Scanning Film

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am posting this here in this thread, as @AceVentura1986 is more likely to see it.

I was going to find a YouTube training video, but then I found this guide:  https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/bw-neg-scanning.php

It seems to "fit" a lot of the advice I've gotten here in the forum.  I'm more anxious right now to learn, than to find some settings to copy.

[AceVentura1986]

23 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

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.  

Thanks, @MikeMyers, and everyone else. This thread has been exceptionally helpful. 

[MikeMyers]

You're welcome, but it's the "everyone else" that deserve all the credit.  I'm glad it's helping you as much as it's helping me.  Tomorrow, Monday, I go back to "Darkroom and Digital" to pick up my latest developed negatives.   If you get a chance, drive over there and check them out - very impressive.  ......and maybe you can start posting some of your more recent scans?

[Ornello]

On 8/27/2021 at 5:36 PM, MikeMyers said:

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   

Why? Because one is a reflection scan, whereas the other is a transmittance scan. Read about the Callier effect to understand why it matters. If you want to scan B&W film, use Ilford XP2.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

49 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Why? Because one is a reflection scan, whereas the other is a transmittance scan. Read about the Callier effect to understand why it matters. If you want to scan B&W film, use Ilford XP2.

Yeah, here we go, the 'Callier effect' again. Funny how so many hundreds of thousands of people have happily scanned negatives in the last twenty years without feeling sidelined by a marginalised elitist ideology.

[erl]

3 hours ago, Ornello said:

Why? Because one is a reflection scan, whereas the other is a transmittance scan. Read about the Callier effect to understand why it matters. If you want to scan B&W film, use Ilford XP2.

 What matters is real life effects. Silver prints made in a darkroom cannot equal or exceed the tonal range inherent in a negative (or positive). Every time one copies an analog original (the negative) some detail must be lost (as opposed to digital copies). So why would you copy an inferior sample if a superior one is available? In my professional career I have operated a darkroom with three differing enlargers as part of my work and I know from producing not thousands, but millions of B/W prints that all the negative data cannot be collected together on one print. The look of a B/W print made in a darkroom can be very special, but it does not contain all the negative data. At best it is an optical illusion.

THe Callier Effect! On your advice I started reading about it. Frankly my opinion, based on real life experience, is that it has no real application in practice. The fact that diffusion enlargers also use film containing silver must also have some scatter effect. The highlighting of grain is a creative tool used by skillful photographers and has no need to be avoided. Indeed, some deliberately use high speed films because of their grain. Using XP2 does give a different outcome, but from my monitoring of this forum, most use it as a meas of facilitating labs to process their B/W films rather than do it themselves. Not as a means of avoiding grain. The fact is, I prefer the look of a filmic image at times. Otherwise I shoot digital.

Everyone must make their own judgments for themselves, but, I suggest, should not for others

[madNbad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you, Erl. As the interest in scanning film grows, there may be less options for how to actually scan the negative but the software choices of how to work with it once it's available for conversion and adjustment, are growing. In the darkroom there is the choice of paper grades, filters, developers, light sources and lenses are just part of what makes a good print. In the digital age, we can make these adjustments multiple times on the same image until we achieve the desired look. Now instead of tossing out unacceptable prints, it's a simple discard changes and try again. Weston, Adams and the others with their blackened fingernails from massaging the image during development have lead us to now with the sliders and histograms. As pointed out, we are now working with much more information from the negative than ever before. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by madNbad

[MikeMyers]

This is a video about how "the master" did it.  It's the latest darkroom Ansel Adams designed and built.  It's difficult to accept that all the capability of this huge system can now be replicated electronically.  

What I didn't find (yet) is one of the control prints that Ansel made, showing how he would manipulate the image in this darkroom, so he could replicated it over and over.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCtni-WWVs

My thoughts are that the "system" (whatever it is) is much less important than knowing HOW to manipulate the image to get the perfect print.  Ansel's darkroom, or our scanners are all just "tools".  The magic still has to come from the photographer.  I can imagine Ansel with his car full of photo gear, setting up his large camera on a heavy-duty tripod, with a digital back on the camera, and then scanning to "digitize" it, and finally to put his skills to use creating the perfect exposure for each part of the image.  The "doing" is the easy part.  Knowing "what", and "how" to do it (film or digital) is the hard part, and I think Ansel would have loved the new technology.

I doubt any of our Leica cameras would now be Ansel's first choice. I suspect he would still want a view camera - but maybe one with a digital back.

[MikeMyers]

I found one - today, I think Ansel would make each of these changes in whichever imaging software he selected.  (I wish I understood this better....)

:

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!

[Ornello]

21 hours ago, erl said:

 What matters is real life effects. Silver prints made in a darkroom cannot equal or exceed the tonal range inherent in a negative (or positive). Every time one copies an analog original (the negative) some detail must be lost (as opposed to digital copies). So why would you copy an inferior sample if a superior one is available? In my professional career I have operated a darkroom with three differing enlargers as part of my work and I know from producing not thousands, but millions of B/W prints that all the negative data cannot be collected together on one print. The look of a B/W print made in a darkroom can be very special, but it does not contain all the negative data. At best it is an optical illusion.

THe Callier Effect! On your advice I started reading about it. Frankly my opinion, based on real life experience, is that it has no real application in practice. The fact that diffusion enlargers also use film containing silver must also have some scatter effect. The highlighting of grain is a creative tool used by skillful photographers and has no need to be avoided. Indeed, some deliberately use high speed films because of their grain. Using XP2 does give a different outcome, but from my monitoring of this forum, most use it as a meas of facilitating labs to process their B/W films rather than do it themselves. Not as a means of avoiding grain. The fact is, I prefer the look of a filmic image at times. Otherwise I shoot digital.

Everyone must make their own judgments for themselves, but, I suggest, should not for others

First of all, the print is the final product, and the negative is only an intermediate stage. Anyone who has been doing B&W photography long soon learns what works best. 

The Callier effect is quite obvious when switching between diffusion and condenser enlargers. I own an enlarger (Fujimoto G70) that has both types of illumination: you flip the head to change from condenser to diffusion. I did some testing when I acquired it, and there is a considerable difference in contrast. Roughly a grade and a half.

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/enlargers/fujimoto.html

Diffusion enlargers require higher-contrast negatives to achieve the same print contrast, all else being equal. This increases the graininess of the print; in fact, it increases the graininess more than using the condenser enlarger with a somewhat less contrasty negative. I repeat: obvious graininess is not normal when using proper materials and techniques. I made 16 x 20 prints from Tri-X using UFG developer 50 years ago that hardly show grain! Delta 100 should produce prints that have no evident graininess at all unless badly mishandled.

Instead of scanning, it would perhaps be best to photograph the negative (with a digital camera) using a macro lens and a diffuse light source. Scanning, however, is truly a waste of time and produces awful results.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Ornello

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, madNbad said:

Now instead of tossing out unacceptable prints, it's a simple discard changes and try again. Weston, Adams and the others with their blackened fingernails from massaging the image during development have lead us to now with the sliders and histograms. As pointed out, we are now working with much more information from the negative than ever before. 

Someone can scan a negative, and get garbage, just as a newbie with the most expensive camera he can buy will still likely create garbage, while someone more experienced could use a basic camera, with basic tools, and create art.  

I don't know about the rest of you, but while scanning might take me five minutes, it's followed by between half an hour and an hour until the image looks presentable.  With the tools available to me on my computer, I can make an image better than I could ever make it in my darkroom.  Not even close.  It just takes time, and there's no waste - no "finished" prints going into the dustbin because I wasn't satisfied.  It just took me two hours to process two B&W photos I took back in the 60's with either an M2 or a Nikon SP - not sure which.  I was *never* able to even come close to what I could do in VueScan followed by PhotoLab4.  With digital, if I see one tiny area that needs adjustment, I can just add that to the already processed image.  .......and I would not be doing this well, without what I've learned in this forum.  Thank you to so many people!!!

[Ornello]

9 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Someone can scan a negative, and get garbage, just as a newbie with the most expensive camera he can buy will still likely create garbage, while someone more experienced could use a basic camera, with basic tools, and create art.  

I don't know about the rest of you, but while scanning might take me five minutes, it's followed by between half an hour and an hour until the image looks presentable.  With the tools available to me on my computer, I can make an image better than I could ever make it in my darkroom.  Not even close.  It just takes time, and there's no waste - no "finished" prints going into the dustbin because I wasn't satisfied.  It just took me two hours to process two B&W photos I took back in the 60's with either an M2 or a Nikon SP - not sure which.  I was *never* able to even come close to what I could do in VueScan followed by PhotoLab4.  With digital, if I see one tiny area that needs adjustment, I can just add that to the already processed image.  .......and I would not be doing this well, without what I've learned in this forum.  Thank you to so many people!!!

No-one can scan a 35mm B&W negative and get anything but garbage. If you need help with B&W darkroom procedures, I can help you. Now that I have everything dialed in, printing is a snap.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Ornello

[madNbad]

54 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Someone can scan a negative, and get garbage, just as a newbie with the most expensive camera he can buy will still likely create garbage, while someone more experienced could use a basic camera, with basic tools, and create art.  

I don't know about the rest of you, but while scanning might take me five minutes, it's followed by between half an hour and an hour until the image looks presentable.  With the tools available to me on my computer, I can make an image better than I could ever make it in my darkroom.  Not even close.  It just takes time, and there's no waste - no "finished" prints going into the dustbin because I wasn't satisfied.  It just took me two hours to process two B&W photos I took back in the 60's with either an M2 or a Nikon SP - not sure which.  I was *never* able to even come close to what I could do in VueScan followed by PhotoLab4.  With digital, if I see one tiny area that needs adjustment, I can just add that to the already processed image.  .......and I would not be doing this well, without what I've learned in this forum.  Thank you to so many people!!!

One of the local shop owners and I have a joke about the “lazy persons approach to photography”. First pick a digital camera with an autofocus lens, second set it for auto ISO and auto exposure. Wander around snapping whatever till the card is full. Edit by deleting everything but the two shots that are actually half decent. 
I have taken a streamlined approach to converting negatives. I’m moving to using the same film all the time, probably TMax 400. When exposing the film, I try to be accurate and follow the meter readings. I try to be consistent with developing, even if it is in the kitchen sink. During digital capture, it’s done in RAW and my most used exposure is +1 EV over the base reading. I use RAW Power by Gentleman Coders for the conversation. Once I have the first frame dialed in, there is an option of using the last settings. I can finish a roll in about twenty minutes and have acceptable images to post on Flickr. It may be quick and dirty but I can always go back and make improvements if needed. As you have found, it’s easy enough to spend an hour or two trying to perfect an image. Only you can decide which ones are worth the effort. Remember, this is supposed to be fun.

[erl]

From Ornello, post #110

Instead of scanning, it would perhaps be best to photograph the negative (with a digital camera) using a macro lens and a diffuse light source. Scanning, however, is truly a waste of time and produces awful results.

From Ornello post #112

No-one can scan a 35mm B&W negative and get anything but garbage.

-------------

Ornello,

 

Your inability to be successful with scanning is not general. Many of us, over many years and many thousands of perfectly good prints are testament to the untruth of your statements. Repeatedly stating your view on this IMO, approaches trolling. Please accept that where you apparently fail, some of us have great success. My bank account assures me that everything I am doing in this regard it not all bad.

Regarding your dual purpose enlarger story, yes I too have several  enlargers, both condenser and diffusion fitted. I am aware of the differences, but since this thread is about scanning, I'll not pursue darkroom variations.

[Ornello]

21 hours ago, erl said:

From Ornello, post #110

Instead of scanning, it would perhaps be best to photograph the negative (with a digital camera) using a macro lens and a diffuse light source. Scanning, however, is truly a waste of time and produces awful results.

From Ornello post #112

No-one can scan a 35mm B&W negative and get anything but garbage.

-------------

Ornello,

 

Your inability to be successful with scanning is not general. Many of us, over many years and many thousands of perfectly good prints are testament to the untruth of your statements. Repeatedly stating your view on this IMO, approaches trolling. Please accept that where you apparently fail, some of us have great success. My bank account assures me that everything I am doing in this regard it not all bad.

Regarding your dual purpose enlarger story, yes I too have several  enlargers, both condenser and diffusion fitted. I am aware of the differences, but since this thread is about scanning, I'll not pursue darkroom variations.

 

What do you mean? I have never done it myself, and have no intention of doing so. A friend of mine scanned some B&W negatives that I gave him to try (after I told him that it was a poor technique). He told me they would be good. They were awful. He just shrugged. I have seen many scans of 35mm conventional B&W negatives on the internet, and they all are excessively grainy. I repeat: a print from a Delta 100 negative should show no obvious grain. My 8x prints from ISO 400 films (Tri-X, HP5 Plus, Delta 400, T-Max 400, Neopan 400, etc.) show minuscule grain. 

There is no earthly reason to scan conventional B&W 35mm film. None. Get a darkroom! I have 55 years of experience in 35mm B&W darkroom work. I  long ago perfected exposure, development, and printing techniques using 35mm B&W materials. I'm not a 'troll'; I just hate to see nonsense spouted on photo forums.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Ornello

[frame-it]

22 minutes ago, Ornello said:

 

There is no earthly reason to scan conventional B&W 35mm film. None. Get a darkroom! I have 55 years of experience in 35mm B&W darkroom work. I  long ago perfected exposure, development, and printing techniques using 35mm B&W materials.

that's great

 

But

the OP and others WANT to scan Not Print, and are asking about scanning tips.

so, as you have already expressed your opinion, why not move on?

[Ornello]

5 minutes ago, frame-it said:

that's great

 

But

the OP and others WANT to scan Not Print, and are asking about scanning tips.

so, as you have already expressed your opinion, why not move on?

I think some people have just never seen a good B&W print, so they have no basis for comparison. Their results are poor, but they don't think so, because they have no reference.

[pop]

vor 48 Minuten schrieb Ornello:

I have 55 years of experience in 35mm B&W darkroom work.

We'll speak about that again once you have 55 years of experience scanning transparent material.

[frame-it]

32 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I think some people have just never seen a good B&W print, so they have no basis for comparison. Their results are poor, but they don't think so, because they have no reference.

its ok, because they're happy with what they have

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

2 hours ago, Ornello said:

 

What do you mean? I have never done it myself, and have no intention of doing so. A friend of mine scanned some B&W negatives that I gave him to try (after I told him that it was a poor technique). He told me they would be good. They were awful. He just shrugged. I have seen many scans of 35mm conventional B&W negatives on the internet, and they all are excessively grainy. I repeat: a print from a Delta 100 negative should show no obvious grain. My 8x prints from ISO 400 films (Tri-X, HP5 Plus, Delta 400, T-Max 400, Neopan 400, etc.) show minuscule grain. 

There is no earthly reason to scan conventional B&W 35mm film. None. Get a darkroom! I have 55 years of experience in 35mm B&W darkroom work. I  long ago perfected exposure, development, and printing techniques using 35mm B&W materials. I'm not a 'troll'; I just hate to see nonsense spouted on photo forums.

Thank you Ornello for your full disclosure that you have never tried it! Your scanning friend clearly had a poor technique (no offense intended) and you actually base your opinion on this! Not a solid basis for forming an opinion. I acknowledge your 55 years experience which is approaching  my 67 years. We both must admit that all that time  (and more) is required to gain expertise level. I suggest to you that learning digital skills will take just as long, so instant results will not happen. I have been scanning for something like 20 years(?). I am still learning to refine skills with both film and digital, but I do know enough that both disciplines demand high levels of skill and both are capable of great results.

Let me add that viewing results on the internet is a stupid way of assessing anything, both scans and prints. Eyeballing the actually output is the only true test. After 55 years you must realize that. I defend your right to disagree with me but urge you to be curious enough to perhaps spread your investigations a little wider. There is so much out there that is worth learning, despite what we may have previously thought. Go well and find the good light.