, where it is in good hands. One gets, what one pays for (better than anything I could do myself) and I never had scratches on my negatives. However, recently I tried to discuss in a drug store how they run their Noritsu and got the question "um, does this mean you want a photo CD with your development?"

 

(...)

So what to do? Keep with value lab scans?

I'm abandoning this route now, I used it for previews but had too much scratches and dirt on negatives (which were added after scanning, judging from the clean scans).

 

Go for pricier custom scans (new Hasselblad lab scanner) for special prints?

Not a bad route, to my taste (see above).

 

Or do should do my own scanning? The Plustek 7600, described in another post, is another possibility, if I can source one.

 

I'm using the Quato 5000, which has the same technical base plus an Apple interface. It is good for an occasional scan for prints up to A4 size. I do most of my black and white stuff with it. The main drawback is the slow speed and infrared dust reduction does not really work. I believe in pressurized air over ICE anyhow.

I had some older photos scanned recently by a professional company using a Nikon 5000. The results are impressive, I'm not sure, whether this is up to the scanner or (partly) due to the people knowing what they do.

 

I'm afraid there are no perfect solutions. The experience of the people running the scanner appears to have a larger impact than the quality of the scanner itself. So I use partly professional services, also to have a benchmark for my own efforts.

 

Stefan

[Rick in CO]

Here's a useful web page concerning this topic: Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison

In my experience dedicated film scanners yield better results than flatbeds - I have older Polaroid SprintScans, a 45i and a 4000, that I still use with VueScan, the former with an adapted sandwich carrier for liquid mounting (http://www.Scanscience). These products improve the results I get even using these older film scanners.

Rick in CO

[tobey bilek]

I believe digi files straight from the camera are cleaner and moderately sharper. No matter how careful I am with film, be it a pro lab, or a hospital clean, air & water filtered to 3 micron, there is always defects on the emulsion thet need cleaning. Most of these are so small as to be not noticeable if I were to make an optical print on a Leica enlarger, but a digi file shows everything. Also grain is an issue. I use a noise reduction called Defin 2 and it will clean grain from slower film scans. To get the most out of it, I have to do some fancy time consuming masking.

 

Some films that print perfectly optically, will not scan and retain highlight and shadow. Then I have to make multiple scans and HDR them or more commonly layer them and use a luminosity mask.

 

In the end, I can make them indistinguishable for most prints. But film work flow is tedious without a lot of options to automate. In fact it is so tedious, I think I would rather make optical prints.

 

A very experienced pro, Ellis Vernier, who used to contribute a lot to Photo,net, did offer his workflow recently. It was basically same as mine so I am not wasting effort.

 

If all you want are a bunch of 4x5 prints, take your pick. For a wall print, you need to work harder with film.

[NZDavid]

...economics play a role in the decision process as well...

 

Absolutely, 100%! If only those Hasselblad Imacons were more affordable...

 

StS, thanks for some useful to-the-point answers. Yes, the Noritsu machine is not too bad. Btw, it's a pro lab, not just a mini lab. I think there is a very noticeable difference in the quality of scans that's decisive. And I'm fussy and do notice the difference! Poor quality scans do film a disservice.

 

Lots of useful advice here for those wanting to keep with film and digitize it.

[nikau]

I've had a Nikon 9000 for years and am very satisfied with it and the results I get from 35mm and 120 -- negative or transparency. However, now it's out of production I'm really worried about the ability to get it fixed when something inevitably goes wrong. Even now, my Nikon distributor knows or cares little about the scanners. Like David who started this thread I really like film but I'm thinking that when the 9000 goes down that'll be the end of it for me. The Hasselblad/Imacon is way too expensive and there's no company in my city that rents them.

[Rolo]

My history with scanners started with an Epson 2450 Perfection, the a Nikon 8000 and in February this year I bought an Imacon 848 and sold the Nikon.

 

I get a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure from my photographic activity and enjoy the process as well as the results and seeing the detail on screen at full size is satisfying regardless of whether the the final result is a 20" print, or a 900x900 pixel posting on LUF.

 

I've had pleasing results with all 3 scanners and from all 3 I've had print made to 36", albeit from MF film. My work isn't for hanging in galleries, although it does hang in Board Rooms, so I'd never pay for drum scans, nor B&W silver prints, or anything else I could do myself. Drum scans I've had done in past roles have been excellent, but if I wanted drum scans regularly I'd have to buy a drum scanner. That's just me and how i am. I'm also very careful with cash and usually buy equipment that will retain most of it's value, so it hardly costs anything to own after resale, digital cameras apart.

 

I've read several comparisons between the Nikon and the Imacon. Many stating that the Imacon is better, but not by much. Never are these written by Imacon owners and I presume from that, Imacon owners don't feel the need to convince anyone how good their scanner is. I was extremely happy with the output from my Nikon, once I'd bought the glass carrier, but it is not close to the Imacon. That's my experience and if you feel different that's OK by me.

 

The two machines are totally different and are aimed at different markets. I liken it to a Jaguar and a Range Rover - both are over the top if you only want to run the kids to school, but when the going gets tough there's a difference. The Imacon was designed for 'industrial' use rather than home ownership. You'll find two 848's in the Paris office of Magnum; you'll find six in the British Library, and many pro labs use them.... etc. The Nikon won't be there as it's too slow and not as easy to use. My Imacon 848 will scan a 3x strip of 120 film producing 140 mb, 16 bit files in 7 minutes.... auto FFF mode. That's load and press Go. The X5 is 3x as fast. See here for a demo:

 

http://www.bigano.com/index.php/en/consulting/57-hasselblad/155-il-sistema-3f-hasselblad-flexible-file-format.html?start=1

 

You'll also see a 35mm B&W FP4 image on this site that is better than I ever got from my Nikon. Whilst impossibly expensive when new, they cost less than some Leica lenses when used and they hold they're used value just as well. I'd rather own my Imacon than have one more lens in my bag. With it, the new films and the latest advances in post processing software I'm guaranteed the maximum amount of pleasure from film ata lower cost than the digital race. My problem is i do both, at the moment. Ha.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been scanning quite a lot of my slides in over the last few years. I had a Polaroid Artixscan 4000 SCSI film scanner. When I changed to Mac in 2005, I could not get the SCSI card in my PowerMac to say hello and for a while continued with a firewire to SCSI external box, which when it worked was OK. The slide scans with this machine and Vuescan were good. Finally the 4000 expired in a cloud of smoke. I was going to replace it with another second hand film scanner (nikon or similar) but few of them listed an up to date Mac Leopard driver and none of them used FW 800 links. I therefore opted for an Epson V700 flat bed in some trepidation, as my previous experiences with flat bed slide scanning (Canoscans 1240UF and LIDE 600F) had been poor. I am pleased to report that the V700 does a pretty good job. Now that the latest version of Vuescan finally works well with it, I would say the scans are at least as good if not better than the Artixscan. I am sure it is still not as good as the latest Nikon Coolscans and certainly nothing like as good as an Imacon but for the price and convenience of having a scanner, which also does glass 1/4 plate slides, 120 slide and strip, 4 x 5 negatives, X-Ray film scans for my wife's business and normal everyday scanning work, it is a good tool. The V750 is probably somewhat better but quite a lot more expensive.

 

Wilson

[janki]

I've had a Nikon 9000 for years and am very satisfied with it and the results I get from 35mm and 120 -- negative or transparency. However, now it's out of production I'm really worried about the ability to get it fixed when something inevitably goes wrong. Even now, my Nikon distributor knows or cares little about the scanners. Like David who started this thread I really like film but I'm thinking that when the 9000 goes down that'll be the end of it for me. The Hasselblad/Imacon is way too expensive and there's no company in my city that rents them.

Thanks nikau. Your statement could have been my own.

 

Nikon 9000 CS has been for me an excellent "mentor" in digital imaging.

I would say it so strongly, that the use of this machine has given me an understanding of the digital image processing from scratch.

 

When my Nikon 9000 CS stops working, I hope to be established with a high quality digital camera system.

Not because I do not like to shoot with film, but simply because the film and film processing is more and more difficult to buy in my country.

 

After it became known that Nikon will stop all production of scanners, I have studied with great interest Hasselblad / Imacons X1 and X5 scanners.

Not because I can avoid investing in a digital camera system, but I have to have a device that can digitize all the pictures I have attached to the film.

 

X1 and X5, with lenses from Rodenstock, reminiscent in many ways very much about the darkroom’s enlargement device.

Hopefully, the prices of these machines will fall slightly over time.

 

One thing is certainly for sure. It will always be possible to spend too much money on exciting new digital gizmos!

[too old to care]

I have also tried to use the Canon scanner to get good results from color negative film. Not much success, although it did a decent (but not great) job on my slides.

 

Before I got the Cannon scanner I set up a projector and shot the slides with a digital camera on a screen. I was amazed when I looked at them on the screen, the color, saturation, sharpness. But, when I looked at them from my camera (Canon 5D Mk II with a 100mm L series lens shot in RAW), I was disappointed. My Canon flat bed scans looked better.

 

I think a good, decided film scanner is the only way to go. I Have narrowed it down to the Plustek 7600 too, but I am afraid that I will also be disappointed with the results. Nothing beats a good color slide projected on a screen.

 

I also agree, a digital shot projected from a LCD projector cannot win the image quality war with a good 35mm slide and projector. Although, they do look nice on a good plasma TV.

[wlaidlaw]

I have also tried to use the Canon scanner to get good results from color negative film. Not much success, although it did a decent (but not great) job on my slides.

 

Before I got the Cannon scanner I set up a projector and shot the slides with a digital camera on a screen. I was amazed when I looked at them on the screen, the color, saturation, sharpness. But, when I looked at them from my camera (Canon 5D Mk II with a 100mm L series lens shot in RAW), I was disappointed. My Canon flat bed scans looked better.

 

I think a good, decided film scanner is the only way to go. I Have narrowed it down to the Plustek 7600 too, but I am afraid that I will also be disappointed with the results. Nothing beats a good color slide projected on a screen.

 

I also agree, a digital shot projected from a LCD projector cannot win the image quality war with a good 35mm slide and projector. Although, they do look nice on a good plasma TV.

 

I looked seriously at the Plustek, in view of previous dissatisfaction with flat bed scanners for film/slide scanning. However, if you do as I did and search for reviews on this machine, you may find that some are a little bit lukewarm, part of which has to do with the characteristics of the LED illumination. A number of reviews said that the scans were no better than the Epson V700 could offer but without the flexibility of the flat bed and given that the two machines were about the same price, they would go for the V700 instead, which I did. I wanted to scan in a whole lot of 19th century family glass quarter plate slides as well and the other flat bed film scanner I had at the time, a Canoscan LIDE 600F, was doing a very poor job, maybe also partially due to LED illumination. The V700 has conventional CCFL illumination, that you do have to allow to warm up for a minute or so prior to using.

 

Wilson

[tjv]

David,

In NZ, try sending your scans to Andrew Budd (Sp?) on Tram Road, just out of ChCh, or PCL in Auckland to get drum scanned. Don't go near ImageLab et al.

[honcho]

I have never understood the logic in the willingness of some people to invest thousands of pounds in top quality cameras and lenses (think Leica), photography, film and processing, only to output the images via a flatbed unless the end use is for web only.

 

I do have 30 years' involvement in repro bureau quality scanning that goes back to the early days of Dainippon and Hell scanners of the mid-80's.

 

If I have learnt two things in that time, it is these:

 

1. I would never trust my originals for scanning to a third party, especially a Frontier, Noritsu or other print engine operator.

 

2. You can make pretty pictures of dead mackerel on a flat bed, because that's what flatbeds are for.

 

One of the greatest assets in my business is my Imacon scanner. Not for the speed, which is poor, or so much for the resolution and dynamic range, which is very good.

 

It is because I can create 3F files from multi format originals via one of the best scanner interfaces available. A 3F file is very similar to a RAW file and this is why Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are in a league of their own. Because of this capability my entire, valuable archive is rock-solid safe for the foreseeable future as well as being easy to manage.

 

Expensive? Yes, almost £10k is a considerable outlay but the true perspective lies against the outlay on cameras, lenses Mac system, periferals, editing software, film and processing, getting to the location, creating the image, scanning time, scan quality, pp, archiving and the turn-over that all this creates.

 

I can accept that that an Imacon may be out of reach or simply not an option for many hobbyists, but a scanner will remain the weakest link in an analogue/digital workflow if that is the decision. A dedicated film scanner with a reasonable spec has to be a better option than any flatbed, especially for 35mm in my opinion.

[chrism]

I wish I hadn't seen that movie about the Flextight that Rolo linked to. It's giving me evil thoughts about my Summilux 75, Noctilux and Visoflex lenses. Were I to sell them all I could just about stretch to an X1. Must resist. As therapy I will try not to pick up a film camera for a couple of weeks and just use the M9.

 

Chris

I said 'try'....!

[Rolo]

I wish I hadn't seen that movie about the Flextight that Rolo linked to. It's giving me evil thoughts about my Summilux 75, Noctilux and Visoflex lenses. Were I to sell them all I could just about stretch to an X1. Must resist.

Chris

 

Chris,

Don't miss this view of the 35mm FP4 he scanned in the video:

 

The 3F system | The revolutionary professional scanning system by Hasselblad

 

 

p.s. right click on the image to enlarge and use the blue box to explore.

[250swb]

I can accept that that an Imacon may be out of reach or simply not an option for many hobbyists, but a scanner will remain the weakest link in an analogue/digital workflow if that is the decision. A dedicated film scanner with a reasonable spec has to be a better option than any flatbed, especially for 35mm in my opinion.

 

I just have to disagree with such a sweeping statement, honest, I have no choice, the truth is screaming to get out.

 

When doing all my work on film I ended up with a Minolta Multi Pro, no mean scanner, equal to the Nikon 9000. But I sold it because it just wasn't being used anymore after going digital.

 

But I needed to send my M9 back to Solms for a new sensor, so needing a new flatbed I got the film out the fridge and bought an Epson V700 as a stop gap, something to post web pictures with during the long wait. Naturally the first instinct is to see how bad it really is, so I find a great 35mm scan from my Minolta and scanned the same neg on the V700. And after a bit of adjusting height and fiddling with software, well, you could have knocked me down with a feather, they were as near as dammit the same quality. I admit you need a good neg to get parity, but rather than blame the V700 for all that is wrong with scanning 35mm, I think its more a case of the workman blaming his tools.

 

Steve

[!Nomad64]

Hello NZDavid,

 

if it can be of any use, here's a scanners review site:

 

Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

 

I used to check this to find a film scanner of reasonable quality to have digital copies of my older negs. Unfortunately all models worth to buy (for me!) have long gone out of production. I did the switch from film to digital, so I don't take it as a tragedy, but if you plan to keep using films then I'd join those who say you'd better to invest in a high level pro scanner.

Or otherwise, just screw it and be happy with film as you've always been before all this digital turmoil. You can however enjoy your jewel-like film images in print and/or slideshows and if you really feel compelled to share them over the net, then a lower scan quality will just do. In no site you'll ever upload your original files for viewing. What's posted is usually downscaled and poorer quality than the original.

Furthermore, as another user cleverly pointed out, if properly stored your slides and negatives will be still there in 50 years and then you'll be able to scan them with some technology we can't even dream of now. On the other hand our digital files might have become well obsolete by then and the storage devices even unreadable by the future appliances.

 

Hope this helps

Bruno

[honcho]

...... I admit you need a good neg to get parity, but rather than blame the V700 for all that is wrong with scanning 35mm, I think its more a case of the workman blaming his tools.

 

You're happy with your flatbed, that's good. Personally, I wouldn't swap a reasonable spec 35mm film scanner for it, but there you go. That's my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, you have missed my main point:

 

Only Imacon/Hasselblad produce 3F files..... which is one of the main reasons why Imacon/Hasselblad is possibly the best choice over most, costs aside.

[wildlightphoto]

... if properly stored your slides and negatives will be still there in 50 years and then you'll be able to scan them with some technology we can't even dream of now. On the other hand our digital files might have become well obsolete by then and the storage devices even unreadable by the future appliances.

 

In other words, with film the glass is half-full and with digital the glass is half-empty.

[!Nomad64]

In other words, with film the glass is half-full and with digital the glass is half-empty.

 

Doug,

 

I'm smiling reading your comment, but afraid it might be like this. I embraced the digital because of the benefits it brings on the short terms - you can review immediately your pictures, you can shoot as many as you please with no costs increase, you can store hundreds of them on a support barely larger than a toenail, your files aren't unaffected by x-ray in the airport, do not suffer from heat, they are perfectly reproducible as many times as you want and you can manage to share them over the net - but in the long terms the older technology may still have the edge.

As said, with due precautions one's negatives and slides will be still there in 50 years. Scanners and relevant technology will have evolved and will allow to extract more informations than what we can do today.

Barring cosmetics and a bit of more advanced technology there's no significant difference between a Leica IIIa and an MP, even less between this latter and an M3.

On the other hand digital cameras are ageing faster than the yellow pages. The thousands dollars professional behemoths that produced 3Mb resolution files today are good just for the scrap. And I still have to see a FF digital camera the size and the quality of a Minox or a Rollei 35.

My current digital files will likely be obsolete. God only knows what format there'll be in 50 years. I have serious doubts that a hard disk will last that long. Who knows which will be the connection standards by then. Probably SD cards will not exist anymore and I'll have to iterate the files transfer from one storage media to another. Days ago whilst digging in a drawer I found a 5.25 diskette. Not that I care, but how am I supposed to read that thing today? And it's only 20 years old. And went off use about 15 years ago. You'll understand what I mean.

Notwithstanding the above I turned digital. It's a bet. Life is substantially change and evolution. I'll se what will happen in 50 years, provided that I won't be pushing the daisies from below at that time :-)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Doug,

 

I'm smiling reading your comment, but afraid it might be like this. I embraced the digital because of the benefits it brings on the short terms - you can review immediately your pictures, you can shoot as many as you please with no costs increase, you can store hundreds of them on a support barely larger than a toenail, your files aren't unaffected by x-ray in the airport, do not suffer from heat, they are perfectly reproducible as many times as you want and you can manage to share them over the net - but in the long terms the older technology may still have the edge.

As said, with due precautions one's negatives and slides will be still there in 50 years. Scanners and relevant technology will have evolved and will allow to extract more informations than what we can do today.

Barring cosmetics and a bit of more advanced technology there's no significant difference between a Leica IIIa and an MP, even less between this latter and an M3.

On the other hand digital cameras are ageing faster than the yellow pages. The thousands dollars professional behemoths that produced 3Mb resolution files today are good just for the scrap. And I still have to see a FF digital camera the size and the quality of a Minox or a Rollei 35.

My current digital files will likely be obsolete. God only knows what format there'll be in 50 years. I have serious doubts that a hard disk will last that long. Who knows which will be the connection standards by then. Probably SD cards will not exist anymore and I'll have to iterate the files transfer from one storage media to another. Days ago whilst digging in a drawer I found a 5.25 diskette. Not that I care, but how am I supposed to read that thing today? And it's only 20 years old. And went off use about 15 years ago. You'll understand what I mean.

Notwithstanding the above I turned digital. It's a bet. Life is substantially change and evolution. I'll se what will happen in 50 years, provided that I won't be pushing the daisies from below at that time :-)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

 

On the other hand, people warn that once you post a compromising picture of yourself from your youthful exploits on Facebook, that it will follow you forever.