MikeMyers Posted January 9, 2021 Share #1 Posted January 9, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) I decided it would be enjoyable to buy some 35mm b&w film, and put my old M3 to use. The plan is to shoot the film, get the images developed somewhere, then scan them with an Epson V500Photo Scanner. The images would be processed in DxO PhotoLab 4. For starters, one lens - 50mm collapsible Summicron. Film will be Ilford Delta 100, 24 exposure rolls. I don't think I have shot film in maybe 15 years, maybe longer. My last film camera was a Nikon F4, which replaced an F2. I've got an M3 and a M2, but I love the viewfinder on the M3. For metering, I need to remember how to use my Sekonic. For anyone doing something similar, what resolution might be appropriate for scanning the images. I'm thinking 2400 dpi. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/316851-leica-m3-images-to-be-scanned/?do=findComment&comment=4115245'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2021 Posted January 9, 2021 Hi MikeMyers, Take a look here Leica M3, images to be scanned. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
spydrxx Posted January 9, 2021 Share #2 Posted January 9, 2021 What do you plan to do with the pictures and how much storage space do you have? I've typically taken the approach of only scanning the "keepers". Many folks scan their keepers and keep TIFF files...convert and downsize only for prints or onscreen viewing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew01 Posted January 9, 2021 Share #3 Posted January 9, 2021 If you are going to send off the film for development you may as well ask the lab to scan as well, since scanning 35mm is quite a faff. Many labs can do this now. I ask for medium resolution jpegs for my films, which are 18Mb each. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #4 Posted January 10, 2021 53 minutes ago, spydrxx said: What do you plan to do with the pictures and how much storage space do you have? I've typically taken the approach of only scanning the "keepers". Many folks scan their keepers and keep TIFF files...convert and downsize only for prints or onscreen viewing. What to do with the photos? For the best, post them on my gallery, m.smugmug.com For the rest, ignore most of them I'm not sure I understand you - the best will be scanned as tif files. The rest I don't expect to do anything with them, other than store the negatives. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayD28 Posted January 10, 2021 Share #5 Posted January 10, 2021 I scan my keepers at 3600 DPI using a Plustek 8100 and Silverfast. I turn off unsharp mask and adjust the histogram to get a relatively flat export. I then upload the export into LR and do my PP. I personally want files with lots of data that I can use in PP and then export at lower resolution for web. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #6 Posted January 10, 2021 47 minutes ago, RayD28 said: I scan my keepers at 3600 DPI using a Plustek 8100 and Silverfast. I turn off unsharp mask and adjust the histogram to get a relatively flat export. I then upload the export into LR and do my PP. I personally want files with lots of data that I can use in PP and then export at lower resolution for web. Ray, we have a discussion going on about things like this in the DxO PhotoLab 4 forum. Can I copy what you wrote into that forum? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayD28 Posted January 10, 2021 Share #7 Posted January 10, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 7 hours ago, MikeMyers said: Ray, we have a discussion going on about things like this in the DxO PhotoLab 4 forum. Can I copy what you wrote into that forum? Sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted January 10, 2021 Share #8 Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) For black and white I photograph the negatives with my CL on a former slide duplicator. The lens on the duplicator is Schnieder Componon, designed for slide duplication, a very nice lens for the job. I like these results better than scanning, my Epson V700 maxes out at between 2400dpi and 3200dpi. It is best (sharpest) at 1800dpi, so with the CL I get a little larger file, DNGs do really well with Adobe ACR and PhotoShop. After having used Leicas since college, my M3 fit right into my hand, it was all muscle memory. I mostly use digital, but I enjoy taking out the M3. I did not have good luck with labs processing my b&w, so I set up at home, again all muscle memory, much nicer negatives.. Edited January 10, 2021 by tommonego@gmail.com 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #9 Posted January 10, 2021 1 hour ago, tommonego@gmail.com said: I did not have good luck with labs processing my b&w, so I set up at home, again all muscle memory, much nicer negatives.. In what way were the negatives poor, compared to doing your own? Were they damaged? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradS Posted January 10, 2021 Share #10 Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) 49 minutes ago, MikeMyers said: In what way were the negatives poor, compared to doing your own? Were they damaged? In my experience, labs usually develop B&W negatives to a higher contrast than I do when doing it myself. It’s not a big deal if they also make the prints but it makes the negs harder for me, with my meager darkroom skills, to print at home. fwiw, I agree with others...if you’re going to have a lab develop the film, you may as well have them scan it too. Edited January 10, 2021 by BradS Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #11 Posted January 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, BradS said: fwiw, I agree with others...if you’re going to have a lab develop the film, you may as well have them scan it too. That was my plan, until I got talked out of it. For me, it comes down to how much data the scanned files would have. A professional lab would probably do this just fine, and I expect I would be pleased, but I also expect those huge scans would cost more. Chances are that even with film, I might take two or three frames of essentially the same scene, just as I do with digital, and then later decide which one I want to go with. If I do my own scans, that's maybe three full, complete high resolution scans, meaning 16 images would be passed over out of 24. I don't really know what my objective is in shooting film. I used to think that I want to get a good enough image to be able to print it 16x20, and get a good, high-quality image. That means a LOT more resolution. But since I rarely print any more, a more realistic answer is I want to end up with an image that would look good on a 27inch computer display, hopefully even the new high resolution displays by Apple. I've got an Epson V500Photo scanner. I will test two images, one at 2400 ppi resolution, and the other at 4,000 ppi, and compare them. I'm very new at this, and learning more every day. I hope the limit to resolution will be my maybe 70 year old collapsible Summicron 50mm lens. I have a newer (but still very old) fixed 50mm Summicron to compare it to. For that matter, I also have my Nikon F4 and F2 cameras, and maybe the highest quality film camera I own, a Zeiss Contarex, with the stock 50mm lens that everyone thought was so good "back in the day". I guess I have lot of "stuff", but I am most excited to get back to my old Leica days, so long ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradS Posted January 10, 2021 Share #12 Posted January 10, 2021 A 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is asking/expecting a lot, no matter what equipment & method is used. I don't think the 50mm Summicron (assuming that it is in good condition) is gonna be the limiting factor. The lens , camera and (fresh Kodak, Ilford or Fuji) film are far more capable than the scanner. The scanner and the technique of the operator will determine the limits in the process you're contemplating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #13 Posted January 10, 2021 26 minutes ago, BradS said: A 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is asking/expecting a lot, no matter what equipment & method is used. I don't think the 50mm Summicron (assuming that it is in good condition) is gonna be the limiting factor. The lens , camera and (fresh Kodak, Ilford or Fuji) film are far more capable than the scanner. The scanner and the technique of the operator will determine the limits in the process you're contemplating. Ouch. If that is correct, it's something I never considered. I assumed the if the negative was good, scanning is just something "mechanical". I was very happy with the 16x20 prints made by a professional lab 25 years ago, with color negatives from my Nikon F4. I guess I'm going to stop thinking about this, and do the best I can, and see how well it works out. As for the scanner, my Epson V500PHOTO has limitations, and my own capabilities could be described in one word: Novice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted January 10, 2021 Share #14 Posted January 10, 2021 vor 4 Stunden schrieb MikeMyers: In what way were the negatives poor, compared to doing your own? Were they damaged? Too high contrast, highlights blocking up. Using TMax 400 and 100, have had the problem before. Found my tanks, got some TMax developer etc. and eveything has been fine since. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwolf Posted January 10, 2021 Share #15 Posted January 10, 2021 2 hours ago, MikeMyers said: ....I've got an Epson V500Photo scanner. I will test two images, one at 2400 ppi resolution, and the other at 4,000 ppi, and compare them.... This might help: https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm#_Toc326155574 Looks like the max. real resolution you'll get is 1262, which you'll get at 2300. If this is right, scanning any higher will just give bloated files. John 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradS Posted January 10, 2021 Share #16 Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, MikeMyers said: Ouch. If that is correct, it's something I never considered. I assumed the if the negative was good, scanning is just something "mechanical". I was very happy with the 16x20 prints made by a professional lab 25 years ago, with color negatives from my Nikon F4. I guess I'm going to stop thinking about this, and do the best I can, and see how well it works out. As for the scanner, my Epson V500PHOTO has limitations, and my own capabilities could be described in one word: Novice. In 1995 (25 years ago), a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative would have been hand made in a darkroom...and if it was acceptable, the person making it would have been very skilled indeed. ...but don't obsess about the details, just load up a roll of film, take some pictures and have fun...and maybe, have a goal of making a presentable 8x10. Edited January 10, 2021 by BradS 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share #17 Posted January 10, 2021 53 minutes ago, BradS said: ...but don't obsess about the details, just load up a roll of film, take some pictures and have fun... Good advice! Photography for me always was fun. :-) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 11, 2021 Share #18 Posted January 11, 2021 On 1/9/2021 at 4:29 PM, MikeMyers said: I decided it would be enjoyable to buy some 35mm b&w film, and put my old M3 to use. The plan is to shoot the film, get the images developed somewhere, then scan them with an Epson V500Photo Scanner. The images would be processed in DxO PhotoLab 4. For starters, one lens - 50mm collapsible Summicron. Film will be Ilford Delta 100, 24 exposure rolls. I don't think I have shot film in maybe 15 years, maybe longer. My last film camera was a Nikon F4, which replaced an F2. I've got an M3 and a M2, but I love the viewfinder on the M3. For metering, I need to remember how to use my Sekonic. For anyone doing something similar, what resolution might be appropriate for scanning the images. I'm thinking 2400 dpi. I am using 2400 dpi to scan all my 35 mm negatives and slides. More is not useful from my experience and just increases the file size without giving any additional benefit in sharpness. I am using my Plustek 8200 Ai and SilverFast 8 to scan 35 mm frames. For small negative size, this scanner is a bit better in sharpness than my Epson V850 flatbed scanner. I am using the V850 for larger negative sizes. Most difficult from my experience when it comes to scanning is handling color negative film correctly regarding white balance. It's a pain. The Alex Burke method is probably the best to my knowledge to get it right. NegaFix white balance calibration tool in SilverFast works to a limited degree, but I always need to do some global color correction additionally. B&W scanning is quite simple compared to this. Best of luck and have fun! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted January 11, 2021 Share #19 Posted January 11, 2021 I tried lab development and scans, then went the route of a flatbed scanner, then a dedicated 35mm scanner, and in the end found that a macro lens on a mirrorless body mounted on an enlarger base for ease of use worked best for me, as I began digitizing the best of 90 years worth of family negatives. I've been able to get good prints up to 20x30 inches via this method. My prints have typically been on canvas for display purposes, which might not work for many people. Development and scanning IMHO are learned skills, so don't be afraid to experiment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmans Posted January 11, 2021 Share #20 Posted January 11, 2021 3600 DPI on most of my images...sometimes if I have a nice one, I change to the next level which is 7200 but those files are large. But usually 3600 is just fine, they come out printed well 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.