Scanned Film Velvia 50 vs M8

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.... unless you have a $20,000 (minimum) drum scanner or a Imacon scanner your scan is useless except for small prints and temp layout use. Even the best Nikon scanner cannot scan a negative or slide %100 flat. Your film edges will ALWAYS be out of focus (soft)...., the edgers will ALWAYS be soft...... It is absolutely impossible to get the quality of your "capture" with a Nikon Coolscan .........

 

William - I have used Imacon scanners fairly extensively, I own a Nikon coolscan 9000, and the worst scans I have ever had were drum scans. With the Imacons, you pay heavily for the fact that the film holders work as they should and give edge to edge sharpness, but I am not yet convinced that their image sensors are necessarily superior to the Nikon. The Nikon 8000/90000 film holders are perfect examples however, of how to take a superb product and screw it up with thoughtless, uncaring, lousy design.

 

To get the best out of the Nikon scanners, work has to be done on the film holders to get them to work properly; this can involve shimming, use of anti newton's-rings glass, and wet scanning. My Nikon 9000 scanned files from roll-film are capable of producing very large prints, and I am re-scanning the negatives I previously scanned on an Imacon 848 to produce better files. The sentiments I quoted from your post are ones I have seen many times before, and whilst they can be true, they are not necessarily always true, and differ from my experience.

 

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

[Advertisement]

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

[arthury]

Just got my Velvia 100 slides back today, and the verdict, not very impressed.

Some shots taken under bright sun shows to much colour saturation. (unreal)

Shots taken on cloudy days are good.

I think Fuji designed this film to enhance Plastic lenses.

 

So from now on, it's Kodak E100G or GX simply superb with my Leica Lenses.

 

Cheers.

 

You can always desaturate in software.

[Joe Mondello]

Andy,

 

Your comparison shots remind me of the first quality digital images I ever saw which were made by Stephen Johnson back in 1994. Johnson's LF film and digital images in National Parks convinced me back then of the potential of digital imaging.

 

Thanks also for "doing the math" on 15K exposures a year! Of course you also have to factor in the extra cost of a couple of 1-terabyte external hard drives!

 

For me, the freedom of shooting digital with mature cameras like the Nikon D200 and the M8 has been a revelation. I shoot more, enjoy it more and quite frankly feel the freedom to experiment to my heart's content.

 

And the ability to now use that great older Nikkor and Leitz glass that had just been sitting on a shelf for a decade is an added bonus.

[hankg]

William - I have used Imacon scanners fairly extensively, I own a Nikon coolscan 9000, and the worst scans I have ever had were drum scans.

 

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

Drum scans require a very skilled operator which is why they sit collecting dust at many press houses while they use inferior flat bed scanners. If you can't drive a stick your manual shift Ferrari will under perform an automatic Hyundai. I've got a Scitex Eversmart which is one of the better flatbeds but if the operator is up to the task nothing can beat a drum scanner.

 

As to film versus digital. When I went from B+W to color and started doing commercial work I sold my Leicas and moved to medium format as I wasn't satisfied with the results of 35mm format color. I now use an M8 and am getting results close enough to the medium format film I shot and scanned on the Scitex to make me 100% digital. B+W is different and here it's a higher bar for digital but you can get excellent though different results from film. With B+W you may or may not find a suitable digital look to replace your film rig.

 

Whether the files look digital or film like is a function of the photographers skill in post. Through lens selection and post processing you can make color files look anyway you like.

[carstenw]

What are some opinions on the best scanner for 35mm, short of a drum scan? I am most interested in something affordable, but I am also curious what the best is regardless of price.

[hankg]

I suggest that whatever desktop scanner you get you purchase an aftermarket accessory that allows "wet mounting". It makes a huge difference in scanning small format film.

 

http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm

 

Fluid Scanning

 

As to the best scanner at any price. The Aztek is one of the few still producing a drum scanner and it is an excellent machine.

[ddp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

For me, the freedom of shooting digital with mature cameras like the Nikon D200 and the M8 has been a revelation. I shoot more, enjoy it more and quite frankly feel the freedom to experiment to my heart's content.

 

 

Joe - from what I've seen in the evolution of the Nikon line over the past 7 years, they've certainly gone a long way. But there is still much work to be done...perhaps "adolsence" would be a better term for where we are at with digital imaging right now.....

[dfarkas]

I agree completely about the skilled operator. I've used an Imacon 848 for about 5 years. It takes some serious work to get excellent results. You can't click "auto balance" and expect anything good. In fact at its worst, the Imacon is downright awful.

 

But, with a couple months of practice on hundereds of scans, the true quality of the scanner comes to light. As I often tell people, using Flexcolor software made me so much better with curves in Photoshop. You have to adjust the curve for every primary color (RGB) and secondary color (CMY) in order to get decent results. Sliders don't cut it and the Imacon profiles are rubbish.

 

If you are interested in scanning, I'd suggest you send your slides to a reputable scanning house/professional photo lab to have them done. If you add up the time and effort, in addition to the thousands in scanner costs, you'll find that paying someone else (who has much more experience) to be more cost and time effective. The old analogy is that it is cheaper to buy an airline ticket than to purchase and fly your own airplane.

 

As far as scanner recommendations, there really aren't that many choices these days. New products for film are few and far between. Simple economics, really.

 

Hope this helps in some way.

 

David

[paul chiu]

In the 90's, all I used for portraits and weddings was Velvia with my m6 and a few m lens.

 

just the 35 1.4, 90 summicron and a metz 60ct4 in the bag, it was enough for any job.

Since 2000, i went d1x and then d2x. i tried scanning the closet full of slides over a decade and i stopped after 500 or so. just too time consuming.

 

after waiting and waiting last Fall and this Winter, I finally bought home a m8 and in my very 1st session with the 15 years old 90 summicron, i knew i won't be scanning anymore velvia going forwards...

 

paul

 

 

[ChrisC]

I agree completely about the skilled operator. I've used an Imacon 848 for about 5 years. It takes some serious work to get excellent results......

 

David - At the risk of sounding neurotic, I hope that quote isn't aimed at me for voicing some concerns about Imacon. In my experience, all scanning takes serious work, and the lousy scan, and re-scans of an image made on a particular drum scanner were really

just a warning for the unwary when purchasing drum scans. And so it is with Imacon and Nikon too, experience, and attention to details show in the final scan quality.

 

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