Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dgc

Scanning negatives - which side up ?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just started developing B+W and I am using my DSLR with a macro lens to 'scan' the negatives. The images are surprisingly acceptable but by no means gallery standard.

 

My question is what side of the negative should face the lens, that is should the writing on the negative be readable or should this side be face down; the negatives lie of a Kaiser light box. I have scanned both types of images and there is not a whole lot of difference. I think I am getting confused to which side of the negative the image has been exposed and whether I should be flipping horizontally the negative in Lightroom etc

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you are doing it, you should achieve best results by shooting the emulsion side....instead of shooting through the film base itself. Of course this isn't acctually scanning, but reproducing, just like those old extension tubes for reproducing slides in the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My scanner instructions say emulsion side up - which means scanning through the film base. I have done both up and down - and I can't see any difference, which surprises me. I would have predicted problems scanning through the base, but apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image is correctly oriented when seen from the base side, which is why flat-bed scanner instructions (e.g. my Epson 3200) usually suggest doing that (there will be unsophisticated users, used to scanning prints, who won't understand why the pix are reversed if scanned from the emulsion side).

 

In THEORY, putting the EMULSION side towards the lens (whether with slide projector, enlarger, scanner or macro lens) will avoid possible halation or other artifacts from shooting through 0.3mm of plastic base - but like Michael, I've tried both, and don't see much quality difference.

 

It is also possible that the scanner focus plane is factory-adjusted for emulsion up or emulsion down, but again, I have not seen an actual difference in practice.

 

My Nikon film scanners orient the emulsion towards the lens, just like old enlargers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

 

Yes, that was my thinking that the image is correct when viewed from the base.

 

Like most things related to home digitalising there is no 'standard' that provides perfect results whether using DSLRs, flatbed or the Plustek type scanners.

 

There are numerous threads related to scanning, but I would be interested to hear if you consider flatbed scanning, particularly the Epson v700, as the way forward rather than DSLR digitalising.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread prompted me to compare the results on my Coolscan 9000. Vuescan's "Edit" setting without any adjustments. Only developed in ColorPerfect.

 

Am I imagining or is the emulsion up version a tiny bit sharper?

 

Emulsion up

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5534/9599296488_12cb85bf90_o.jpg&key=37f96502c723b630817972dcdcb6decf35858e2c1512cb56549891514f67a2f4">

 

Emulsion down

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2847/9599296736_e98f1858a8_o.jpg&key=595fd5fce2a00837c984d4cbd7ceaf7559cb23ebe43760bfe1cd78a4e3bc0b28">

 

Full image - emulsion up

 

Full image - emulsion down

 

About digitizing - there are several here who do that and get great results. I tried it with my 5D2 and the 100L macro and was pleased with what I got. But I prefer scanning as a workflow. I found the manual dust and scratch spotting on the digitized files tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would agree, it also appears more contrasty, but then I can hardly tell the difference in sharpness between images taken between a summicron or summilux lens when posted by the good folk on this site ...

 

Yes, there appears to be a surprising amount of dust in the digitalised image, which I thought would have been less doing it this way rather than on a flatbed.

 

I am often tempted to bid for a Coolscan V ED, which seem to be the most popular model on ebay, but don't seem to hear about them on this forum. Are they a poor man's Coolscan 8000/ 9000 ?

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree, it also appears more contrasty, but then I can hardly tell the difference in sharpness between images taken between a summicron or summilux lens when posted by the good folk on this site ...

 

Yes, there appears to be a surprising amount of dust in the digitalised image, which I thought would have been less doing it this way rather than on a flatbed.

 

I am often tempted to bid for a Coolscan V ED, which seem to be the most popular model on ebay, but don't seem to hear about them on this forum. Are they a poor man's Coolscan 8000/ 9000 ?

 

David

 

I have a poor mans, LS 40, for me it works very well, post in CS 4, everything

is fine, but I had to pimp the mask of the

automatic feeder, no go with out this feeder btw.

The Mask cuts parts off, from the the long sides of the negs before.

Its a must pimp.

Edited by becker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a V ED as well and it performs really well. I used mine for almost ten years before going for the more modern 9000 (which I also wanted to get MF capability).

 

The one thing I didn't like about the V was that I was never able to get Vuescan to align the frames properly. Towards the end of a 6-frame strip there would be a greater and greater slip which required more manual supervision. And I found the light source a bit harsh. Still, properly operated one can get really amazing results with the V. The LS-40s and the Minoltas will also give good results. It's a question of diminishing returns, really, all depending on what one needs and can pay for.

 

David, since you're in the UK, have a look at Ffordes's site - they tend to have various scanners, flatbed and dedicated 35mm scanners, for reasonable prices. High turnover on the stock, too, because they don't charge the upped prices of certain other sellers.

 

Cheers

Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that like most things in life, it is the care and attention of the person who is doing the scanning that makes the difference, not the cost of the equipment !

 

After your post I was a little more tempted to bid on a coolscan but I have just digitalised my first set of B+W with my DSLR & macro set up and I am quietly pleased with the quality of the reproduction given the simple set up.

 

The ones I have just digitised are below, how do you think they compare to a coolscan ?

 

All images taken with my M7 50mm Summicron or 28mm Elmarit using HP5 or Tri X and digitalised with Canon 5d Mkii at f8 with 100m macro. PP in LR3 changing tone curve, then exposure, clarity and contrast only.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the contrast is too harsh, two by the ls 40, poor mans scanner;)

APX 100 Kodak developer and one adox 100 in rodinal 1/50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They look all right to me, except the second one, which seems too dark, and the fourth one, which has a greenish tint. One can of course tweak them depending on one's preferences. Naturally these are small jpgs on the internet. But whichever route you should go will depend on your needs. If you're pleased with the results you have at the moment, then you should explore digitizing with your current setup, which is really capable. I experimented with digitizing using the 5D2 and the 100L v2 and was quite pleased - a very brief comparison between the V and the DSLR in this thread.

 

Here are some other digitizing-related sources, which you may already know of:

 

http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning

 

http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera-scan-workflow

 

Hybrid copy - British Journal of Photography

 

pekkapotka - Journal - Copying slides with OM-D and 60mm Macro

 

http://www.trippingthroughthedark.com/scanning-35mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/210808-printing-advice-please.html (same as the thread in which I posted the comparison mentioned above).

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/198474-using-dslr-digitise-color-negs.html

 

DSLR Scanner: Camera Supports and Positioning

 

If you're curious about film scanners it's not super easy to find good comparisons of dedicated 35mm scanners, drum scanners, the Imacons, and consumer/pro flatbeds.

Here's a scanner comparison thread in the German-speaking part of the forum. And here's a comparison thread of the Epson V700, the V and the 8000.

 

Cheers

Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becker and Philip many thanks for your feedback, most welcome.

I did not desaturate the 4th photo hence the tint.

 

Yes, I was a bit heavy handed with the contrast. But for a first stab in the world of darkroom and digitalising I am happy that my set up is adequate for my current needs; now I need to tweak.

 

Philip, you have solved my reading dilemma for my flight to Venezuela next week ! Many thanks for your time and effort. In fact, you have reminded me that it was your comparison in the DSLR v Coolscan V thread that convinced me to get a 100mm macro lens and digitalise using this set up. I am glad I did as I am having a lot of fun with the macro lens.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy