what are the reasons we shoot film today?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Doc Henry, I find the Portra 400 image to be too magenta. Not because of the film, which I love, but I suspect either the processing or scanning. Clearly I was not there so maybe it is a true representation. However I find the M9 sensor representation closer to what my eye would 'expect' in this instance.

[Doc Henry]

Doc Henry, my comments are in the thread with your photos. Whatever camera is used they're beautiful; it took me about 2 minutes in Photoshop to make the M9 version match the Portra 400 version.

 

Doug thank you for your comment.

I tried to adjust WB on the film picture and effectively there is a change in the color it looks like the picture of the M9.

But the problem is : it's not the color I've seen, this is an iron-based oxidized rock which gives the characteristic red color. This rock will give later "laterite" that people use to make roads.

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[Doc Henry]

Doc Henry, I find the Portra 400 image to be too magenta. Not because of the film, which I love, but I suspect either the processing or scanning. Clearly I was not there so maybe it is a true representation. However I find the M9 sensor representation closer to what my eye would 'expect' in this instance.

Erl thank you for your reply.

As I reply to Doug, color film reproduces the best rock I saw. I will also try to see what the M8 has given to this rock.

Not easy to adjust the color in my opinion. In general, I rarely correct my film photos. For photos printed on paper it's Tiff out of my Nikon 5000 scanner with Red Green Blue calibrated . I must always correct my pictures of M8 or M9.

Doug has a DMR with the same sensor as the M8 (CCD) (his photos of birds) , it gives a color that is very close to the film, with less "synthetic" pictures ("smoothing" the edges) as the film.

Best

Henry

Edited February 14, 2015 by Doc Henry

[wildlightphoto]

Doug thank you for your comment.

I tried to adjust WB on the film picture and effectively there is a change in the color it looks like the picture of the M9.

But the problem is : it's not the color I've seen, this is an iron-based oxidized rock which gives the characteristic red color. This rock will give later "laterite" that people use to make roads.

Best

Henry

 

If the film version is the one that's more accurate, adjust the M9 picture to match the film picture. The M9 version as originally shown is too cyan. It's a quick adjustment in Photoshop, I got an exact match. The difference isn't the capture medium, it's the processing.

[adan]

Doc - have you properly profiled your M9 with a Macbeth Colorchecker or other tool? The color accuracy Leica and Adobe provide by default is not even close to the color correctness the camera can deliver, with a dedicated profile.

[AlanG]

Doug thank you for your comment.

I tried to adjust WB on the film picture and effectively there is a change in the color it looks like the picture of the M9.

But the problem is : it's not the color I've seen, this is an iron-based oxidized rock which gives the characteristic red color. This rock will give later "laterite" that people use to make roads.

Best

Henry

 

Maybe whatever film you are using is particularly good for this color and how you remember it. When I shot custom carpets, I had to use differnt transparency films to get certain colors to look more "accurate. " Color, whether digital or film, is very selective. Relying on memory and trying to match it requires post processing whether in a darkroom or computer. After all, you are being subjectve, not scientific.

[atufte]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The KM 5400 is still the best dedicated 35mm scanner on the marked today, and i actually

have two (one brand new in the box) for the future. It's slow, but man those 40.7MP raw scans from this scanner still after over 10 years, blows me away...(and yes i used to scan with Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, but on 35mm it still can't compete with KM 5400) But why not only use Vuescan? It's works on any operating system? And no Nikon scanner users, forget it, the KM 5400 knocks the socks of your scanners aswell, although you win on speed, but sharpness, detail , DR and file size are much more important...

 

 

I like to hunt for home size color kits with long lasting chemicals. It gets more and more challenging.

 

I like to mix developers and and weigh chemicals, then wait 24 hours for it to settle down.

 

I like to disappoint customers that they must wait some to see results.

 

I love spending time making contact sheets

 

I love washing prints

 

I love having a clean sensor for each shot

 

I love spotting out all the emulsion imperfections

 

I love trying to find a way to run original software for my KM 5400 scanner on a modern computer. Think I found a way to use bootcamp on the Mac.

 

I love making a darkroom print, mating & framing, and putting it on the wall. No subcontracting to a lab. I don`t like inkjet prints and at home volume, they are very costly.

 

I like the solace of the darkroom

 

On mint M6 left and a few Nikon F2, Nikkormat, and Ft something.

[erl]

The KM 5400 is still the best dedicated 35mm scanner on the marked today, and i actually

have two (one brand new in the box) for the future. It's slow, but man those 40.7MP raw scans from this scanner still after over 10 years, blows me away...(and yes i used to scan with Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, but on 35mm it still can't compete with KM 5400) But why not only use Vuescan? It's works on any operating system? And no Nikon scanner users, forget it, the KM 5400 knocks the socks of your scanners aswell, although you win on speed, but sharpness, detail , DR and file size are much more important...

 

Atufte, I'm genuinely curious to know how you analyze the KM 5400 as 'knocking the socks off' a Nikon 5000, 8000 or 9000. They will deliver file sizes of 46+ MP or even 94 MP for a 48 bit RGB 35mm file. So what does one do with such large files? In my case I trim them down to facilitate sensible printing. As for DR, well I have yet to see the hardcopy print that looks real or normal with extended DR. It is just not natural to the human eye. Sharpness and detail, well that is debatable and subject personal preference. I will back my Nikon scanners against any image critic to say they are lacking. The most critical factor IMO is user skill, not scanner precision, but both are important. No different from using cameras. It is the hands that operate it that counts.

[atufte]

Atufte, I'm genuinely curious to know how you analyze the KM 5400 as 'knocking the socks off' a Nikon 5000, 8000 or 9000. They will deliver file sizes of 46+ MP or even 94 MP for a 48 bit RGB 35mm file. So what does one do with such large files? In my case I trim them down to facilitate sensible printing. As for DR, well I have yet to see the hardcopy print that looks real or normal with extended DR. It is just not natural to the human eye. Sharpness and detail, well that is debatable and subject personal preference. I will back my Nikon scanners against any image critic to say they are lacking. The most critical factor IMO is user skill, not scanner precision, but both are important. No different from using cameras. It is the hands that operate it that counts.

 

 

The 5000 which is the only one of the Nikon's you mentioned that are a dedicated 35mm scanner, have one major flaw, and that is the cropping (it actually crops your frame and about 2-5% of your image) The AF is not very precise which results in pour sharpness, and the file size is 4000 dpi, the KM 5400 is 5400 dpi, so it's easy match really...but the tech specs means nothing to me, what mean everything is that it has way better detail, and the whole image (+ some of the frame). I have have done several side by sides with Imacon, Nikon, and Minolta, and the Minolta wins with a good margin, at least for what my eyes desires, which in a way is the most important... I was not trying to flame Nikon/Imacon users, just wanted to give this "old horse" some kudos, since it's always talk about Nikons and Imacon, as if there where nothing else on the marked. So there you have it...it is another contender in the marked, and it's name is Minolta 5400 (not to be confused by it's younger brother the 5400 II, which has a new sensor that is not up to scratch)

 

Alex

[wattsy]

and it's name is Minolta 5400 (not to be confused by it's younger brother the 5400 II

 

How are you focussing your 5400 in Vuescan, Alex? I have this scanner and find that I have to fiddle around with the manual focus to get sharp scans. In the original Minolta software (which no longer runs in recent versions of OS X) I could use the focussing knob on the front of the scanner and watch the contrast indicator on screen. In Vuescan there is no visual representation of the manual focus point and I find I have to make repeated scans, each time changing the manual focus setting slightly until I get a scan I like. As you can imagine, doing it this way is not a quick process. I'd be interested in what you are doing to get sharp scans.

[atufte]

How are you focussing your 5400 in Vuescan, Alex? I have this scanner and find that I have to fiddle around with the manual focus to get sharp scans. In the original Minolta software (which no longer runs in recent versions of OS X) I could use the focussing knob on the front of the scanner and watch the contrast indicator on screen. In Vuescan there is no visual representation of the manual focus point and I find I have to make repeated scans, each time changing the manual focus setting slightly until I get a scan I like. As you can imagine, doing it this way is not a quick process. I'd be interested in what you are doing to get sharp scans.

 

Vuescan provides focus points which you can place anywhere you want to set your focus, it then uses

AF on the points chosen and it's pretty much dead on in focus every time...hope this helps

 

Alex

[erl]

Thank you for your response Alex. I read it with interest. The 2-5% crop of the 5000 you refer to has never occurred to me. I can't say I have been aware of it and will check out of curiosity. The reality is that 99% of my 35mm photography is with Leica M cameras which give me far greater framing inaccuracy that my scanner. Habitually I allow 'extra' framing in my shooting because of it so if the 5000 crops a bit off I certainly mostly won't complain. Probably will crop some more myself, but this is reducing it to personal preference which is not what we are examining.

 

Regarding sharpness and detail that you refer to. My simple experience is that scans printed on my Epson 3800 exceed noticeable whatever I could print in the darkroom in that regard although I still debate with myself whether darkroom prints whilst lacking DR have a mystical richness that neither exist in digital prints nor can I explain.

 

I can't say I agree with you about the lack of sharpness of the 5000, especially using VueScan. I know sharpness is one of those things that most of us assess emotionally rather than measuring it, but I am a bit anal about it myself and despite that am very happy with the 5000's performance in that regard.

Edited February 16, 2015 by erl

[wattsy]

Vuescan provides focus points which you can place anywhere you want to set your focus, it then uses

AF on the points chosen and it's pretty much dead on in focus every time...hope this helps

 

Thanks, that's how it's supposed to work. It seems that my 5400 doesn't work as well. If I allow the scanner to AF, the result is nowhere as good as if I manually focus the unit (which unfortunately is slow to do in Vuescan).

[Sailronin]

I still shoot film because there are no 4x5 digital sensors, and I couldn't afford one of it existed.

[atufte]

Ohh I see...That's no good of course, but I have two, and both work perfect this way...(I actually have owned 3 of these scanners, my first one I sold, when I thought digital was my main tool of choice a few years back, but after a while I regretted selling it and bought two, just to be safe, haha...) But my point is...all of them worked perfect in this manner so i suspect your scanner got a problem with AF, sorry to say so, but can't see any other explanation.

 

Alex

 

 

 

Thanks, that's how it's supposed to work. It seems that my 5400 doesn't work as well. If I allow the scanner to AF, the result is nowhere as good as if I manually focus the unit (which unfortunately is slow to do in Vuescan).

[wildlightphoto]

I still shoot film because there are no 4x5 digital sensors, and I couldn't afford one of it existed.

 

I can't afford them but for static subjects there's this: Digital Scanning Backs for Large Format Photography

[NJH]

The 5400 also unfortunately results in a slight crop. The holder doesn't sit dead level and results in a scan with a slight angle on it. To correct this angle means having to crop some of the frame off. Its really the only thing I don't like about it as a scanner, well OK that and the snail pace speed when scanning in colour. Its also really daft that the earlier software for my first gen 5400 doesn't support batch scanning, not sure if I really need it though as I don't mind only putting effort into the frames I really want.

 

There is a test somewhere on the net which showed its resolution is the full 5400dpi, its a ridiculous scanner really as the only film I have shot which fully utilises the available resolution is Acros. Its dead easy to verify if your scan resolution is wastefully over sampled or not just try sharpening in PP at 0.5x radius, then 1x, then 2x etc, if the finer ones don't enhance the image sharpness then there is redundant resolution. Acros scans though on my 5400 get noticeably sharper with 0.5x radius sharpening applied in Photoshop.

[atufte]

I printed the same picture scanned from Nikon 5000 and KN 5400 in 130X90 cm, (Kodak TX400), and the difference in quality/res/sharpness was VERY noticeable in KN 5400's favor... the KN5400 has sharp grain and more detail all the way up to these sizes, the Nikon 5000 does not, the Nikon as stated before seem to

have problems getting the selected area pin sharp, kinda similar to digital camera's with or without anti aliasing filters such as Nikon D800 and D800E (the D800E is WAY sharper and shows way more detail than D800) Maybe they should make a Nikon 5000E scanner, haha...

 

Try swopping to a new filmholder, because none of my holders do this...

 

Alex

 

 

The 5400 also unfortunately results in a slight crop. The holder doesn't sit dead level and results in a scan with a slight angle on it. To correct this angle means having to crop some of the frame off. Its really the only thing I don't like about it as a scanner, well OK that and the snail pace speed when scanning in colour. Its also really daft that the earlier software for my first gen 5400 doesn't support batch scanning, not sure if I really need it though as I don't mind only putting effort into the frames I really want.

 

There is a test somewhere on the net which showed its resolution is the full 5400dpi, its a ridiculous scanner really as the only film I have shot which fully utilises the available resolution is Acros. Its dead easy to verify if your scan resolution is wastefully over sampled or not just try sharpening in PP at 0.5x radius, then 1x, then 2x etc, if the finer ones don't enhance the image sharpness then there is redundant resolution. Acros scans though on my 5400 get noticeably sharper with 0.5x radius sharpening applied in Photoshop.

[andym911]

I find the 5400 too 'harsh' and contrasty and having used it for many years put it aside.

I then bought a flatbed epson and after months of 'dating' managed to get tremendous results for print.

I have spent over 20 years in graphic reproduction using scanners and this lowly flatbed is a gem to use...

I have no idea if they are still available but if they are I will buy one for spares...

 

Andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bruniroquai]

Better than Imacon? No IMO, I used to have 5400 and 848, and they're world apart, and the best I've tried was the IQSmart 3, fantastic.