Scanning the weakest link

[!Nomad64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I agree. I just do not post anything regarding my present and past excesses. For I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal.

[Advertisement]

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

[wildlightphoto]

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 :-)

 

I'm guessing your digital camera isn't a Leica M or DMR.

 

My experience is that not all digital cameras are the same, just as not all films are the same. In my experience, the files from the DMR already made my film photos obsolete except for projection (which I have not done for many years). IMHO it's far more likely that digital projection technology will evolve than film scanner technology will. Also in my experience, scanning technology is already available to extract every grain from film, the only improvement likely will be cost. My experience (again) has been that archiving and migrating digital files to current media has been less trouble than maintaining a proper enviornment for long-term storage of slides and negatives, with the added benefit of archiving exact duplicates in multiple locations and on multiple media. In my experience, ignoring film photos is as perilous to the photo as ignoring digital files is. And lastly, in my experience, my digital camera (R8 with DMR) is worth more today than when I bought it used four years ago, and has been far more productive than any of my film cameras ever were (Leicas and Nikons).

[250swb]

Unfortunately, you have missed my main point:

.

 

No,..... I didn't. I understood exactly what you were going on about, I've used one, never owned one, can't think why I would want to. You can get better quality from an M9 for less money, or an M9 AND a MF digital camera for less money. Either way, at that level the quality of the scans are for bragging rights only, because damned few people will see the difference.

 

 

Steve

[!Nomad64]

I'm guessing your digital camera isn't a Leica M or DMR.

 

My experience is that not all digital cameras are the same, just as not all films are the same. In my experience, the files from the DMR already made my film photos obsolete except for projection (which I have not done for many years). IMHO it's far more likely that digital projection technology will evolve than film scanner technology will. Also in my experience, scanning technology is already available to extract every grain from film, the only improvement likely will be cost. My experience (again) has been that archiving and migrating digital files to current media has been less trouble than maintaining a proper enviornment for long-term storage of slides and negatives, with the added benefit of archiving exact duplicates in multiple locations and on multiple media. In my experience, ignoring film photos is as perilous to the photo as ignoring digital files is. And lastly, in my experience, my digital camera (R8 with DMR) is worth more today than when I bought it used four years ago, and has been far more productive than any of my film cameras ever were (Leicas and Nikons).

 

Doug,

 

we're saying the same things but from different angles. I agree almost on all of your points and I obviously respect your direct experience, which is worth more than any theory.

I only stress the fact that negs and slides of the past century are still fully usable, however with the annoyance of maintaining proper storage environments. The benefits of the digital you listed are evident and are what made me switch from film. But again, we don't know what will be of them in 50 years. Whilst I'm pretty sure that the properly stored film will be still there, I have reasonable doubts that digital files will. You should have noticed that digital cameras are upgrading (and becoming therefore obsolete) at a furious pace, the same pace of PCs. Which didn't happen with film camera. Today you can use with satisfaction a Leica IIIa, but using let's say a Nikon D1 would be a frustrating exercise, not because of the camera per se, but because the files it produces have become laughable size-wise. And we're talking about a pro class camera that sold at tens of thousands dollars and featured a... 2.7 megapixel sensor. Ten years after the sensors have reached 10 times the resolution of the D1.

Happily enough for all of us Leica marches to the sound of a different drummer and is less affected by obsolescence, but it is anyway, whether we like it or not.

Even if for an amateur use the 18 Megapixel resolution of the M9 are more than enough, in less then a couple years pros will have their share of problems when art directors will start to reject the files because they'll have become too little for the then current standards.

And this regards your R8 with DMR too. However wishing you many many years of joy using it, Leica pulled the plug from the R system and hasn't come yet with a reasonable way to rev it up. Until you'll make a personal use of your R8 you'll enjoy it, but in a handful of years you won't be submitting anymore your files for marketable use. Believe me, it hurts me to say so, but that's the way it is.

I agree with you when you say that it is perilous to ignore either aspect - film or digital.

We can't do without the digital. That's the present and it's the future. But we can't even drop the film photography that easily. There's already a similar situation in the music market. After the introduction of the CD, many, too many preconized the death of the vinyl. Thirty years after, the CD is on the verge of becoming obsolete, superseded by "liquid music", as Linn aptly named it, and the vinyl is still alive and kicking. Sure, not in huge numbers as it used to be, but however far from dead. Does this ring any bell? :-)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

 

P.S. One more thing: I'm the happy owner of an M8. It is my second Leica. The first one was an R5 that was stolen years ago.

[wildlightphoto]

... Today you can use with satisfaction a Leica IIIa...

 

No I cannot. A PLOOT is obsolete compared with a Visoflex III which in turn was made obsolete by even a 1968 Leicaflex SL (my website reveals why this is important to me). Not to mention the IIIa's squinty viewfinder, the separate view/rangefinder windows, accessory viewfinders, knob film advance and fiddly film loading. Until the last few years, film camera technology has not been standing still. If your point was that one can still make photos with it, you are correct, but satisfaction, not for me.

 

As for the DMR, it's a tool, not an idol. Same for my favorite film camera, the Leicaflex SL. I'm not in love with it. I don't care that it might not be usable or that its files might not be competetive in fifty years, it has paid for itself many times over already, all sorts of things might happen between now and tomorrow's breakfast, and if I'm using a different camera fifty years from now it's not the end of the world. I don't spend a moment of time fretting over what might or might not happen. Leica is still servicing the DMR so I have no need to worry that it won't be usable tomorrow.

[Ulev]

I considered the puchase of a scanner myselve after getting dissapointed with the lab's results.

As ususal I do a lot of "research" in front and did found out that one had to purchase a Nikon Coolscan to get more or less decent results, that is, if you know how to handle it well.

Sorry but second hand prices are insane these days and you can't compare the purchase of such a scanner with a nice lens, such as for example a Leica Summilux 75 !

What if your coolscan breaks down ? Who will repair it ?

So I borrowed a friends Macro lens, shot some negatives and converted them in Photoshop.

Scan "lovers" might say it's not the real thing but I am convinced that if you don't have a few thousand Euro's extra to spend, for web use it's the way to go !

And if you want a large print, one can always get a 20 Euro Lab high quality scan of a single negative !

 

Don't get me wrong, if I'd make enough money, I'd buy a pro scanner !

But I rather "invest" in a quality lens.

 

Rgds

 

Ulev

[honcho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..... damned few people will see the difference.

 

Steve

 

That depends on the intended end use, which is a point I made earlier.

 

The OP's thread is about the relative merits of different scanners, not the M9 (obviously you have misunderstood this as well).

 

You are pleased with your flatbed. Be happy. Live with it.

[chrism]

Here's an interesting page - at the bottom are three images, one from an unspecified digital camera, and the other two are a 4x5 Ektar 100 negative scanned with a Nikon 9000 and with a Flextight X5. (Safari crashed repeatedly trying to download the large versions, but Firefox worked fine.)

Pixel peepers (I can use that term in this context in a film forum!) will see the X5 is much nicer at 100% - it looks more natural, but perhaps the Nikon scan is overexposed and that is fooling me. There is a small but visible increase in detail with the X5. Would I be right in assuming that small difference is more important with smaller negatives? Either way, it won't show up on a 10x8 print.

 

Chris

[wlaidlaw]

Here's an interesting page - at the bottom are three images, one from an unspecified digital camera, and the other two are a 4x5 Ektar 100 negative scanned with a Nikon 9000 and with a Flextight X5. (Safari crashed repeatedly trying to download the large versions, but Firefox worked fine.)

Pixel peepers (I can use that term in this context in a film forum!) will see the X5 is much nicer at 100% - it looks more natural, but perhaps the Nikon scan is overexposed and that is fooling me. There is a small but visible increase in detail with the X5. Would I be right in assuming that small difference is more important with smaller negatives? Either way, it won't show up on a 10x8 print.

 

Chris

 

Chris,

 

If I had bought a Flextight X5, I would be incandescent if it did not out-perform a Nikon Coolscan 9000 in almost every way, given it costs around 6 times as much. I know you don't always get what you pay for but these are two very reputable companies producing a product whose capabilities reflect their relative price. The Flextight looks absurdly expensive until you start considering the price of 60 MP digital backs or a Leica S2 and how cheaply one can buy film medium format cameras.

 

Wilson

[NZDavid]

Back to the Canon, I tried another one just in case the first was faulty, but results were the same: muddy. I totally agree there's no pint in using Leica lenses and then getting mediocre scans.

 

The X5 is the price of a car, and not a bad one at that. My lab has just got one. Each scan is much pricier than the standard Noritsu but could be worthwhile for special prints. The lab owner invited me to check out the X5 and do a review later on; if so, I shall post the results.

 

Best,

David

 

Check out my new website: NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller

[drums1977]

Hi everyone.

 

Some time ago I performed some tests with my V700 and a Coolscan V and I posted them. Here they are again, in case they can help anyone:

 

sample1

 

And 100% crops:

 

sample2

 

Not a big difference, in my opinion.

 

I've never seen a file from an Imacon, but if they are as good as they are expensive, they must blow your pants away.

 

Oh, and as someone said in one of the first posts on this thread, if quality is a big concern to you, steping up to medium/large format is the way to go.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Pretty sure the coolscan file have more shadow detail a little at lest, and also the file seems crisper.?

 

Hmm that concept of something being so good it blows ones pants away.. that seems like a clear question to the Myhtbusters.! "Will seeing a scan from a imacon blow busters pants off? yes / no"

 

Agree, if the quality is the end all, 35mm is not cutting it, I was just putting some old 120 slides in the cool-scan last night and to be honest, I am very happy with the 35mm scans, but when I looked at the color richness and feeling of the image in the original 120 slides, I was kind of feeling blah about the scans. Oh Well.

 

.

[wlaidlaw]

Hi everyone.

 

Some time ago I performed some tests with my V700 and a Coolscan V and I posted them. Here they are again, in case they can help anyone:

 

sample1

 

And 100% crops:

 

sample2

 

Not a big difference, in my opinion.

 

I've never seen a file from an Imacon, but if they are as good as they are expensive, they must blow your pants away.

 

Oh, and as someone said in one of the first posts on this thread, if quality is a big concern to you, steping up to medium/large format is the way to go.

 

I would have expected the Coolscan to be noticeably better than a V700. As a V700 owner, this comparison is very encouraging. Just one question - did you have sharpening turned off on both or on to the same degree. The V700 images look to have more sharpening on them.

 

Wilson

[drums1977]

I would have expected the Coolscan to be noticeably better than a V700. As a V700 owner, this comparison is very encouraging. Just one question - did you have sharpening turned off on both or on to the same degree. The V700 images look to have more sharpening on them.

 

Wilson

 

Hi, Wilson,

 

sharpening was off in both cases, and I did not process the output in any way. They are both "raw" images. I think the only real advantage is a tiny bit more shadow detail in the Coolscan. I use the Epson on a regular basis for MF, and I am very happy with it. The glass carriers make quite a difference, I must say.

 

J.

[pes084k1]

I love film. Mostly slide film. Wonderful saturation, images with real depth and that special character to them. I also love seeing slides on a screen from time to time, but of course I do need digital versions, too, quite a lot of the time -- and here's where the problems start. Those who maintain digital beats film aren't really comparing film at all -- they are comparing scanned film. (And even then, IMO, it often beats digital capture for detail.) The film itself preserves a wonderful jewel-like image. How do you extract that quality? The whole process of scanning seems to be infinitely complex, even more so than uploading an SD card from a digital camera, requires hours in front of the computer screen, and is inconsistent and hit and miss, with vast differences between proprietary and non-proprietary software. It's also very time-consuming.

 

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). I have just tried a Canoscan 9000F flatbed, which many reviews have raved about, but I am not impressed. It's fuzzy. The shop said it might be faulty, as it doesn't seem to be focusing on anything. Detail is muddy and indistinct. Just not a goer when I am shooting with Leica lenses! It's going back. There are no other scanners available locally apart from other flatbeds and the very pricey NZD 6,000 Nikon LS9000.

 

So what to do? Keep with value lab scans? Go for pricier custom scans (new Hasselblad lab scanner) for special prints? Or do should do my own scanning? The Plustek 7600, described in another post, is another possibility, if I can source one. Simply use more digital? But see my first sentence. I guess my main question is how do I go about getting the best scans as simply and economically as possible? What do others do?

 

Flatbed scans are not up to the required resolution. Today the best choice for 35 mm is the Reflecta RPS 7200 professional, which practically tops at about 4000 LW/PH, 30% more than the theoretical limit of a D3X. I have in and an older Minolta 5400 II, both with a Vuescan driver.

 

Excellent optics (as most of Leica M, Zeiss ZF/ZM, Voigtlander aspherical and some Nikon and Canon) can drive the Minolta to the promised 5400 dpi (it has still 30% MTF left at 103 lp/mm, completely recoverable by good deblur) and the RPS 7200, with its smaller lens aperture, over 4000 dpi.

 

In practice, the Minolta attains slightly better results up to 40 x 60 cm 254 dpi prints with slides, while the Reflecta has an edge on negatives (less grain aliasing) and on prints over 50 x 75 cm (no software interpolation). Very fine details are slightly better with the Minolta, while the Reflecta has a less noisy CCD.

 

The Plustek does not have the important autofocus.

 

Elio

[NZDavid]

Thanks for this, I have just checked out thorough reviews at Filmscanner shop: slide scanners, accessories, light panels, colour management, literature, scanning + image editing - ScanDig. (The X5 review is revealing!) Minolta looks good, but a bit old now so a new Reflecta may be a good option.

[Guest malland]

....My Imacon 848 will scan a 3x strip of 120 film producing 140 mb, 16 bit files in 7 minutes.... auto FFF mode...

I'm poing back to film partially as I'm picking up a Hasselblad 903-SWC in Paris on the 27th. I'll probably start by having a local lab develop the film ($3.30 here) and then scan the negatives on my old Imacon Precision III. And maybe I'll develop the film myself after a while.

 

However, now that I got used to the idea of of going back to film, I'm also thinking of starting to shoot again with my M6 which I haven't used for five years. The problem is that my Imacon Precision III takes 15-17 minutes to scan one 35mm frame at 6,300 dpi, which makes it impractical to scan more than the 3-5 "keepers" that, on the average, I have on a roll of 36 frames. The solution could be to have the lab scan the roll and then for me to make high-resolution scan on the Imacon only of the frames I'm going to print. Or, is there any other practical solution that will allow me to scan whole rolls on my Imacon and then do high-resolution scans of the frames I'll print?

 

—Mitch/BangkokParis au rythme de Basquiat (WIP)

[chrism]

While the lab develops your film you could ask for scans too (low quality jpegs will do) so you can see which frames to scan yourself. If you get back to home development a cheap flatbed scanner will let you make a proof sheet that, with a loupe, will let you select the keepers. When I'm feeling well-organised I use an old Epson 4870 to make a proof sheet, which I print and file in the binder next to the negatives in their sleeves.

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rolo]

The low cost lab I use for colour processing scans 35mm to 17mb Tiff files for the same price as jpeg. I always buy that service and frequently that's all I need for web processing and small prints. I rarely need to re-scan these. They also process my 120/220 colour & BW-C41 film for the same price as 35mm, but they can't scan it.

 

I scan every frame of B&W and roll film colour with my 848. I did try low res scans before selection for a while, but the speed of the scanner is sufficient to make this unnecessary. It also avoids multiplying the files and compromising the selection decision making process, as I'll frequently commence post processing before knowing whether I'm keeping it, or not.

[mgreernz]

Hi David - I can't be sure they will have the 7600 model in stock, but Ascent Technologies Ltd (Ascent Technology | New Zealand Computer Hardware and Software Online Shop) based in Wellington are an agent for Plustek here in NZ. They are listing the 7600 at $864.00. I've purchased through Ascent on several occasions and have found them to be thoroughly reliable.

 

I'm scanning mainly B&W. And like you, I also took a long careful look at the Canon and found that it simply didn't measure up to the many glowing reviews I'd read.

 

I was fortunate enough to lay my hands on a mint condition (complete with all original packaging, docs, slide carrier, the lot) Nikon Coolscan 4000 in an estate liquidation. Sure, it's the older model, but it's as-new and performing fabulously. It was a very lucky find! I'm using it with Ed Hamrick's VueScan software, which is simply excellent.