Scanning Film

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Do you, or maybe others, have an online gallery of B&W scans, that I can look at, for the purpose you noted above?  I think I would find that useful.

I recently watched a Blu-ray version of Psycho. Stunning B&W!

I'll see if I can get some prints scanned.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Ornello]

22 hours ago, frame-it said:

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

That's quite ironic, isn't it, on a Leica forum?

[Ornello]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:31 AM, 250swb said:

I suspect you've read something somewhere about scanning B&W and maybe misunderstood it. There is no fundamental difference between scanning colour and B&W except that you can't use dust removal software with B&W because it will detect the film grain as being dust. That's it, everything else is the same. Starting with a clean negative isn't a chore and even then any dust spots can be cloned out in post processing. If you are getting too much grain it may be some other thing you are doing wrong, like using the scanner software to sharpen your picture, maybe the wrong resolution you are scanning at, etc.

No, you're wrong. I didn't misunderstand anything. B&W negatives consists of metal particles (silver) that block and scatter light. Color films consist of dye clouds that transmit light. B&W negatives do not transmit light, but block and scatter it to varying degrees depending on the density. There is no 'grey' really, just different sizes of black particles. That's why there is a Callier effect with B&W negatives, and none with color film. This is why colour negatives are almost always printed with a diffusion colour head: there is no loss of contrast penalty as there is with B&W, and the diffusion makes dust and scratches less prominent. See this entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffVScond.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffVScond-color-eps-converted-to.pdf

The scanning process uses what amounts to a collimated light source, which greatly increases graininess.

 

See:

 

https://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

Edited September 1, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

8 minutes ago, Ornello said:

No, you're wrong. I didn't misunderstand anything. B&W negatives consists of metal particles (silver) that block and scatter light. Color films consist of dye clouds that transmit light. B&W negatives do not transmit light, but block and scatter it to varying degrees depending on the density. There is no 'grey' really, just different sizes of black particles. That's why there is a Callier effect with B&W negatives, and none with color film. This is why colour negatives are almost always printed with a diffusion colour head: there is no loss of contrast penalty as there is with B&W, and the diffusion makes dust and scratches less prominent. See this entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffVScond.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffVScond-color-eps-converted-to.pdf

The scanning process uses what amounts to a collimated light source, which greatly increases graininess.

 

See:

 

https://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

You don't know a single thing about scanning other than what you choose to read and believe. I mean there enough conspiracy theories going around at the moment so why add another? There are also a million articles on the web about different ways to darkroom print so please don't think you have an exclusive line to the God of printing. You are a fool and if you have no interest in scanning why don't you just butt out of this thread and mind your own business.

[Ornello]

21 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Nobody, not even Ansel Adams, "perfected" those things.  Ansel was constantly experimenting, and learning, and if you view one of his photos printed long ago, and at different dates, you can see how his technique changed.  You may be completely satisfied with what you do, but what are your credentials?  How many books and magazine articles and videos have you created?

Spouting nonsense?  Comments like what you posted are what I consider "nonsense".  If you force yourself to keep an open mind, I think you might learn from some of the things you consider "nonsense".....    not that it matters what I think.  I'm still wearing my STUDENT hat, with an open mind, learning from other people's experiences.

It's not nearly as difficult as you might imagine to 'perfect' one's technique. So long as one is using best techniques in agitation, temperature control, and timing, making 'perfect' negatives is a breeze. You just have to be careful and consistent. When new films, papers, and developers are introduced, I try them out and determine the best procedures. I didn't like the first version of T-Max 400 because of its characteristic curve, which made highlight areas contrasty and shadow/mid-tone areas soft. This is just the reverse of what you want in a film for out-door work, such as Tri-X Pan/HP5 + and Plus-X Pan/FP4 +. When taking a scene with white fluffy clouds fully illuminated, they would often be too dense, and the foreground would be too dark and flat with T-Max 400. Films like Tri-X Pan 'shouulder' off in the denser areas, making them fit the paper better. Ilford recently introduced a new version of their Multigrade paper. The former version (IV) had very low contrast in the highlight areas to compensate for this. The new paper has been changed to give a more 'normal' response, because in 2007 Kodak introduced a new version of T-Max 400 with a characteristic curve much more similar to Tri-X.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Ornello

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Assuming that you still want a low-contrast copy photo, to get it into your computer, this video explains how to do it (short version) and links to the full instruction manual.  

@madNbad - Yikes....    I posted my response up above, but forgot to post the link to the video and other information.  Sorry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNurTF7Z6w0

I looked up your copy camera, trying to find out how you might make a "flat" copy as described earlier in this forum, and if in fact that's a good thing to do (which I don't know), then this is a way to do it - along with a very detailed description of what's involved.  If this concept doesn't apply to using a camera, rather than a scanner, to "copy" an original, then ignore this.  It seems to me though that if you don't do this, you're making a copy which may or may not lose some of the very light or very darks in the original - and by reducing the contrast, that would be minimized.

(It's still a copy though.  What if you copied the copy, and then copied the copy of the original, and did this ten times.  How close would the  final copy be to the original? _)

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 minutes ago, Ornello said:

It's not nearly as difficult as you might imagine to 'perfect' one's technique.

I disagree, but there's no point in even explaining why.

I've already posted too many times about this.

[Ornello]

16 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I disagree, but there's no point in even explaining why.

I've already posted too many times about this.

All I mean by 'perfected technique' is that you have firm control over all the aspects of film processing and print-making, and that you get repeatable, predictable high-quality results (assuming that the products are not defective). That doesn't exclude the occasional blunder (we all make those). I once poured the colour developer in first (instead of the first developer) when I used to process my own Agfachrome. That was 1969. I never made such a mistake again.

I used to work in a camera shop. Occasionally, customers' films would be ruined by the wholesale photofinishing labs (even Kodak). You should hear the howling and gnashing of teeth! The wording of the Kodak notice was quite clever, and avoided terms like 'mistake', 'accident', 'ruined', etc.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Ornello

[madNbad]

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I'll see if I can find it - just in case, maybe you can post a link, if you don't see a response there from me in the next few minutes.  Thanks!

It's in the Photos section of the Forum under "Other": https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/

Thanks for the video link!

[philipus]

11 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I'll see if I can find it - just in case, maybe you can post a link, if you don't see a response there from me in the next few minutes.  Thanks!

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page/3864/?tab=comments#comment-4267627

[convexferret]

10 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

@madNbad - Yikes....    I posted my response up above, but forgot to post the link to the video and other information.  Sorry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNurTF7Z6w0

I looked up your copy camera, trying to find out how you might make a "flat" copy as described earlier in this forum, and if in fact that's a good thing to do (which I don't know), then this is a way to do it - along with a very detailed description of what's involved.  If this concept doesn't apply to using a camera, rather than a scanner, to "copy" an original, then ignore this.  It seems to me though that if you don't do this, you're making a copy which may or may not lose some of the very light or very darks in the original - and by reducing the contrast, that would be minimized.

(It's still a copy though.  What if you copied the copy, and then copied the copy of the original, and did this ten times.  How close would the  final copy be to the original? _)

Mike. If you're using a camera to copy a negative then you don't want to go down the "flat scan" route. Instead just shoot in raw and expose as you normally would, making sure that you're not clipping. I've never met a negative that comes anywhere near maxing out the dynamic range of a modern digital camera. Producing flat scans is a workaround for scanning where you your scanner + software can't output to a format with a high enough bit depth to handle the full dynamic range and instead by flattening it they compress the dynamic range down to fit.

[ianman]

I've not seen this mentioned on the forum yet... https://www.negative.supply/  Looks interesting but it's not cheap!!

 

[wlaidlaw]

I have had pretty good results with black and white and colour reversal cut film using either a Leitz BEOON and SL601 camera with a Schneider-Kreuznach 50mm f2.8 Componon S Green Stripe lens or for mounted slides using the SL601 again but with an R to L adapter, 16880/BR-2 bellows, Noflexar R mount reprographics lens and Novoflex Digi-Cop slide holder. My favourite film for scanning was Agfa Precisa 100, where I still have 9 rolls in the freezer. This was actually made for Agfa by Fuji using Provia emulsion on a warming substrate. However I have also now found that the new Ektachrome 100D scans just as well if not slightly better than Precisa. 

I have had far less success scanning colour negative, as I just don't seem to be able to get the colours really satisfactory. I know there is the Colorperfect Program but when I used the trial version, I found that its user interface was maybe the worst designed piece of software I have come across, since the early database programmes (Vulcan - the forerunner for DBase II). Someone else has recommended a Photoshop Plug -in called Negmaster, which I will give a go when I get back to the UK next month. The other one which gets reasonable write ups is Negative Lab pro. Again I think you can get a trial version.

At the moment I use Vuescan but the colours just don't look realistic, either faded or falsely over saturated. I get my negative films processed by Peak Imaging in the UK and Photon Labs in Toulouse, France. They will scan probably as well as I would ever hope to but their images arrive on CD, heavily compressed, which does not improve them, with JPEG artefacts. I also have lots of older colour negative films (a whole cupboard full of them), where it would be much more convenient to be able to do it myself - if only I could do it better. 

I had no luck using a Plustek scanner. My one obviously has poor film to sensor register and the images were really quite soft. My old Polaroid Artixscan was far better, as it had autofocus but that died many years ago and in case was SCSI interface, unusable with modern Macs (it was the RATOC Firewire 800 to SCSI dongle that killed the scanner). 

Wilson

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I have had pretty good results with black and white and colour reversal cut film using either a Leitz BEOON and SL601 camera with a Schneider-Kreuznach 50mm f2.8 Componon S Green Stripe lens or for mounted slides using the SL601 again but with an R to L adapter, 16880/BR-2 bellows, Noflexar R mount reprographics lens and Novoflex Digi-Cop slide holder. My favourite film for scanning was Agfa Precisa 100, where I still have 9 rolls in the freezer. This was actually made for Agfa by Fuji using Provia emulsion on a warming substrate. However I have also now found that the new Ektachrome 100D scans just as well if not slightly better than Precisa. 

I have had far less success scanning colour negative, as I just don't seem to be able to get the colours really satisfactory. I know there is the Colorperfect Program but when I used the trial version, I found that its user interface was maybe the worst designed piece of software I have come across, since the early database programmes (Vulcan - the forerunner for DBase II). Someone else has recommended a Photoshop Plug -in called Negmaster, which I will give a go when I get back to the UK next month. The other one which gets reasonable write ups is Negative Lab pro. Again I think you can get a trial version.

At the moment I use Vuescan but the colours just don't look realistic, either faded or falsely over saturated. I get my negative films processed by Peak Imaging in the UK and Photon Labs in Toulouse, France. They will scan probably as well as I would ever hope to but their images arrive on CD, heavily compressed, which does not improve them, with JPEG artefacts. I also have lots of older colour negative films (a whole cupboard full of them), where it would be much more convenient to be able to do it myself - if only I could do it better. 

I had no luck using a Plustek scanner. My one obviously has poor film to sensor register and the images were really quite soft. My old Polaroid Artixscan was far better, as it had autofocus but that died many years ago and in case was SCSI interface, unusable with modern Macs (it was the RATOC Firewire 800 to SCSI dongle that killed the scanner). 

Wilson

Wilson, I bought Negative Lab Pro, and it works and is easy to use, but still requires (in my experience) some colour tweaking. The other problem is that it yields a Tiff, so is not non-destructive editing. I found the procedure explained by Alex Burke here to be very useful. Since it all happens in LR or PS it remains non-destructive and is easier to return to for adjustments. In hindsight I would not have bought Negative Lab Pro, but others here take a different view and find it OK.

[MikeMyers]

I was wrong about a lot of things.  

I'm now using the latest Plustek scanner, Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai with VueScan software on macOS.

     https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883631-REG/Plustek_783064365338_OpticFilm_8200i_Ai_Film.html?ap=y&smp=y

I decided to keep it simple, and only process B&W until I was satisfied.  All image files were opened in DxO PhotoLab4, and many of them were discussed in the DxO PhotoLab4 forums, so I could find the things that I was not doing as well as the people in the forum who have been doing this for years.  Anyone with enough interest (and patience) can read a typical discussions here:

    https://feedback.dxo.com/t/b-w-ilford-hps5-plus-plustek-scan-then-pl4/21228

I thought I understood how to use the Plustek for scanning, and that I was following the right steps, but I found out I was way off.  Anyway, anyone interested can see this discussion on how to use PL4, and what (not) to do, and there are many more discussions that explain things better than "the instructions".  I don't know if they apply to other types of scanners, or scanning.

 

I bought the scanner from B&H, at the link above, and it was focused perfectly on the grain.  I worked on my old negatives from the 1960's, and on new B&W negatives from my Leica M2 and my Nikon F4 (my M3 is off to DAG for making it new again - Don said the camera, and the shutter in particular, was very dry).

Edited September 25, 2021 by MikeMyers

[wlaidlaw]

On 9/25/2021 at 1:37 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

Wilson, I bought Negative Lab Pro, and it works and is easy to use, but still requires (in my experience) some colour tweaking. The other problem is that it yields a Tiff, so is not non-destructive editing. I found the procedure explained by Alex Burke here to be very useful. Since it all happens in LR or PS it remains non-destructive and is easier to return to for adjustments. In hindsight I would not have bought Negative Lab Pro, but others here take a different view and find it OK.

Paul, 

As a Photoshop user but never really a Lightroom user, I would probably lean towards Negmaster rather than Negative Lab Pro. Annoyingly a trial version of Negmaster is not offered. Apparently you can negotiate with the developer, a return if dissatisfied,  which I will probably do, when I get back to the UK in three weeks time. I was coming back a bit later but I have now been offered a lift in a plane going from Toulon to Farnborough, which avoids the endless queuing at Heathrow T5 and I have my new 35 APO waiting for me back in the UK 😀

There was apparently a slightly different version of Capture One that included a colour negative conversion feature (Capture One Cultural Heritage) but it was of V.20, the previous version of C1 and is seemingly no longer available. It would be a nice feature for C1 if this could be included with C1 V.22 due out in December but I doubt if it will be. I have looked at the Alex Burke method and it is OK but very laborious, if you have 8 36 exp. rolls of negative to convert. I have an action called Photoshop Colour Negatives which is similar to the method that Burke uses but you still have to tweak each image individually quite a bit and I am still not terribly happy with the results. This particularly applies to Kodak ProImage 100 scans. I bought a whole lot of this film for a couple of tropical overseas trips, after reading a good review and it was supposed to resist high ambient temperatures. I think the film is c**p with low saturation and a very narrow dynamic range. In India this is sold as Kodak's cheapest film and it looks it.

However, there is something else I am going to try. If you join a Facebook Group called "Analogue Toolbox for Capture One", you can download from that site, a free negative conversion add in for C1 with the same name as the group. I have just tested it and it works. I have no negative scans with me to test how well but I will report on it at a later date. It appears to be non-destructive and edits at the DNG level. A click on Adjustments/Reset and it recovers the original DNG. 

Wilson

Edited September 27, 2021 by wlaidlaw

[LocalHero1953]

I am a recent returnee to film, and it has been via 5x4 sheets. Scanning and processing scans is far less laborious than 35mm roll film, so I look forward to hearing how you get on with better automation of the process

[chrism]

I think the not so hidden message of this whole thread is not to expect successful and easy automation. I think you have to approach scanning, whether that means using a scanner or a digital camera, and the handling of the resulting images as processes to be enjoyed and relished just as much as taking the photo, developing the film, and making a print. An allied but separate skill, and like all of those others, if you just want to get it over with as soon as possible you are unlikely to see the best results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MikeMyers]

15 minutes ago, chrism said:

handling of the resulting images as processes to be enjoyed and relished just as much as taking the photo, developing the film, and making a print.

Long ago, I would go into my darkroom, and an hour or a few later, come out with the results of my previous picture taking for 24 or 36 images.  I would be upset when I didn't take the images correctly, but when I did, it was lovely to see the finished photograph floating in my final tray.  

It's like that now - taking photos is even easier, and I can do the "processing" in my living room, not my darkroom, but I get a similar feeling of success when the final image shows up - and if I want to tweak it just a wee bit more (just like I did half a century ago) I can do so.  

It feels like I'm saving a lot of time, but it still takes hours before I stop.  It's certainly easier (for me).  

Instead of a finished print I can show people, I have an electronic print that I can post online, or send via email, and if I really do want a print I can order one electronically.

 

Anyway, for shooting film, I think my life got much easier.  

I'm trading "convenience" for being "more creative".  I've always been more careful shooting film, as I felt every shot counted.  With digital, I can take one shot, ten, or a hundred, as in "spray and pray" that one will be great.  But none of that takes away from the enjoyment I used to get in my darkroom, way back when, or now in my digital darkroom. 

.....and one more thing - between dodging, and burning, and holding the easel at an angle to correct perspective, and trying to expose different parts of the printing paper differently, it is SO much easier and better to do that electronically - and if I want to make a tiny change, I don't have to do the whole thing all over again, I just need to make one change in the scanner or image processing software.

 

To answer your quote - for me, yes, it is at least just as enjoyable, and probably much more so.

[grahamc]

On 9/28/2021 at 5:34 AM, MikeMyers said:

Long ago, I would go into my darkroom, and an hour or a few later, come out with the results of my previous picture taking for 24 or 36 images.  I would be upset when I didn't take the images correctly, but when I did, it was lovely to see the finished photograph floating in my final tray.  

It's like that now - taking photos is even easier, and I can do the "processing" in my living room, not my darkroom, but I get a similar feeling of success when the final image shows up - and if I want to tweak it just a wee bit more (just like I did half a century ago) I can do so.  

It feels like I'm saving a lot of time, but it still takes hours before I stop.  It's certainly easier (for me).  

 

Hi Mike, to sure if this has been covered in other threads but how are you getting on with the Plustek 8200i Ai ?   I need a scanner for 35mm and overall it seems like a really good choice ?

I'm completely new to scanning by the way 

Thanks