BJDrew Posted April 16, 2011 Share #1 Posted April 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) You invest in a system. You fall in love. You have some of history's greatest lenses. the prints can make you cry... And then you realize time is short - darkroom time becomes scarce. You scan the negatives and end up with garbage images files that one could achieve with a disposable junk-cam. So, what is the secret to upping one's scanning game to at least begin to show some of the pop, life, and sizzle that an M-system negative deserves? Please don't tell me this is as good as it gets: 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! (M6. 50mm 'Cron, Neopan400. HC-110 "B" 72degF 5.5min. Canonscan 8800F, 16bit, fairly flat curve) Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! (M6. 50mm 'Cron, Neopan400. HC-110 "B" 72degF 5.5min. Canonscan 8800F, 16bit, fairly flat curve) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/149262-scanning-bane-of-my-existance/?do=findComment&comment=1647660'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 16, 2011 Posted April 16, 2011 Hi BJDrew, Take a look here Scanning = bane of my existance. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Penzes Posted April 16, 2011 Share #2 Posted April 16, 2011 A dedicated Film scanner is much better than yours. When money is no issue, just buy a Hasselblad /Imacon scanner. Memories of glory days past... by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr Leica MP Summilux pre asph 35mm llford HP5 Ilford ID11, 12,5 minutes @ 19,5 degrees Celsius Coolscan 5000 Or with a Canoscan FS4000US Leica M3 taken with Leica M3 by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr Leica M3 Dual Range Summicron Fuji Neopan 400 Emofin 7,5 min. at 18 Celsius Canoscan FS4000US Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJDrew Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted April 16, 2011 Oh boy. Time to sell the car. Or the house. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted April 16, 2011 Share #4 Posted April 16, 2011 You need a good scanner and physically flat negatives. They need to be low contrast, some negs that print well on a condenser enlarger with #2 paper will scan ok. Other types of film will not. Delta 100, T Max 100,400, Tri X all print and scan ok. I can not get Plus X to work, ie scan and print at same contrast level. If you set up for a diffusion, color head, or cold light & #2 paper, forget it. C41 films scan better, Ilford XP2. Kodak Portra will also and you convert to B&W later. I have no experience with Neopan films Films can also be "HDR" scanned, my term. Do one for highlights, one for shadows, then combine in Photoshop. Use a luminosity mask. The real key is keep contrast low. Scanners do not like high contrast. When you digitize an image, a straight line "curve" is generated whether it is scanned film or from a digital camera. You need to put an S curve back if you want to simulate the older films. Your sample has to much contrast already to add more midtone contrast with an S curve is not possible. Your sample should look flat out of the scanner. I would cut the development 10/15% as a trial. Do 6 exposures, 12" of film as a test. Curve shape can be altered to a long toe like Tri X or short straight toe like T Max. You also need to get the negative in focus. Difficult with a flat bed scanner. Film holders can be shimmed up. Going down is more difficult. Wet scanning is preferable. Scan Science.com. You can try any or all these suggestions including renting a better scanner like an Imacon. Digital Printing - Scanning - Consulting Services | Master Printing for Artists | Indian Hill Imageworks Perhaps send a negative to Indian Hill to see what they can do. They have a scanning service tab. Let them know what you are trying to achieve. Sharpening is all important. A two or three step process is required as with all digital photography. Farmers Reducer can cut some contrast off already developed film. Refix & Rewash. Watch the thin areas so you do not wipe them out. I usually use a brush locally. NON METAL ferrule. Dye dodging can also be done to the shadow areas to keep them from going to dark in the scan. Kodak New Cocine Dye. A very light touch goes a LONG way. Be careful. I am sure this is a hard to get special order item. Easier to use on roll or sheet film. Instead of all this heroic salvage stuff, cut down negative contrast. Like in the darkroom, It is easy to gain contrast, hard to lose without making the image look terrible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 16, 2011 Share #5 Posted April 16, 2011 It's difficult to get truly outstanding results with anything else than a dedicated 35mm scanner. With the Epson flatbed scanners, you can more or less get by in medium format, but they just won't cut it in 35mm compared to a Nikon or Hasselblad scanner. With your current scanner, I'm therefore afraid to say that this is as good as it gets. You can certainly make some optimizationst with other negative holders or sharpening/noise removal settings, but in sum these are cosmetic remedies with limited reach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted April 16, 2011 Share #6 Posted April 16, 2011 Buy an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted April 16, 2011 Share #7 Posted April 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Agree, scanning is the weakest link. I tried the same Canon model. I was very disappointed with the results and took it back. What started out as nice clean transparency turned to fuzzy mush -- well, probably OK as a postcard print but lacking in pizazz and certainly not deserving of the top Leica lenses. In the past, I have had slides scanned professionally and found the results sometimes excellent,sometimes less so. Increasing cost and inconvenience is fast making that very difficult now. Buying a dedicated film scanner is difficult, too -- there are very few around. Current solution: film for special occasions and enjoy transparencies as they are; use digital for other occasions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted April 16, 2011 Share #8 Posted April 16, 2011 Buy an M9. Buy an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner. This one Imacon Precision Flextight II Drum Film Scanner Mint | eBay is cheaper than an M9... Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted April 16, 2011 Share #9 Posted April 16, 2011 Calumet currently have a used Imacon Flextight 848 scanner on eBay.co.UK Again, cheaper than an M9, but maybe not so high in the jewellery stakes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted April 16, 2011 Share #10 Posted April 16, 2011 When you digitize an image, a straight line "curve" is generated whether it is scanned film or from a digital camera. You need to put an S curve back if you want to simulate the older films. Your sample has to much contrast already to add more midtone contrast with an S curve is not possible. Your sample should look flat out of the scanner. I would cut the development 10/15% as a trial. Do 6 exposures, 12" of film as a test. I agree, this took me a long time to learn. What looks good from the scanner does not convert well in Photo Shop. I am finally getting color scans that look as good as the ones from my local camera store. My B&W always looked good to me. Oh, I also have a Canon 8800F. It works ok for slides, but never well for negatives. Even the low cost Plustek can knock the doors off it. Wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter58 Posted April 19, 2011 Share #11 Posted April 19, 2011 Why not try the dedicated 35mm film scanners made by Plustek? My Plustek OpticFilm 7200 dedicated filmscanner cost me $189 about 5 years ago, and they have improved the scanner and the software but the price is still around $289. They have 3 different versions called 7400 and up, don't get carried away even their cheapest scanner is very good. The Plustek models are all "dedicated 35mm film" scanners. I have been recommending htem for many years and many people have told me they are happy with them and not one person ever said they were not happy with them. They are perhaps a little slow and you can not batch scan. So what? It's the end results of each individual photograph and print that counts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted April 19, 2011 Share #12 Posted April 19, 2011 Calumet currently have a used Imacon Flextight 848 scanner on eBay.co.UK Again, cheaper than an M9, but maybe not so high in the jewellery stakes. Cheaper than an M9 Starting bid is £4,999.99 then they want P&P . I see an M9 at £4,900 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted April 19, 2011 Share #13 Posted April 19, 2011 It is difficult. Often the exposures that I imagine will make great prints don't scan as well as I expect, and the negs that look flat end up being real winners. The bit of advice which chimes best with me here is also the simplest and cheapest to implement; slightly forget how to make good negs for wet printing, and go for reduced contrast negs and work it up in Photoshop. Downsides are that it seems a bit of a shame to contrive to make "poorer" negs after years of trying to get that right, and then relying on something as nerdy as working on computers; chemistry has an elemenatlly satisfying aspect to it which getting good at Photoshop doesn't. However, there are good things about not sitting for hours in a dark and often poorly-ventilated cupboard absorbing miscellaneous chemicals; one can more easily enjoy music, and coffee, and wine and, maybe even talk to other people whilst working! Other upsides for me are that by encouraging lower contrast negs I find using HP5 or Tri-X at 200 asa in a regime of reduced development brings great things out of these films in an asa area that also allows me to use my Summaron and 35mm Elmar at f-stops that complement the lenses. Once one forgets the downs, there are lots of ups! Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted April 19, 2011 Share #14 Posted April 19, 2011 Cheaper than an M9 Starting bid is £4,999.99 then they want P&P . I see an M9 at £4,900 Chris - what he meant to say wasn't "cheaper than an M9", but "much, much better than an M9." It was a simple slip of the tongue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted April 19, 2011 Share #15 Posted April 19, 2011 It is difficult. Often the exposures that I imagine will make great prints don't scan as well as I expect' date=' and the negs that look flat end up being real winners. ...Other upsides for me are that by encouraging lower contrast negs I find using HP5 or Tri-X at 200 asa in a regime of reduced development brings great things out of these films in an asa area that also allows me to use my Summaron and 35mm Elmar at f-stops that complement the lenses. Jim.[/quote'] I am treading the same path i.e. trying to expose/develop negs to optimise them for scanning. Any recommendations for developer, time and temp to achieve lower contrast HP5 & Tri-X negs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted April 19, 2011 Share #16 Posted April 19, 2011 Any recommendations for developer, time and temp to achieve lower contrast HP5 & Tri-X negs? .......and Portra or Ektar that are to be Lab processed but home scanned? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted April 19, 2011 Share #17 Posted April 19, 2011 For TriX, try Kodak HC110 Dilution B, 6 minutes 30 seconds at 20 deg C, ten swirl agitation every 60 seconds. Rate the film at 320 ISO. Works for me. For lab processed C41, you're pretty much in the hands of the monkey operating the machine. There are very few organ grinders on the High Street these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted April 19, 2011 Share #18 Posted April 19, 2011 For TriX, try Kodak HC110 Dilution B, 6 minutes 30 seconds at 20 deg C, ten swirl agitation every 60 seconds. Rate the film at 320 ISO. Works for me. For lab processed C41, you're pretty much in the hands of the monkey operating the machine. There are very few organ grinders on the High Street these days. Will under exposure and normal monkey development give a low contrast negative? ie slightly over-rating the iso. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterchen Posted April 19, 2011 Share #19 Posted April 19, 2011 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digitale-nachbearbeitung/113742-kannste-mir-mal-einige-dias-scannen.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted April 19, 2011 Share #20 Posted April 19, 2011 Will under exposure and normal monkey development give a low contrast negative? ie slightly over-rating the iso.Pete No. You need to slightly over expose and under-develop to get TriX negatives that are dead easy to scan. C41 just goes through the machine. Decent processors are hard to find these days and I don't know whether it is possible to fiddle with the machine settings to improve negatives. Getting them back clean and unscratched would be a good start... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.