Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am quite interested in understanding if using an M6 and film with a scanner would provide an alternative to my M9-P.

 

It would be part interest and part alternative. Probably B&W mostly, possibly Fuji Velvia and would like to know :

 

  1. What scanner would be the best option to 'equal' the quality of my M9-P
  2. Is there a HUGE learning curve with technique/experience etc (Scanning/process)
  3. I only want to use LR and actively avoid photoshop is this possile (I don't own PS)
  4. I print A2 and would want to make prints this or larger
  5. How data heavy are scanned negatives in comparison

Many Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite interested in understanding if using an M6 and film with a scanner would provide an alternative to my M9-P.

 

It would be part interest and part alternative. Probably B&W mostly, possibly Fuji Velvia and would like to know :

 

  1. What scanner would be the best option to 'equal' the quality of my M9-P
  2. Is there a HUGE learning curve with technique/experience etc (Scanning/process)
  3. I only want to use LR and actively avoid photoshop is this possile (I don't own PS)
  4. I print A2 and would want to make prints this or larger
  5. How data heavy are scanned negatives in comparison

Many Thanks

 

I think the first difference you will notice is the time it takes compared to your M9P, especially if you are going to develop yourself. I develop some of my B&W myself, but none of my color negatives. I bought a scanner because, although the negative processing was fine, I was not happy with the quality of the scans I was getting from the local processor (scratches, dust, imperfections that were not on the negatives). There is a pro-processor nearby that charges a reasonable $7/roll and does a very nice job, but he charges an extra $1.00 per frame to scan the negatives! So, I bought a scanner and here's my thought process and experience:

 

I bought a Canon 9000F Mark II flat bed scanner ($190), because it is inexpensive, uses LED's and thus has virtually no startup time, will scan MF as well as 35mm (3-6x6 and 12-35mm), various resolution on negatives up to 9600dpi, auto-crop, scratch and dust removal... and many more features. My thinking is that although it probably won't match IQ of my M9, it will work very well for all of my web images and almost all of my prints(I'm satisfied with the 16x20 prints I'm getting). And rather than spend $2000 on a near-professional scanner, I can take the few negatives I need professionally scanned down to the pro graphics shop (or send them away) and pay them to scan them with a drum scanner. And if this plan doesn't work out for some reason, I have only invested the $190 in the scanner. But, I am happy with the scanner. It works great and is straightforward and easy to use.

 

There is a learning curve. The new scanners do a pretty good job of exposing the negative with a decent histogram to work with, but I found I had to play around with the settings to get files that I'm happy working with. I have found a lot of tweaking necessary. The scanners will allow you to preview the image and make some adjustments to exposure, levels and curves, but I just make sure all the data is within the histogram and leave the rest to LR and PS. I have found that my results are much better working on the files in LR and PS than letting the scanner make adjustments.

 

Lightroom should work with all of these files. At least the Canon, Nikon, Epson scanners I have used output to standard tiff and jpeg files that LR recognizes. Lightroom does have a maximum file size, but I have hit it only once in a ridiculous experiment scanning a MF file in color at 9600dpi. Photoshop will take such large files though. The Canon scanner (and others I'm sure) can be configured to send the images straight to LR if you want.

 

The scanned files can be big or not so big... depends on your settings. I am typically scanning my 35mm BW negatives at 2400 dpi in 16bit grayscale to tiff files. These are around 25-30MB, but a comparable color image at 48bit comes in at 100MB give or take a little (IIRC). I like the tiff format because it gives me the most latitude in post processing, but if you want to save space you can alway scan to jpeg.

 

Bottom line for me: It is hard to match IQ of my M9 even when I have the negatives professionally scanned, especially the color negatives. Black and White on the other hand is a bit more rewarding. I'm not sure I'm actually matching the IQ, but I do like the look of some of the b&w film images better. I probably would not have gone down the scanner road just for 35mm, but I have a Mamiya 6 MF that helped me decide.

 

I hope this helps. Good luck.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) it depends on indoor/outdoor % you would like to take with slide film. Slide will never produce good quality results in indoor photos. With digital M (I am using M9) it is always a predictable good result, since i use white balance disk to set WB manually. I do not need even any adjustment in PS.

2) BW will be always better with film+scanning but only with a good scanner. I use Nikon 8000 ED (if you use just 35mm film Nikon 5000 would be enough).

3) If you use film body, you will hardly experince with focus shift open wide.

4) Nikon Scan do not require any special learning. Everything is relatively simple and easy

5) PS is a must

 

Hope it helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) it depends on indoor/outdoor % you would like to take with slide film. Slide will never produce good quality results in indoor photos. With digital M (I am using M9) it is always a predictable good result, since i use white balance disk to set WB manually. I do not need even any adjustment in PS.

2) BW will be always better with film+scanning but only with a good scanner. I use Nikon 8000 ED (if you use just 35mm film Nikon 5000 would be enough).

3) If you use film body, you will hardly experince with focus shift open wide.

4) Nikon Scan do not require any special learning. Everything is relatively simple and easy

5) PS is a must

 

Hope it helps.

 

Many Thanks, Can I use LR only, I really don't want to use PS ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite interested in understanding if using an M6 and film with a scanner would provide an alternative to my M9-P.

 

It would be part interest and part alternative. Probably B&W mostly, possibly Fuji Velvia and would like to know :

 

  1. What scanner would be the best option to 'equal' the quality of my M9-P
  2. Is there a HUGE learning curve with technique/experience etc (Scanning/process)
  3. I only want to use LR and actively avoid photoshop is this possile (I don't own PS)
  4. I print A2 and would want to make prints this or larger
  5. How data heavy are scanned negatives in comparison

Many Thanks

 

1. None, in the conventional sense. Your M9 will always make a 'finer' image than any film or scanner combination in 35mm. There are very good and not too expensive scanners from Plustek that will make an excellent scan from 35mm. But while the film image can have a wide dynamic range you will still need to embrace a more graphic approach to image making, just as people did in the days of the darkroom. So very fine grain and very sharp pictures are more for medium format and large format, 35mm is about accepting grain and using it.

 

2. To get the most out of any scanner you need to understand its software, but essentially if you know how histograms work and know what clipping points are you are halfway to being a good scanner technician. There are always tricks to learn though.

 

3. Lightroom is OK. In many ways it is simply Photoshop 'lite', with simpler adjustments possible, but if you added Silver Efex Pro as a plugin you would have a formidable B&W armoury.

 

4. You can print a 35mm scanned file as big as you like, from any good scanner, but you need to stand further back to look at it. Stand a foot away and you are only going to see grain. It has always been this way, very large museum and exhibition prints from 35mm negs have always been printed large on the assumption that the viewer is going to be the other side of a room. On the other hand you have photographers who make a point of grain and don't hide from it. This is possibly the best course of action.

 

5. A greyscale TIFF file scanned at 3600 dpi will be approximately 31mb as it comes from the scanner at 100% size (the size of the neg). But post processing is better done in RGB so after converting to RGB, resizing your TIFF to (say) 360 dpi at the size you want a 12x16 picture would for instance be in the region of 89mb. So two separate hard drives are really needed, one to use as the main drive, and one as your backup drive, but these are pretty cheap nowadays. Your pc will also need to have plenty of RAM available and ideally work in 64bit.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film and Digital are two different mediums. Both make photographic images but in very different ways and with very different results.

 

You can use software to make your digital images look a bit like they were taken on film, or you can use film and get the true 'film look'.

 

I've never heard anyone ask how can they get their watercolour paintings to look like they were made with oils.

 

If you want to use film, embrace its characteristics and forget about comparing it to your digital camera.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken, it is on the assumption that a traditional photographic print has never been 'greyscale', the emulsion and paper base as always added a tone/hue of some sort, either warm or cool. To replicate the rich subtleties of a traditional print in an inkjet image the file needs to be in RGB and a subtle tone added. But you first need to understand the paper you are printing on, does it have a warm or cool tone to start with, or is it a very neutral inkjet paper. With this in mind you can choose the type of tint to add to the image. It is what makes the difference between a digital looking greyscale image and a darkroom print, but in addition the more sophisticated B&W software, like Silver Efex Pro only work in RGB. I'm not saying an image needs to be sepia or anything, the tone can be very subtle, but if you are doing large prints you may as well go to the ultimate effort.

 

Steve

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken, it is on the assumption that a traditional photographic print has never been 'greyscale', the emulsion and paper base as always added a tone/hue of some sort, either warm or cool. To replicate the rich subtleties of a traditional print in an inkjet image the file needs to be in RGB and a subtle tone added. But you first need to understand the paper you are printing on, does it have a warm or cool tone to start with, or is it a very neutral inkjet paper. With this in mind you can choose the type of tint to add to the image. It is what makes the difference between a digital looking greyscale image and a darkroom print, but in addition the more sophisticated B&W software, like Silver Efex Pro only work in RGB. I'm not saying an image needs to be sepia or anything, the tone can be very subtle, but if you are doing large prints you may as well go to the ultimate effort.

 

Steve

 

Thanks Steve. Very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Film is fun and that is the only reason to use it. The M9 file will look better in a print.

 

I recently scanned a 20 year old neg made on TMax 100 developed in D76. The print is beautiful and has been on a wall a very long time. It was made on a V35 Leica Enlarger.

 

Someone needed a quick print and a scan was the best option today. My Minolta 5400 picked up grain, dust , minor scratches, and other blemishes I never saw in an 11x14" print.

The retouch time was an hour to get it all. Whether it would have all shown in a print is unknown.

 

If you think all the grain can be lessened with noise reduction, think again. They seen to be different animals. There used to be a program called Grain Surgery and Kodak made a specialty one. No idea if they are still available.

 

My film developing technique has improved to where I practically use a sterile darkroom, 3 micron filtered water, Hepa air filters. Full compliment of clean glass bottles and fresh chemicals. Still some spots appear. I must assume they are emulsion coating defects.

Commercially developed film by prolabs is even worse.

 

People tout Light Room and I have a copy. It is the same a PS ACR. Nice and vastly improved, but the finer controls available in Photoshop are vastly superior. People will say I am wrong and I will not get into a contest.

 

You want to have M9 files look like film, just add some grain and curves. Grain can be adjusted to be monochromatic or colored , sharp or soft, large or small. Then use the blend if mode to keep the grain located to the mid tones like real film. Be sure to split the sliders to smooth the transitions. Guaranteed you will not tell it from your favorite film.

 

I am not anti film. My darkroom is still open. Leica enlargers to 4x5 all still work. But if you want a digital file, use a digital camera.

 

As far as file size goes, a high rez file from my 5400 is 70 MB, around 3 times the size of a M9 file. It shows fantastic detail in the scan.

 

If you want an older look, pick up some older Leica glass. Summirit, Summitars, elmars, all look good on the M9.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this meandering post will assist at all but here are my thoughts, fwiw.

 

 

[*]What scanner would be the best option to 'equal' the quality of my M9-P [*]I print A2 and would want to make prints this or larger

 

You did say "quality" - not resolution - and, well, film just looks better, sorry, different so that's something to accept and embrace. You either like it or not.

 

I know that my film images with modern Leica glass are typically sharper than those I've taken with my Canon L lenses (generalising here; there are excellent L primes, too). While you can obtain very high resolution results with film (Puts has a page on it and there's also this interesting thread started by Andy Piper a few years ago comparing film scans and the M9), that is not really why one would use 35mm film.

 

Personally, I use a Coolscan 9000 and a Coolscan V and I am very happy with the images I get from these. The 9000's softer light source results in significantly better scans overall, however, but the V is no slouch when used properly. I have yet to print A2 (my largest is A3+) but my scanners will produce scans that can be printed large. In any event, these scanners will outperform a consumer flatbed (though some older professional flatbeds will likely outperform the Coolscans - perhaps someone has experience with the Nexscans? I've always been curious about those). I don't think I am wrong when I say the Canon 9000F Mark II scanner will not have a practical resolution of 9600dpi.

 

There is, which you may have seen, quite a discussion about the new Plustek Opticfilm 120, which many hope will be the saviour of the scanner market. Sadly it uses fix focus (rather incredible imho) and there have been quite a number of posts over at RFF about out of focus scans. Plustek is however actively working on solving these issues, it seems.

 

One thing not to be overlooked is digitizing images using a DSLR. I tried it with my 5D2 and the 100L and it worked quite well actually but dust was a real pain. Digital ICE is a blessing and saves lots of time (and, yes, I know it degrades the image a bit, but it is a trade-off I am willing to take; speaking of digitial ICE the 9000's ICE function is much better than the V's, fwiw). I believe Dirk (menos) digitizes and has posted very helpful info in this forum.

 

You could also consider Imacons, which exist in various price ranges, older Precision models (the III has firewire, I believe, the II has scsi) are really quite affordable (but old). The 343 would be a better buy. Then prices go Up. Personally I've always been curious about the 646 which has autofocus. The 848 would be nice but they cost a lot.

 

Btw here are a few scanner-related links that I've accumulated over the years:

 

Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

 

Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison

 

Hasselblad Flextight 343 vs Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED | W.T.B

 

A Comparison of Various Film Scanners and Digital Captures

 

http://www.phootos.com/library/imacon~2.pdf

 

    d i v e d e e p:___PrimeFilm 120

 

Two interesting Yahoo groups are the 8000-9000 Coolscan group and the Hi-End Scanning group.

 

Lastly, wet mounting, which is something I'm looking into. That is possible with the 8000 and 9000 and also with some flatbeds I believe. plasticman started a thread not long ago about it. The results I have seen are really quite impressive (plus wet mounting does deal with dust quite well I believe).

 

[*]Is there a HUGE learning curve with technique/experience etc (Scanning/process) [*]I only want to use LR and actively avoid photoshop is this possile (I don't own PS)

 

Nikon Scan isn't terribly complicated, and has a pretty OK manual, but the last Mac OS it works on is Snow Leopard. Vuescan is my preferred choice and that has quite an array of settings (and a less than perfect interface). I have obtained very good scans with both, from both Canon and Leica cameras. The thing is that the learning curve doesn't end with the scan software, though. Personally I used ColorPerfect - a Photoshop plugin - to "develop" my colour neg scans (which are inverted as they come out of Vuescan. CP adds further adjustment possibilities (which I know are available also in Photoshop; I just prefer CP) but it is not an insurmountable learning curve at all. Photoshop is Photoshop.

 

Btw I do find Photoshop essential to post-processing film scans. That said, you could easily use CS3, as opposed to the latest versions. While I agree with Tobey that noise reduction cannot remove grain (and - as a tangent - why would one want to do that?), the noise reduction filter can be used to make grain monochromatic which in some images improves darker areas.

 

[*]How data heavy are scanned negatives in comparison

 

My colour scans at Vuescan's Edit setting (which I believe is one below the max 4000dpi of the Coolscans - and they have "real" resolution of about 4000) gives TIFFs of about 20-25 MB ( b/w scans are typically 18MB). In Photoshop they grow quite a bit depending on what I do with them (layers etc). As always, plenty of RAM is key for a smooth Photoshop experience, as is a dedicated scratch disk.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider carefully. Your choice of scanner is potentially the weakest link in your imaging chain and you also need to weigh-up the long term viability of the scanner and possible resale value against your investment in your camera gear.

 

The Nikon 8000 & 9000 are both popular because they are good scanners. A couple of caveats: only available used with questionable support and are overpriced. You are into the realm of Imacon 343 and possibly 646 for about the same or little more outlay with the additional benefit of continued Hasselblad support for machines that were built for long term use. Better construction, better scanning path, and better workflow with more choice of formats from 35mm to 5x7" (646).

 

If there is a downside to Imacon, it is because they are (still) ccd scanners and even with the current discount on X1 & X5, the new cost makes some used and still-supported drum scanners a better proposition if you have the room and hardware.

 

You really need to understand that scans from 35mm, especially negative film, will not compare with the file quality you get from your M9 for a number of reasons, not least of all because they are incomparable imaging processes and you may be disappointed in the early stages. You will have to invest a considerable amount of time and effort into scanning and post production and learn how to extract the best from your frames and your scanner. It might be best if you beg, borrow or buy a basic film scanner to try it all out before making the main investment.

 

As you say you are hoping to print to A2 and larger from 35mm originals, and it is possible, you will find that medium and large formats will yield scans on another quality level, so you might want to factor-in the cost of buying an Alpa and an Ebony with a few backs and lenses. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2 pence worth:

 

When i got my M8, it was a replacement for my Canon 60D that would work in the same way as the M6 TTL i loved shooting with, and use the same lenses, but would still be my secondary camera. It wasn't until i shot the same landscape image with TriX on my M6 and ISO 320 on my M8 with the same lens, that i realised the difference. Scanned at 24mp with my Plustek, there was significantly more detail in the 10mp M8 shot than the TriX. I was shocked. A better scan wouldn't have changed the fact that it was the film grain that had cut the detail so much.

 

Okay, i could have used ISO 100 film and got as good a result, but the point was it was at 400. My M8 was essentially a centre crop of my M9's sensor, so for the same FOV, i consider the M8 to be at least as good and the M9 to be superior. For TriX, that is.

 

I can post two 100% crops for comparison if you really like, i'm sure someone could pull it apart, but for me, it was pretty straightforward.

 

This was the scene, btw, shot at f8

 

7362714276_620abb841f_c.jpg

The Road to Ruin by Cris Rose, on Flickr

Edited by CrisRose
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

for which one have You decided finally?

 

I'm thinking the same, MP or MM... I saw scans with my Imacon 848, with MF which are impressive, nothing really touch them in feeling, but man the scan process is a pain in the ass.

 

Who can earn money these days with film? 1 of 1.000.000 I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have the same problem but there doesn't seem to be anything between the low end of the market and Imacon. I have heard of a lot of focus problems with plustek, and I am not willing to buy a used Nikon off eBay. Imacon is way too expensive. So I have done nothing other than occasionally troll the web hoping for a quality scanner in the $2 - $4000 range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite amazing really...in 2015, of all progress, in all kinds of electronics, that there isn't an exc. scanner for all of us to use on what must be billions of negatives/slides we all have. You'd think someone would see this untapped market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...