Scanning, is it worth it?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use (and have for several years) a Minolta film scanner. Excellent results, and I'm sure the newer models are even better. Try their web site.

Jim--welcome to the forum!

 

I don't think Minolta scanners are still available. I had some real trouble trying to get one a year ago, purchasing a refurb (the only one available), sending it for repair, learning that Sony hadn't taken on the scanner business, and finally receiving my money back.

 

Pity, too. They were excellent scanners at good prices.

 

--HC

[martinb]

Martin, it might be in the post-processing. If you keep the highlights just under blown-out on exposure, it is possible to lift the shadows in post for at least three stops compared to the standard C1 processing without losing detail and without posterisation or noise. There is much, much more in those DNG files than one would think when just running them through the rawconverter at standard settings. The M8 is different from other digital camera's in that the headroom is in the shadows. Try developing a DNG at 3 stops overexposure and see what the shadows do. If you selectively merge that with one with detailed highlights you get an incredible dynamic range. I think the S3 has a flatter native contrast, making it possible to get the whole range in one go. Leica lenses are more contrasty too.

 

It's not about post processing. I've owned several pro cameras and I know how to recover highlights and the M8 can't hold the highlights like negative or B&W film. The Fuji's can do so. Those cameras are really amazing for DR.

Apart from that the M8 is probably superior in each and every way to film, but I still love the look of film.

[Guest stnami]

Scanning can be boring, tiresome and seem useless..... so is sitting outside a courtroom waiting for something to happen......... then a couple of minutes and it is all over

Is it worth it? Well depends on if you can afford more those those couple of minutes

 

 

These days I walk with a digital and film camera, I think that my work is getting to a reasonable level now because I give myself a greater scope to think, consider and find out what is out there................ so I have to scan as well, but its ok

[ChrisC]

The Raw scan is itself slow,....[but].... you've got a Raw file with all the data to go back to any time. Hope that helps a bit.....Peter

 

Peter - Thank you for replying. I find Vuescan irritatingly clunky [but far better for me than Nikonscan], which is why the 'Raw' facility has passed me by. I'm glad you made your post, I will try that workflow next time I'm scanning. Thanks for your help.

 

...............Chris

[innerimager]

Chris- You're most welcome. I know what you mean, it's not the most intuitive interface I've seen, by a long shot. I had to read through the on line manual a few times to get a clue, and if it's been a few days between scans, still need to refer to it. Let me know how it works for you.....Peter

[grober]

The ONLY Nikon system I ever purchased, a Nikon CoolScan V, now sits in the corner gathering dust whilst I struggle to figure out M8 color balance and workflow issues.

 

BUT . . . I'll never sell the Nikon scanner 'cause there's a vast library of negatives and even a few slides yet to feel its gentle touch.

 

There are better scanners to buy but for a general purpose, easy-to-learn system, I haven't seen a better one than Nikon CoolScan.

 

-g

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apart from that the M8 is probably superior in each and every way to film, but I still love the look of film.

 

That about sums it up for me as well. Still,I don't have the patience or time to scan and the digital workfow has spoiled me for farming out my darkroom work. That leaves the M8 as only viable option...

[ddp]

It's not about post processing. I've owned several pro cameras and I know how to recover highlights and the M8 can't hold the highlights like negative or B&W film. The Fuji's can do so. Those cameras are really amazing for DR.

Apart from that the M8 is probably superior in each and every way to film, but I still love the look of film.

 

Not trying to start another flame war here...but I'm curious as to what the M8 can do that makes it superior in each and every way? I'm an extremely heavy DSLR user...but my personal experience in this realm is one of choosing tools based on need. When I can, I shoot film. If I need to, I shoot digital. Whether I am RAW processing or scanning, workflow is workflow. It all ends up being time at the computer.

 

Truth be told, I only started shooting film seriously again 4 or 5 years ago as I began to see what kind of results I was getting in certain situations...and I knew that digital wouldn't give me what I wanted. I am not going to discount the utter convenience of shooting digital and being able to adjust WB on the fly for changing light. Sometimes I simply prefer grain to noise....

[wparsonsgisnet]

Dan, the most important thing the M8 can do is allow you to use M lenses. It doesn't get any better than that. All the rest of the digital vs film, sensor vs sensor, discussion is irrelevant.

 

If one is using film, one has to scan. Shooting digital eliminates some steps.

 

I have a very beautiful Ilfochrome print 20x24 or so, purchased at a craft fair some years ago. From a 4x5 camera, it's beautiful and absolutely enrapturing.

 

I have 16x20 prints from my M8 that I like in the same way. That's what makes wine.

 

But the lenses ... to die for.

 

B/W is a totally different matter. Silver is silver. Period. I don't think digital can get there. I keep reading that the Quad RIP can do it, but that silver ....

[martinb]

Not trying to start another flame war here...but I'm curious as to what the M8 can do that makes it superior in each and every way? I'm an extremely heavy DSLR user...but my personal experience in this realm is one of choosing tools based on need. When I can, I shoot film. If I need to, I shoot digital. Whether I am RAW processing or scanning, workflow is workflow. It all ends up being time at the computer.

 

Truth be told, I only started shooting film seriously again 4 or 5 years ago as I began to see what kind of results I was getting in certain situations...and I knew that digital wouldn't give me what I wanted. I am not going to discount the utter convenience of shooting digital and being able to adjust WB on the fly for changing light. Sometimes I simply prefer grain to noise....

 

What I meant was that apart from the dynamic range that film has, the M8 is objectively superior in most ways. However, subjectively I usually prefer the look of film though.

[robertwright]

It's not about post processing. I've owned several pro cameras and I know how to recover highlights and the M8 can't hold the highlights like negative or B&W film. The Fuji's can do so. Those cameras are really amazing for DR.

Apart from that the M8 is probably superior in each and every way to film, but I still love the look of film.

 

This is what the Fuji's are known for, so I won't argue. However, the M8 is fundamentally a different camera from ALL other digital cameras due to the way the information is stored. You really have to pay attention to the highlights, and NOT clip them. The recoverability is not the same say as with a canon dslr. So the entire approach is different, it is more like slide film, get as close to overexposure as possible but not over, and then boost the midtone and shadow in post. As other people have pointed out, there is a lot of latitude there, and the noise is low. On high iso, better to pick a lower iso and boost later (ie take dark photos) to minimize noise. 640 +1 is better than 1250. 320+2 is better than both.

It is totally the opposite way to other dslr's but it works.

[ddp]

So the entire approach is different, it is more like slide film, get as close to overexposure as possible but not over, and then boost the midtone and shadow in post.

 

I have found that working this way with Nikon's DSLR's to be an effective method as well. The M8 (and DMR) stuff has far better shadow detail than what Nikon offers though.

 

Part of what happens, at least in my case - is that I become programmed to what digital files look like. They become the norm...until I shoot film and can see the difference. I just happen to like the look of film, and that's why I shoot almost all film for my own personal work. My job and most of my clients need digital, end of story. If I shoot C41, my lab simply makes hi-res scans on a CD for me....chromes, I take care of scanning. This method works fine for me as an M photographer right now. Earlier this year I added another film M to my bag - an MP3, and while the M8 was a tempting choice, I knew it wasn't right for me yet.

 

I think as time goes by and we see further improvements on the digital M line, these arguments will be more difficult to make.

[photolandscape]

I found that scanning works fine, but life is too short....

 

I completely agree. If you have a large backlog of images--several 100 or even thousands, that you want to go back to and reproduce for some reason, I'd get a scanner. I have lots of experience with the Nikon 8000ED and more recently the Epson V700, which I used to do XPan panoramic tx's. Maybe it's coincidental, but I feel the results from the V700 are every bit the equal of the 8000ED.

 

These days you can pick up a used scanner if you're careful and shop around, and reduce your investment. It think having the extra control, and being able to save a great deal vs. using a vendor for scanning, is the way to go. If you have time. Winter is approaching in New Zealand, so you're getting into the right time of year to catch up on scanning.