Scanning, is it worth it?

[bill vann]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an epson 750 i think it is excellent and have done well with 35mm but not excellent. grain/noise issues really not bad, but really not great.

 

i find high quality digital better than chrome but think that film occasionally offers advantages.

 

i've been planning to try the fluid mount which i believe will help a lot.

 

the only 35mm scans i've ever been happy with were drum scans.

 

bill

[mikeadams]

This is what I do to save time: When my local camera store processes the negatives, I get their $1.99 CD, machine scanned at 72dpi, but good enough to fill the screen and help me decide which neg frames to feed into my CoolScan V. A great time saver.

 

Mike

http://www.mikeadams.org

[wparsonsgisnet]

David, I would make 2 recommendations.

 

1. For your film, get the highest dpi film scanner you can, with the most automation. Get one for 35mm film, if that's all you shoot. You will always have the old negs and need to process them. The $1,000 you're spending on outside scanning will pay for this scanner very fast. Also, you can probably expense it in one year for business purposes.

 

2. The dynamic range of the M8 sensor is so much greater than that of film that I prefer it to film period. You can use post processing to achieve film looks.

[albertknappmd]

Two comments from me-

1. Up until a few years ago the overall "quality" of FILM and Digital be it sharpness, lack of grain, contrast or whatever marker you consider, was about equal or favored film. About 3-5 years ago, with the newer CCD sensors and the elimination of the ANTI-ALIASING FILTER (read DMR only) you saw the superiority of DIGITAL become manifest. Very few people would now argue that DIGITAL is not superior to film in most if not all possible categories/parameters....

2. I would advise that you purchase the Nikon coolscan 5000. It is fast and very very good. Plus, it is less than $1000 now.

[jaapv]

jaap,

Allthough I love the M8, I have to say that the dynamic range was one of the biggest disappointments. It may match or be better than slide film, but it isn't close to negative or B&W film. I also came from a Fuji S3 Pro which was far superior. Fuji is the only camera that can match the dynamic range of negative or B&W film apart from mf digital backs.

 

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.

[mwilliamsphotography]

"Scanning, is it worth it?"

 

Absolutely.

 

"Very few people would now argue that DIGITAL is not superior to film in most if not all possible categories/parameters...."

 

I'd be one of those "very few people".

 

I'm using a DMR and some of the best R glass; A 1DsMKII and L glass; 2 Leica M8s & ASPH glass; A Hasselblad H3D/39 both with H/C and Zeiss CFI/CFE glass; and an Aptus 75 on an RZ ... all technological wonders in their own right. Love 'em for what they do for all the different work we have, but I have yet to totally drink the digital cool-aid.

 

I still shoot film for the look that digital cannot produce. Latitude from some films is still slightly better when faced with specific lighting conditions. Most digital backs cannot be used below 32 degree F.

 

Did I mention the look of film?

 

Is excluding a range of tools from photographic expression a good idea?

 

Have people who comment on scanning invested the same amount of time in profiling and tweaking their scanning techniques as they have on the digital camera profiles and personal adjustments? ... in my experience many have not.

 

Lastly, Zeiss seems to disagree concerning film verses digital, and in fact recently stated that digital has a ways to go yet : -) I only say that because ... "surprise!" ... I happen to agree with them after looking at a bunch of 17X22 prints we just did from digital files and scans of film.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And that, Marc, is the right argument. It is all about the look, and if one prefers one look or the other makes all technical yes-no games moot.

[pklein]

I live in Seattle. I don't have an M8 (yet?). I use film M bodies and an Olympus E-1 DSLR. I use the E-1 for meanderng around my neighborhood on walks, and for family events where the goal is to get a couple hundred images on CD for family members quickly and easily. For most "serious" stuff, I still use film.

 

I send all my C41 print film to Costco. For $10.00 (US), they develop, make a set of prints, and scan the pictures to CD at about 2000x3000 pixels, six megapixels in round numbers. I ask them to "preserve highlight detail," which usually keeps them from blowing the whites. The resulting 6 megapixel JPGs can be worked on in an image editor as long as the curve adjustments aren't really drastic. The quality is good enough for up to 5x7, which is the size I often enlarge to and print at at home. So I have prints for family members, can make bigger prints myself, and my negatives are still available. For 8x10 or 11x14, I rescan the negs myself on a Canon FS4000 (4000 dpi 35mm film scanner) using VueScan software.

 

For "real" black and white, I use a pro lab called Panda. For $15, they will do the same thing as Costco, developing the B&W film in Xtol. Again, if I want to make big enlargements, I rescan specific images myself.

 

If I had an M8 or one of the current crop of medium to high end 10 megapixel DSLRs, I would probably use them more often and film less. Especially the M8, which appears to take resolution and acutance to a new level, despite its quirks.

 

I just went to Florida for a week. I could have taken my E-1 or my OM-2 and some lenses, and had macro and telephoto capability. But when it came to deciding what to take, I chose my M6 and 21, 35, 50, and 90mm lenses. As I almost always do. I'm just an RF kind of guy, I guess. Small, light cameras, impecable, fast optics, and less between me and what I'm trying to photograph.

 

My take is that the new crop of 10 megapixel and above cameras, pro and prosumer, approach film quality. 5 or 6 megapixel cameras don't if there is a lot of fine detail in the picture. ISO 400 color negative film is still the dynamic range champ. If you're comparing Provia or E100 slide film with high-end DSLR, then it's a real contest. Who wins depends on whether you like a little texture in your images or not. To some degree the issue is generational--older people often like a little grain that adds to the perception of texture and detail, younger people often like baby's-bottom smooth at the expense of sharpness.

 

Doug Herr's bird pictures with the DMR show what a high-end digital is capable of, especially when the manufacturer takes the stupid anti-aliasing filter away. You occasionally get a little moire, but you get an order of magnitude greater acutance, visible on a print.

 

The above is based on actually looking at people's high-res pictures, not on "scientific" measurements, which often don't tell the full story. The proof of the pudding is in the print, not in pixel-peeping on the monitor. That said, if you look at an image on the monitor at 50% magnification (2:1 rather than 1:1), it gives a pretty good idea of the level of detail you're going to have at an 8x10 or letter size print. At 100%, you're looking at stuff you'll never see until you get to at least 11x14 or 16x20--and maybe not even then, since you view such prints from farther away.

 

Re. scanning, I had a sobering experience a couple of months ago. I shot a cello recital with my M6 and a 90 classic Summicron. Available light only, on Neopan 1600 rated 800, developed by the pro lab in Xtol and scanned at 6 megapixels. I later scanned a couple of the frames at 4000 dpi (about 24 megapixels). The home scans looked much smoother in terms of tonal transition, but there was no more detail in them than in the 6 megapixel lab scans. And when I printed them both letter size with a bit of cropping, there was virtually no visible difference on matte paper.

 

On the other hand, my Leica film shots were overall better than shots taken by someone with a Canon DSLR. Not as smooth, but more apparent content. Canon may have low-noise at 1600, but we've got f/2 and f/1.4 lenses to die for.

 

--Peter

[stunsworth]

Film looks different to digital. If you prefer the look of film then there's absolutely no reason not to shoot film and have it scanned. When I compare the images from my M8 to scanned negatives the M8 is technically superior in the areas of colour fidelity (yes honestly :-), grain/noise and rendering of detail, it almost has an 'MF' look to it. _But_ it doesn't look like film and if that's the look you're after then only film will do.

[ddp]

Scanning is certainly worth it. I've shot stuff over the past year that I know wouldn't have the same impact if I had shot it digitally...and that's enough for me.

 

Marc as usual makes several lucid points in a debate that sometimes gets ugly....

[xrogers]

I'm sitting beside three scanners---yes, I think it is worth it to scan. Get a Nikon film scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan V that I use for my 35mm work. It is reported to give the same quality output as the 5000, but is about half as fast, and cannot use the roll film adapter. The output is excellent, and for under $500, it is a great bargain. If speed is important, though, get the 5000.

 

From even the best equipment, the quality of scans varies widely, and appears to depend on the operator's skill. Expect to put in some time to learn how to get optimal scan results. Once you get things dialed in, it's simple to get excellent results.

 

35mm scans on the typical flatbed are not in the same league as the Nikon (but I can't speak for the new Epson V7xx scanners). The flatbed is ideal for scanned contact sheets.

 

Certain black and white films have unbelievable dynamic range---it seems about impossible to blow a highlight using tmax 100 in Xtol. I wish digital could do that. And tri-x beats a Canon 8Mp DSLR for fine detail on a 13x20 (although the detail is amid lots of grain...but if it's sharp and even, the grain itself is beautiful).

 

For color, I've left film behind. The M8 is fantastic for black and white too, but I still have to load up the M6 or the Mamiya now and again.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

[mwilliamsphotography]

Scanning is not for the impatient or deficient of RAM.

 

The trick to scanning is to work just as hard as digital shooters do in perfecting your film profiles, and then it's a lot easier after that. Sort of like getting your darkroom rhythm down pat.

 

And make sure you have enough RAM in your computer to enable you to be scanning one shot in the background while working on another previously scanned frame in PhotoShop ... or to be doing something else ( I cruise forums and goof off : -). Watching the scan bar is like watching for a pot of water to boil.

 

Last year I got fed up with so much digital computer time, and bite the bullet for a Imacon 949, which IS the fastest scanner out there. Amazing what you can pull out of film with that monster.

 

I don't do much 35mm film anymore except B&W. Most all the color stuff is digital from the Canons and M8s ... but MF is a completely different story. Love MF color and B&W. Just bought 50 rolls of different MF films from Freestylephoto.biz ... can't wait to shoot them : -)

[wparsonsgisnet]

No one has mentioned it yet, but the scanning interface I would recommend would be Ed Hamrick's VueScan. This under-$100 software is the best interface with a scanner that you can get. Also, you get upgrades forever at the original price.

 

Go to Hamrick.com and check it out. You can get a afull-featured trial download that has all the functionality of the software. It puts a grid in the image. When you but it, the serial number disables the grid.

 

Absolutely great stuff.

[matofthemint]

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.

[innerimager]

After only shooting digitally for 5 years, this Leica thing got under my skin and I added an M7 to the mix. I got the Epson 5000, and as Bill mentions, the excellent VueScan program. I can't exactly say if it's "worth it", so many variables here. My thoughts at this early stage are as follows

1. as many have said, film looks different, even scanned film. I like the look a lot.

2. the years of digital workflow help me get my head around scanning. For instance, I love VueSCan's feature of doing a "Raw" scan. This puts all the CCD data on your drive. You then can rescan from the file and get it how you want in a fraction of the time. This is a lot like shooting Raw and using a converter before final photoshop processing.

3. It takes a LOT of time. Man, I'm spoiled by the all digital workflow.

4. How am I gonna organize all the film negatives? The ONLY thing in my life that resembles "organized" are my hard drives! I'm really good with that, really awful at things that occupy 3 dimensions when it comes to putting them away. If you don't hear from me for 1 month at any time, send someone to my home and dig me out from the film cave I'm in. ;>)

yeah...it's "worth it" best....Peter

[NZDavid]

Quite a few votes for the Nikon. Someone else also mentioned Plustek, which I hadn't heard of. The digital v film argument still rages! I have nothing against digital, it's just that I still like using my film cameras. The scanner still looks worthwhile, even alongside digital.

[HaraldL]

I sold all film stuff, except the scanner. It does have some learning curve and I there's something as the art of scanning as well as printing, it's not just pushing buttons. It's a nice way to create the images you want (and not your shop).

[ChrisC]

2. .... I love VueSCan's feature of doing a "Raw" scan. This puts all the CCD data on your drive. You then can rescan from the file and get it how you want in a fraction of the time. .......r

 

Peter - I too switched to Vuescan, but every time I go back to it I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel, which is why I've not investigated 'Raw' scans. My large scans seem to take forever, is scanning for the 'Raw' data quicker than using processing settings in Vuescan? I'd be grateful if there is any more you could add about 'Raw' scanning.

 

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

[wparsonsgisnet]

I will echo one of Peter's comments.

 

I, too, really like the automatic organization that digital negs give me.

 

I kept my film negs by date, writing subjects on the top of the file sheet, but it was often difficult to find a particular neg or subject.

 

Man, all my diginegs are in files with subject names on them. If I get even more stupid than I am, the windoze search function will find them.

 

Plus I have offsite backup of the "original" negative. How cool is that: multiple original negatives?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[innerimager]

Peter - I too switched to Vuescan, but every time I go back to it I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel, which is why I've not investigated 'Raw' scans. My large scans seem to take forever, is scanning for the 'Raw' data quicker than using processing settings in Vuescan? I'd be grateful if there is any more you could add about 'Raw' scanning.

 

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

Hey Chris- The Raw scan is itself slow, even slower than output scans especially when they are reduced in size. But you can scan Raw, doing other things, and save to files. Then, you scan the files, this is very fast, and do your corrections in much faster time. Meanwhile you've got a Raw file with all the data to go back to any time. Hope that helps a bit.....Peter