Scanning Film

[AceVentura1986]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, all. I’ve been shooting digitally for 20+ years and shooting Leicas for 10+, including the fantastic M9M. Recently, tho, I acquired a beautiful 1955 vintage M3 and have been shooting it a bit. In Miami, where I live, we are fortunate enough to still have a great film lab, Pitman Photo, so I intend to have the film developed there. Still, this raises a question about scanning. 

There seem to be three options: 

1. Let the lab scan the images. This is cheap at first, but will get pricey in the long run. 
2. DSLR Digitizing. I’ve got a Canon 5DSR and a 6D, either of which can easily handle the digitization, once I buy a macro lens, negative tray and a light tablet. This system seems to be the most flexible but also the most convoluted in that it would involve extensive set up and takedown every time I want to shoot plus I would also have to ensure I completely level the camera prior to shooting. However, I would have the ability to adjust the exposure for each negative and also to add medium format should a wish to do so in the future. 
3. Dedicated Scanner. Right now, I’m looking at the Plustek OptikFilm line. These are priced between $350 and $500 at B&H. This route seems to be easier than the DSLR route and includes software also, but is more limited in that it only scans 35mm and I don’t think I can adjust the exposure in hardware. I’m aware there are other options in scanners also, but am sort of drawn to this one for it’s (apparent) simplicity. 

So, given all that, any recommendations? 

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

36 minutes ago, AceVentura1986 said:

Hello, all. I’ve been shooting digitally for 20+ years and shooting Leicas for 10+, including the fantastic M9M. Recently, tho, I acquired a beautiful 1955 vintage M3 and have been shooting it a bit. In Miami, where I live, we are fortunate enough to still have a great film lab, Pitman Photo, so I intend to have the film developed there. Still, this raises a question about scanning. 

There seem to be three options: 

1. Let the lab scan the images. This is cheap at first, but will get pricey in the long run. 
2. DSLR Digitizing. I’ve got a Canon 5DSR and a 6D, either of which can easily handle the digitization, once I buy a macro lens, negative tray and a light tablet. This system seems to be the most flexible but also the most convoluted in that it would involve extensive set up and takedown every time I want to shoot plus I would also have to ensure I completely level the camera prior to shooting. However, I would have the ability to adjust the exposure for each negative and also to add medium format should a wish to do so in the future. 
3. Dedicated Scanner. Right now, I’m looking at the Plustek OptikFilm line. These are priced between $350 and $500 at B&H. This route seems to be easier than the DSLR route and includes software also, but is more limited in that it only scans 35mm and I don’t think I can adjust the exposure in hardware. I’m aware there are other options in scanners also, but am sort of drawn to this one for it’s (apparent) simplicity. 

So, given all that, any recommendations? 

3. Plustek are usually supplied with a SilverFast. The bundled software allows for manipulation of the pre-scan histogram, plus a number of other things. Personally a go for a flat scan to capture both ends of the spectrum, then tweak in LR as required (often very little required).

For camera scanning B&W negs I use my M240 on a BEOON, very fast when set up, easily scanning a whole role in under 10 minutes. Colour is something I haven’t tried because I would need to purchase extra software.  

[ianman]

I use a Plustek 8200i (it's scanning as I write  ). You can get other models with can handle formats larger than 35mm. I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting the exposure in hardware. Depending on which model you get, which is simply identified by some letters after the name), a different version of SilverFast is bundled. You can get the scanner with no bundled software if you prefer to use VueScan or something else. You can adjust the exposure in the scanning software. I usually scan to a raw .dng file and then handle any pp in Iridient Developer. I'm happy enough with the results.

[AceVentura1986]

1 minute ago, ianman said:

I use a Plustek 8200i (it's scanning as I write  ). You can get other models with can handle formats larger than 35mm. I'm not sure what you mean by adjusting the exposure in hardware. Depending on which model you get, which is simply identified by some letters after the name), a different version of SilverFast is bundled. You can get the scanner with no bundled software if you prefer to use VueScan or something else. You can adjust the exposure in the scanning software. I usually scan to a raw .dng file and then handle any pp in Iridient Developer. I'm happy enough with the results.

Hmmmm, we may have a winner here. Thanks. 

[Steve Ricoh]

I’m happy with the Ai version, but do understand it’s a fairly slow process. A roll x36 is going to take a couple of hours. Far quicker is camera scanning, using Negative Lab Pro to produce the colour corrected output.

[ianman]

28 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

A roll x36 is going to take a couple of hours.

It depends. I scan a roll to 72 dpi jpg or tiff to make a sort of contact sheet. It doesn't take long although it's a shame there isn't an automated process which would handle the 6 negs in the holder. Once I have the "contact sheet" I choose and make the raw .dng files. Yes those take longer.

Another possibilty is a flatbed scanner. I believe that with proper frames that can be just as good as dedicated film scanner and offer other possibilities (different neg sizes, scanning prints, etc.

You could do a lot worse than to spend a few minutes listening to what Nick Carver has to say on the subject.

 

Also it's probably worth watching this one too

 

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot mainly B&W on film, and use an Epson 850 Pro flatbed that can handle about any format. It will scan 18 to 24 frames at a time (depending on the carrier used), with a single click. I scan to a LAN server so I can check progress and see results during the scan on an iPad. For my use the automatic scan is usually adequate to use without post-processing. It also does a reasonable job on color, but I usually just have the lab scan those, and I can always scan any images I want to customize once the negatives or slides come back. Lately for color I do mainly Ektachome, as the slide is a nice color reference.

[250swb]

Use your Canon. A cheap copy stand, it doesn't need to be expensive because it's not going to be extended very far, a Kaiser light tablet, a negative holder, a macro lens (bonus you get another lens). Level the camera by using a bubble level app on your iPhone, just lay it on the rear LCD. This setup is ideal for final full res scans.

But you also need to do a contact sheet just to choose which frames to grace with a full res scan. So either have the lab do a low res scan of the roll as your contact sheet, or get an Epson V700 flatbed scanner which on low res can run through a roll fairly quickly (it's not at all recommended for full res 35mm scans though). But a contact sheet done on a Plustek is a pain in the ass, and a full res scan on a Plustek still won't be better than your Canon. I say this as a big fan of Plustek scanners, but they don't really cover all your requirements.

Edit - and of course an Epson is also good for medium format.

Edited July 24, 2021 by 250swb

[maate]

My advice is to start with lab scanning. Just to get it going without much effort. Then consider, what is most important for you. Is it image resolution, control over the scanning process, image format support, ease of use or something else. 

This is what I did. I let the lab scan for me while I settled on my priorities. This took around 6 months. Then, finally I decided that ease of use and scanner speed was my primary concern. I wanted to spend as little time scanning and post processing as possible. I was willing to sacrifice resolution to achieve this goal. I then went for a Pakon f135+. For my use and requirenents, this has been great. It's easy, fast, and colors are great out of the scanner, so I rarely tweak much in post. For medium format, I have a cheap epson as backup, or I let the lab handle my low volume mf.

[Jeff S]

I was never a fan of the ‘hybrid’ workflow.  For me (each time I relocated), the decision was always to either build another darkroom for both film developing and b/w silver printing, or go the full digital route.  My prints were better quality going one way or the other, not via hybrid means. Nevertheless, if I had to go the scanning route, I’d either choose the easiest/fastest route (with ‘acceptable’ quality) or I’d invest the time and money in the best possible gear and process, depending on my goals. But I’d still feel that print quality was being sacrificed compared to an all darkroom or all digital approach.  A matter of priorities and preferences.  

Jeff

[Doug A]

Contact pages are easy with digital camera scanning. It takes me less than ten minutes to scan a 24-exposure roll with my BEOON/Fuji X-T20 setup, including setup and takedown. I shoot both RAW and JPG with autoexposure to center the scan in the histogram. It takes less than five minutes to run an Affinity Photo script to process all of the JPG's and less than another five minutes to generate a PDF contact page from the JPG's with ContactPage Pro. Then I delete the JPG's and use the contact page to select RAW files to develop and process with Affinity Photo. 

FWIW the BEOON is hard to find and expensive. Other digital camera scanning setups using small sturdy copy stands can work well too but are not as compact and likely not as steady. 

[AceVentura1986]

As much as I might like the DSLR method, I would still need to buy a macro lens plus all the other gear that would be necessary for this method. A lens ($400 used on eBay) plus a copy stand ($150 used on eBay), negative holder ($150) and light panel will run  north of $700 without dedicated software. Plus there’s the setup and take down that, knowing myself, I will grow to resent, and the need to store more gear in a tight home office. A scanner appears to be the answer. 

So, the question is which one. Right now, it appears to be a contest between the Plustek AI, the Plustek SE, and the Pacific Image XAs. These are listed on B&H at $500, $400, and $500, respectively. 

Any thoughts or preferences between these three? 

[250swb]

Not sure if you just have the platinum card option ticked for eBay searches but you can get a copy stand for £40, a light source for £80, any one of a number of neg holder options (max £40), software at £80, and you only need a secondhand manual lens compatible with your camera. I am staggered you get beyond $700 even with the exchange rate from £ to $. None of this takes up a permanent space on a desk and takes five minutes to setup and ten seconds per 'scan' with a camera against five minutes setup and then five minutes per scan with a Plustek scanner. Add to this the scanner will have worse IQ and your Canon 6D a far better dynamic range and my head spins in bafflement.

There are people who advocate an elitist head in the clouds route that denounces a hybrid workflow and suggest it is only a fast and easy option to creating images, but your prints will be top quality using your Canon 6D especially because there is no digital noise introduced by scanning (as happens with a dedicated film scanner), and your 'scanner' only gets better the next time you upgrade your Canon. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by 250swb

[Doug A]

I saved so much tedious work, particularly the washing up, when I switched from wet printing to scanning and inkjet printing that I never went back into the darkroom. And I saved so many hours scanning when I switched from using a dedicated scanner to a digital camera that I put the scanner on the shelf where it is gathering dust to this day. The fact that I like even my earliest inkjet prints better than my darkroom prints is a nice bonus. The fact that my wife prefers them is the real payoff. 

[AceVentura1986]

Thanks again to all. 

[davidmknoble]

I agree with Jeff on the hybrid approach. I’m not a fan unless the results are as good as a darkroom. I invested in a Nikon Coolscan years ago with a 35mm take up real in the back. Strong dynamic range and it scans an entire roll uncut in one session. 4000 dpi multi pass and I print them 13x19 (12x18 print with border) with no trouble (I only process BnW at home no color). The key is that it is a middle ground. Several thousand dollars, but my lenses cost more.  The only step up from there I know of is the drum scanners that cost almost $20k but they are spectacular.  I believe you have to be all in if you are taking 35mm film to the digital realm. Just my humble opinion. 

[convexferret]

I've tried flatbeds, dedicated scanners (Nikon Coolscan 5000) and a camera + copy-stand.

Flatbeds are very limited in resolution and most don't even have the focus correct. So lots of fiddling to get anything reasonable.

The Coolscan is great but noisy and slow and has issues when scanning the last negative on a strip (film flatness).

The camera option is as good or better than the cool scan in terms of quality and much faster (a roll in 3 mins). But you do have to buy the separate components and probably do a setup/teardown every time. For me it's been more than worth it.

[convexferret]

I'll add to my previous post that if you are going the camera route then just do it right the first time otherwise you will get very frustrated very quickly.

I only do B&W so any Lightbox will do. If you do colour you will need to be careful about response.

The copy stand must be vertical. I use a BEOON (bought back when they were cheap) which is really reliable but limited. You only really have the option of using a 50mm macro or enlarging lens to "scan" a 35mm negative. It doesn't have the movement available to use longer lenses.

The lens should be a good one. I've found that all of the older enlarging or macro lenses that I've used (70s, 80s) have had a noticeable drop-off in sharpness at the corners even well stopped-down. I scan with a bit of a border to avoid this issue but at some point I'll get a newer macro or one of the really good enlarging lenses.

The negative holder must be a good one and hold the negative absolutely flat. I've tried a few but the two best (so far) have been either a chunk of anti-newton's glass holding the negative against the Lightbox (major dust issues are possible) or the Essential Film Holder which allows me to feed a full roll through in about 3 minutes and seems to keep things pretty flat.

More or less any camera will do as flatness and lens quality will cause you issues way before your camera runs out of resolution. You do want a good magnified live-view though for focussing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AndreasG]

I recommend for such purposes as a lens the old but excellent  Leica-R Elmarit 2.8/60 together with the 1:1 Adapter 14198 and a second adapter for either Leica M or Sony bodies. You should get lens plus adapter at ebay etc. for less than 300$.

[davidmknoble]

9 hours ago, convexferret said:

The Coolscan is great but noisy and slow and has issues when scanning the last negative on a strip (film flatness).

The camera option is as good or better than the cool scan in terms of quality and much faster (a roll in 3 mins). But you do have to buy the separate components and probably do a setup/teardown every time. For me it's been more than worth it.

You are correct on the last image in the coolscan. I get around that by leaving the leader and deleting the last image or two.  In terms of noise snd time, I don’t care because I am scanning while I eat dinner or go fir a walk.  I start the entire roll, uncut except frame 0 and it scans each one through 36. 
 Cameras can duplicate negatives but there are some critical items. The light has to be strong enough to illuminate the highlight tones (shadows in the print) to distinguish between them and not so bright it washes them together. The camera has to have enough dynamic range to capture the entire negative and the exposure has to be spot on ( grey cards don’t work for backlit negatives you need a spot meter on middle grey in the actual negative. Yes the lens has to be critically sharp and stopped down enough to not let aberrations loose edge contrast. Then the plane of focus has to be parallel which means a plate of glass over the negative to keep it flat. 

it can work, but far too many moving parts and places for error for my time. I have fine tuned the cool scan (using vuescan for Mac) and saved profiles fir each film type I shoot. 
 

either way takes some time patience and trial and error to get stellar results.