Scanning Film

[madNbad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, Ornello said:

I don't understand the issue. If you want to use film (B&W) you should print it in a darkroom. Scanning produces results that are far inferior (very grainy). If you want to produce digital files, use a digital camera. Scanning color film generally produces good results. But that is not true for conventional B&W materials. 

As mentioned, many of us don't have the space for a full. wet darkroom. Another consideration is the tremendous amounts of water they use. The western United States has been in a worsening drought for a decade and it's going to continue. I can develop a roll of B&W film, using just over a liter of water for the process, then scan it using no  more. Considering Flickr and the other hosting sites are the new galleries, scanning allows more photographers to exhibit their work to a word wide audience. Nothing will ever beat a well made print but no matter how you scan a roll of film offers a chance for wider exposure and may save enough water for someone to get a drink next year.

Edited August 27, 2021 by madNbad

[ianman]

On 8/24/2021 at 11:47 PM, frame-it said:

for B&W, i set silverfast to DNG, so corrections or adjustments are done, each frame takes under 20 secs

Did you mean “no corrections or adjustments are done”?
I do exactly the same as you but it takes much, much longer than 20 secs. Maybe I’m doing something wrong. What output resolution are you scanning to? I also use the second pass scanning (I forget the name used in Silverfast) but maybe it’s not necessary for B&W.

Once I the DNG is saved I take it into Iridient Developer and invert and set to monochrome.

[Ornello]

2 hours ago, madNbad said:

As mentioned, many of us don't have the space for a full. wet darkroom. Another consideration is the tremendous amounts of water they use. The western United States has been in a worsening drought for a decade and it's going to continue. I can develop a roll of B&W film, using just over a liter of water for the process, then scan it using no  more. Considering Flickr and the other hosting sites are the new galleries, scanning allows more photographers to exhibit their work to a word wide audience. Nothing will ever beat a well made print but no matter how you scan a roll of film offers a chance for wider exposure and may save enough water for someone to get a drink next year.

A B&W darkroom does not require a whole lot of room. Most basements are suitable. As for water usage, it goes with the territory. If you need to show your stuff on the internet, a scanned print B&W will be far superior to a scanned B&W negative.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ornello

[MikeMyers]

6 minutes ago, Ornello said:

If you need to show your stuff on the internet, a scanned print B&W will be far superior to a scanned B&W negative.

I don't think I agree with that, and I suspect the opposite is true.  There's often a lot of work that gets done on the scanned image, before it gets saved as a 'jpg' to be posted on the internet.  For me, either way, it is going into my computer for processing.

[Ornello]

23 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I don't think I agree with that, and I suspect the opposite is true.  There's often a lot of work that gets done on the scanned image, before it gets saved as a 'jpg' to be posted on the internet.  For me, either way, it is going into my computer for processing.

Well, disagree if you will, it does not matter. It's true. It would be well if you didn't respond on forums regarding topics in which you are not expert..

The reason is that B&W negatives consist of particles of opaque metallic silver, whereas colour negatives consist of transparent dyes. The silver particles scatter the light hitting them, causing the Callier effect, which increases the apparent grain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

This effect does not occur with colour films.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ornello

[MikeMyers]

I am certainly NOT an expert, but everything I have read about this suggests scanning the negative is better.  Why scan a copy of a negative, when you can scan the original?  Here's one website discussing this:  http://www.digitalmemoriesonline.net/scan/scan_processing/prints_vs_film_scanning.htm   

Edited August 27, 2021 by MikeMyers

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Did you mean “no corrections or adjustments are done”?
I do exactly the same as you but it takes much, much longer than 20 secs. Maybe I’m doing something wrong. What output resolution are you scanning to? I also use the second pass scanning (I forget the name used in Silverfast) but maybe it’s not necessary for B&W.

Once I the DNG is saved I take it into Iridient Developer and invert and set to monochrome.

yes, it doesn't do anything to the image when i select HDR DNG 48bit, it literally takes 10-15 secs and scans, all options and tools are disabled automatically, the width would be around 5000+ pixels and around 300dpi

Edited August 27, 2021 by frame-it

[madNbad]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

A B&W darkroom does not require a whole lot of room. Most basements are suitable. As for water usage, it goes with the territory. If you need to show your stuff on the internet, a scanned print B&W will be far superior to a scanned B&W negative.

Our house is 960 square feet built on a crawlspace not a basement. The one bathroom is 5'x8' hand has a skylight. Our monthly water bill hovers around one hundred usd per month which is just for two people and average usage. Everyone has their ideal but sometimes reality intervenes. I'm happy with being able to develop a roll of B&W and have useable images in a couple of hours.

[Doug A]

2 hours ago, Ornello said:

The reason is that B&W negatives consist of particles of opaque metallic silver, whereas colour negatives consist of transparent dyes. The silver particles scatter the light hitting them, causing the Callier effect, which increases the apparent grain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect This effect does not occur with colour films.

The Callier effect increases the apparent grain because it increases the contrast of the image. The Callier effect is most noticeable with condenser enlargers or film scanners. It is much less apparent with diffusion enlargers or when scanning with a digital camera. And indeed it does not occur with color films. But there is no free lunch. In the darkroom, a B&W negative to be printed with a diffusion enlarger must be developed for a longer time than a negative to be printed with a condenser enlarger. And developing the negative for a longer time increases the contrast and the apparent grain. The same difference applies to scanning with a film scanner or a digital camera. In the darkroom another solution is to print on a higher contrast paper. The effect can be interesting but most agree that it does not compare with a print on #2 paper. When scanning, it is also possible to increase the negative contrast in post, and given that I can in effect reshape the H&D curve it is much easier to obtain acceptable results. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Doug A

[MikeMyers]

The instructions that came with the Plustek were not too good - or maybe I'm not good enough to sort them out.  I used the help chat, and the person I spoke to gave me inaccurate information.  When I said it wasn't working, he then told me that for use on a Mac, there are no drivers to be installed.  So the cables were connected, I turned it on, and scanned one of my old images from last February.  I used all the default settings, only selecting "b&w negative".  Then I cropped slightly.

For not really doing anything much, I was amazed.  The first image I scanned, which I re-did after cropping slightly, came out quite different from on my Epson.  I really need to get it into PhotoLab4 as a TIFF, but this was a start.  The as-scanned image has more contrast than I expected, and I think the highlights are too bright.  Normally I would go into PL4 to adjust that, but I will first do some reading on how to adjust the settings.  I also need to straighten the image, and re-do the scan after blowing off the dust.  It was scanned at the "default" settings, which are probably not high enough, as the scan went rather quickly.

It is infinitely easier for me to scan with the Plustek than with my V500 Epson.

Tomorrow I'll work on figuring out the appropriate settings for 35mm B&W film.

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!

[erl]

3 hours ago, Ornello said:

....... If you need to show your stuff on the internet, a scanned print B&W will be far superior to a scanned B&W negative.

The last time I studied anything remotely technical to do with photography, I learned that the dynamic range of a typical B&W film would be 1:144, whereas the range for a typical piece of B&W printing paper was about 1:80. Faced with that info, how can a print even approximate the tonal range embedded in the negative?

[frame-it]

33 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

The instructions that came with the Plustek were not too good - or maybe I'm not good enough to sort them out.

It is infinitely easier for me to scan with the Plustek than with my V500 Epson.

Tomorrow I'll work on figuring out the appropriate settings for 35mm B&W film.

 

 

 

 

 

[erl]

28 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

The instructions that came with the Plustek were not too good - or maybe I'm not good enough to sort them out.  I used the help chat, and the person I spoke to gave me inaccurate information.  When I said it wasn't working, he then told me that for use on a Mac, there are no drivers to be installed.  So the cables were connected, I turned it on, and scanned one of my old images from last February.  I used all the default settings, only selecting "b&w negative".  Then I cropped slightly.

For not really doing anything much, I was amazed.  The first image I scanned, which I re-did after cropping slightly, came out quite different from on my Epson.  I really need to get it into PhotoLab4 as a TIFF, but this was a start.  The as-scanned image has more contrast than I expected, and I think the highlights are too bright.  Normally I would go into PL4 to adjust that, but I will first do some reading on how to adjust the settings.  I also need to straighten the image, and re-do the scan after blowing off the dust.  It was scanned at the "default" settings, which are probably not high enough, as the scan went rather quickly.

It is infinitely easier for me to scan with the Plustek than with my V500 Epson.

Tomorrow I'll work on figuring out the appropriate settings for 35mm B&W film.

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!

Mike,

You are making a start. Good. One of the first things you will need to understand is to broaden the scanned tonal range you capture. Usually broader than you will want to keep, but it gives you the option of 'choosing' the range you use. Discarding the rest. Above, you have said that contrast is up and the highlights are blown. That indicates that you have already risked dumping some tones that you probably want to keep.

Set you White Point and Black Point as wide as you can before final scan. That will give you a flat looking scan, but it contains (probably) more than you need. That is when you reset those points in your preferred software to look exactly as you wish. It's not rocket science. You just need to know it.

[MikeMyers]

Two quick thoughts - first, I never installed Silverfast, and I'm only using VueScan for now.  I'm at least a little familiar with VueScan, but  for today, I just used pretty much the basic default settings, and  made three attempts with the same image until I got "close".  Tomorrow, I'll watch the videos noted a while ago, on how to get going with VueScan.

@erl - that. sounds very reasonable - I just need to (re)learn how to do those things.  

I have two choices - "cheat" and play the "how-to" videos on YouTube, or https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.pdf

Since I've got lots of time, I think I'll just work my way through the. user's guide for a start.  I think I've got a long ways to go, but that's OK.

[Ouroboros]

7 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

The instructions that came with the Plustek were not too good - or maybe I'm not good enough to sort them out.  I used the help chat, and the person I spoke to gave me inaccurate information.  When I said it wasn't working, he then told me that for use on a Mac, there are no drivers to be installed.  So the cables were connected, I turned it on, and scanned one of my old images from last February.  I used all the default settings, only selecting "b&w negative".  Then I cropped slightly.

For not really doing anything much, I was amazed.  The first image I scanned, which I re-did after cropping slightly, came out quite different from on my Epson.  I really need to get it into PhotoLab4 as a TIFF, but this was a start.  The as-scanned image has more contrast than I expected, and I think the highlights are too bright.  Normally I would go into PL4 to adjust that, but I will first do some reading on how to adjust the settings.  I also need to straighten the image, and re-do the scan after blowing off the dust.  It was scanned at the "default" settings, which are probably not high enough, as the scan went rather quickly.

It is infinitely easier for me to scan with the Plustek than with my V500 Epson.

Tomorrow I'll work on figuring out the appropriate settings for 35mm B&W film.

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!

Well done!  You might want to get involved in ‘I Like Film’ now that you’re out of the blocks!

[MikeMyers]

4 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Well done!  You might want to get involved in ‘I Like Film’ now that you’re out of the blocks!

I started to develop film in summer-camp, in the 1950's, and I was just as lost back then with film as I am now.  Eventually film/photography became a huge part of my life, and to me it was like a "tool" to capture slices of what was going on around me.  When digital came out I was just as confused all over again, with no idea of what was going on.  When something asked me how big I wanted a photo to be, I selected 1 pixel by 1 pixel, and had no idea why I got a "dot" and not a photo.  I was totally, completely, 100% ignorant about what was going on.  Eventually it started to make sense.  I remember that people thought I was bonkers, as I saw what turned out to be the future, with film coming closer, and closer, catching up with film.  

Right now, I'm comfortable with film, and comfortable with digital, and very ignorant about how I can convert one into the other.  I understand fully why what @erl wrote is what I need to do, but I don't (yet) know how to do it.  By the end of the day, today, I hope to have that figured out.  I figure if I can create pleasing B&W images from film, scanning and editing in my computer, I'll have the same tools available to me now, that I had years ago, but this time my tools will be "digital".  

(Those people who I've told I'm back to shooting film all think I've lost my mind.  Many/most of them think film is extinct.)

[madNbad]

There are lots of instructional videos on scanning, some more informative than others. Like everything else, it takes practice and learning from mistakes. Looking forward to some postings and remember, it’s all for your enjoyment.

Edited August 28, 2021 by madNbad

[MikeMyers]

12 hours ago, erl said:

The last time I studied anything remotely technical to do with photography, I learned that the dynamic range of a typical B&W film would be 1:144, whereas the range for a typical piece of B&W printing paper was about 1:80. Faced with that info, how can a print even approximate the tonal range embedded in the negative?

Thanks for the information.  What you wrote matches what I think,  but you've explained the reason WHY this is the case.  I may have read something long ago that is similar to what you wrote, but it now seems to be even more obvious.  My thinking was "why scan a copy of something, when you can scan the real thing?"  That, and what you just wrote, sound so "obvious" now, but a few days ago, for me, it was just a "feeling" without the "why".  Thanks for posting.

[MikeMyers]

Sure, will post as I go along, but this thread is mostly here for @AceVentura1986 and I think I'll start a new thread about learning how I'm learning how to scan better.  I hope all this discussion has helped @AceVentura1986 with his own questions.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MikeMyers]

On 8/26/2021 at 10:50 PM, erl said:

Below is a scan of a film I shot a couple of days ago as part of a project I am shooting, coincidentally, on both film (col & b&w) and digital. ( It has the potential to print at A2 (my normal print size)  or larger, with NO artifacts or viual defects.

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!

I can easily set "this" as my goal.  Vertical lines remain vertical, the darkest part of the image seems to be solid black, and the brightest seem to be solid white, with all the shades of gray in-between.  The "almost black" round signals still have detail in them.  I can't see any grain.  It's B&W, not color, so the different gray tones are what makes up the photo.  

Thanks for posting an example of what is possible, with enough skill both in the camera, and in the "processing" (which includes the scanning).  ....and I never got good enough in my darkroom to create images this good.  For that matter, I don't think this image is so good because of the hardware you used in taking and processing the image - I'm convinced that the real reason is your ability to use those tools.  

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:03 AM, 250swb said:

Well we've just started on Page 4 now, and it should be becoming clear Mike that getting the best out of a dedicated film scanner is an art in itself, and it's a big time consuming learning curve. I've been scanning for seventeen years and still question my workflow from time to time. But using a camera is just taking a photograph, set the ISO and set the exposure to 'Auto' and focus. There is even dedicated software to perfectly invert the negative (colour or B&W) image into a positive. It's just about as easy as it can be. 

This too.  It's art, not science, and to get the best results, one needs to be an artist.  But I think I need to learn "the science" before I can make use of "the art".  Knowing what I want is just the start - I need to understand HOW to achieve that goal, so it becomes another tool in my toolbox, so to speak.

 

 

........which directly relates to the original question in this thread.  Knowing the name of the best tools is only a start.  Then there's the learning curve, to use them effectively.