Scanning Film

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35mm Plustek scanners are fine machines, but not as good as a 24mp camera, and take much, much longer. If you only want to post on the web you can take a full resolution camera image and make it smaller, but even on a computer screen you'll see a difference between the Plustek scan and a camera. And you only want to scan once if possible, so it's better to do it at full resolution once than spend hours doing scans for the web and then having to go back and do some again at a higher res for prints, competitions, etc. A camera will save you hours and hours.

[AceVentura1986]

FWIW, I did a trial session the other day and got good results. My main goal was to see how I could use my tripod instead of buying a copy stand and to test my new Canon 100mm lens. To that end, the test was hugely successful.

My tripod was adequate to the task and really left nothing to be desired. I didn’t even need to reverse the center pole as the head pivoted exactly enough to enable the camera to point downward. The lens focused as expected as well. I do need to spend more time on the camera settings and leveling but as a proof of concept it worked well and set up was very quick. 

The main issue I encountered was Lightroom. I reversed the points in the Lightroom curve and got a positive image, but even this really wasn’t enough. I think I need to buy Negative Lab Pro. Otherwise, tho, the system worked as intended. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

33 minutes ago, AceVentura1986 said:

FWIW, I did a trial session the other day and got good results. My main goal was to see how I could use my tripod instead of buying a copy stand and to test my new Canon 100mm lens. To that end, the test was hugely successful.

My tripod was adequate to the task and really left nothing to be desired. I didn’t even need to reverse the center pole as the head pivoted exactly enough to enable the camera to point downward. The lens focused as expected as well. I do need to spend more time on the camera settings and leveling but as a proof of concept it worked well and set up was very quick. 

The main issue I encountered was Lightroom. I reversed the points in the Lightroom curve and got a positive image, but even this really wasn’t enough. I think I need to buy Negative Lab Pro. Otherwise, tho, the system worked as intended. 

When taking a digital camera picture of a B&W negative I import into Lightroom then export directly to Photoshop (I have CS6), invert in PS then round trip back to LR. All the sliders work as normal having done that. I’ve not tried the same routine with Colour negatives, and reading about it the problem would be trying to correct the orange mask. For colour I use my Plustek. 

[MikeMyers]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

The 35mm Plustek scanners are fine machines, but not as good as a 24mp camera, and take much, much longer. If you only want to post on the web you can take a full resolution camera image and make it smaller, but even on a computer screen you'll see a difference between the Plustek scan and a camera. And you only want to scan once if possible, so it's better to do it at full resolution once than spend hours doing scans for the web and then having to go back and do some again at a higher res for prints, competitions, etc. A camera will save you hours and hours.

With that reasoning, I should get rid of my 24-meg M10, and buy the latest version with around twice that resolution.  From everything I read, I should also get rid of my 1960's Leica lenses and buy the newest ones for perhaps $4,000 each.  Regarding time, that's a non-issue - having watched the video on the Plustek, I have no problem with waiting, as I'll just be doing something else while the scanning is going on.  In any given session, I seem to to perhaps 10 scans at most, only of the images I like the most.  If I shot a 24-exposure roll of film, there would possibly be six or eight images that I might want to scan, if that.  It might take half an hour to an hour for each image, which is nothing compared to the time Ansel Adams spent in processing an image to get it "right".  If it's a b&w image, I try to capture "the grain", knowing if I get the grain sharp, the image will be sharp.

Brings me to my current choices, which currently are to use my Epson V500 flatbed scanner and VueScan software.  The Plustek scanner seems like a step up from the Epson, and also seems to me to be much more convenient.  The workflow is smoother, and I like the controls it offers.  My goal is to convert a film negative into a TIFF file to be processed by DxO PhotoLab4.  The cost is $500 for the latest model, and $400 for the older version I found on-line.

Another consideration is convenience.  I live in a very small condo, and while the Plustek can find a home on my desk, and remain there, a copy stand and camera and lens and lightbox will need to be set up for each scanning session, then put away after.  The convenience of the ever-ready Plustek is better, and also better than setting up the Epson V500.

One final thought - if I was taking an ultra-high-resolution image of some scene, perhaps in my case the Miami skyline with Biscayne Bay in the front, I'm pretty sure I would use my best camera and lens to capture a perfect digital image to begin with, I would be using my best digital camera, currently my M10 or my D750.  I don't see how I would gain anything in shooting on film.  But that's not the type of photography I see myself doing with my film camera nowadays.  It's certainly not the type of photo I would capture in my M3 with one of my best lenses - I'd put the best lens on the D10 (or Nikon equivalent).  

I already have all the gear I need for copying the negatives with a digital camera, but I would almost certainly get a copy stand to make it easier.  I'd be wondering at the time why I didn't take the image with a digital camera to begin with, if that is the goal.  So I suspect I should be asking you a different question - what is your advice on my continuing to use my Epson V500 PHOTO, or buying the Plustek?   Of those two choices, which do you feel is better?  (For now, I see myself only shooting B&W film, as that was/is my goal.)  

(The end result would be for me to post the images, full size, on my http://www.m.smugmug.com  gallery, or to post here in the forum, or to send others as a ".jpg" file that they can open on their own computer.)

I think I want to do something similar to what @AceVentura1986 has been asking about, and I want to do this in addition to my digital work with my M10, not instead of it.

[250swb]

57 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

So I suspect I should be asking you a different question - what is your advice on my continuing to use my Epson V500 PHOTO, or buying the Plustek?   Of those two choices, which do you feel is better?  (For now, I see myself only shooting B&W film, as that was/is my goal.)  

 

If it's as simple as that get the Plustek, it will give hugely better quality individual scans, but keep your V500 for quick digital contact sheets.

[Guest Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

With that reasoning, I should get rid of my 24-meg M10, and buy the latest version with around twice that resolution.  From everything I read, I should also get rid of my 1960's Leica lenses and buy the newest ones for perhaps $4,000 each...

Sure, that is the conclusion if you reason in non-sequiturs.

As  you already have the M10, camera scanning is the easiest and best thing to do, with the proviso that you can get a good copy stand. I have a BEOON which, at $200, was a no-brainer because, together with a Focotar II lens, I got scans that were most of the time indistinguishable from the ones I made with an Imacon Precision III scanner (the forerunner of the highly expensive and now discontinued Hasselblad scanners), which has a true optical resolution of 6,300 dpi and a dMax of 4.2 — but the latter scans take 12–15 per frame. The trouble with the BEOON is that it has become difficult to find a good one and the price has increased a lot. But there are other stands easily available.

Reading what you've written, it seems to me that, to be practical, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are satisfied with scans that have the muddy tonal palette of the one in your post #32. Whether you use an Epson flatbed or an inexpensive Plustek wouldn't matter. It's only if you define your goal with a different quality target that you need to something else; otherwise,  this is all palaver.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[leitna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i am a fan of the hasselblad scanners. I bought recentlly an Imacon 646 - my former Precission 2 produces the same quality but is slower and needs a SCSI interface. 

i will sell my Precission II - but i am located in Austria.

[frame-it]

nice article... he touches on a few important things about scanners and settings

https://www.35mmc.com/16/08/2021/picking-your-color-negative-film-stock-an-alternative-approach-by-matt-wright/

[MikeMyers]

5 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Reading what you've written, it seems to me that, to be practical, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are satisfied with scans that have the muddy tonal palette of the one in your post #32. Whether you use an Epson flatbed or an inexpensive Plustek wouldn't matter. It's only if you define your goal with a different quality target that you need to something else; otherwise,  this is all palaver.

I agree - but this was my first time scanning 35mm negatives, and I suspect what is wrong with that scan is due to me, not the negative or the scanner.  I was guessing at the settings for VueScan, and I never found the controls I've seen used in the Plustek videos.  I've got a LOT to learn.  I don't think I will ever be satisfied, but I do expect over time I'll get better.  I hope.  As to my goal, that's easy - "National Geography Quality Images".  But I've got to start somewhere, even if it looks terrible to those who know more than I about scanning.  

[MikeMyers]

@AceVentura1986 - here is one of the "business cards" I said I would send you , for the shop here in Miami:

Stop by sometime and check out his work - very impressive!!

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]

12 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Sure, that is the conclusion if you reason in non-sequiturs.

........

Reading what you've written, it seems to me that, to be practical, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are satisfied with scans that have the muddy tonal palette of the one in your post #32. Whether you use an Epson flatbed or an inexpensive Plustek wouldn't matter. It's only if you define your goal with a different quality target that you need to something else; otherwise,  this is all palaver.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

I think to be fair to the situation, the 'muddy' tones are most likely to be due to the flat lighting of the motif. Certainly that can be improved with technique in various ways, but there is no substitute for good light. The posters original pic can easily be improved (or deteriorated) with skillful manipulation, but of course better equipment will always leave the door open for ease of improvement. I would alway advocate to acquire the best gear you can afford at any given time.

[MikeMyers]

The experiment was to get my old M3 going, load up 24 exposures of B&W film, find someone to develop the negatives, scan them with whatever I had at hand, my Epson, save a few of them as a Tiff file, and edit in PhotoLab4 to look like the photos I took a lifetime ago.  I did a bunch of stuff like straighten the vertical lines, but not a lot more.  I know there are tricks to make B&W photos look better, but I didn't try to learn any of them.  With that being my goal, I accomplished what I was after, and then got involved in learning my M10 better.  My second roll of 24 exposures was dropped off for developing today.  Hopefully the lighting was better, and the focus should be better, and if my Leicameter doesn't lie, the exposures should be good enough.

Since reading this post by @AceVentura1986 I got much more involved, and watched a lot of videos on the Plustek.  I didn't think I needed the software that comes with it, but I started thinking that software should help me get a better scan, and only after that I'll send it to PhotoLab.

I find it hard to believe I've gotten so involved in this.  I know there IS something magical about film, and I'm hoping I can find it.  All the technical stuff is secondary.  I feel like I'm in way over my head, but I don't feel like I'm drowning.  It's a thoroughly enjoyable diversion from what I usually do, meaning digital.  I stopped shooting film the day I got my first decent digital camera, an Olympus e10.  From then on, I was gung-ho on digital, and I forgot all my film gear.  I still have my Nikon F4, and an F2.  Oh, and a Contarex.  Those all have oodles of controls and settings - nothing like the simplicity of the Leica.

[erl]

Mike, never consider you are in 'over your head'. Rather see it as having plenty of 'headroom!' 😁

All your existing film cameras should be fun, keep using them. I recommend persisting with VueScan as software on any scanner you use. Always scan for the widest range of tones (eg. keep BP & WP as wide as possible). This will produce aflat looking scan, which is best manipulated to your taste in other software of your choice. It does not all come together straight away. Just keep chipping away at it and seek advice on this forum at any time. The multiplicity of advice you will attract will mostly include the right answer!

[LocalHero1953]

20 hours ago, AceVentura1986 said:

FWIW, I did a trial session the other day and got good results. My main goal was to see how I could use my tripod instead of buying a copy stand and to test my new Canon 100mm lens. To that end, the test was hugely successful.

My tripod was adequate to the task and really left nothing to be desired. I didn’t even need to reverse the center pole as the head pivoted exactly enough to enable the camera to point downward. The lens focused as expected as well. I do need to spend more time on the camera settings and leveling but as a proof of concept it worked well and set up was very quick. 

The main issue I encountered was Lightroom. I reversed the points in the Lightroom curve and got a positive image, but even this really wasn’t enough. I think I need to buy Negative Lab Pro. Otherwise, tho, the system worked as intended. 

I find that LR is good for B&W, with a bit of work with the tone curve (after inverting, bend it steeply convex to top right). If you're working in colour, then before buying Negative Lab Pro you might want to look at this page. I thought the same as you and bought Negative Lab Pro but found some work was still needed to get colours right. Using Alex Burke's method I could get close to the same standard, but the advantages are (a) I could have saved some money and (b) once I tweaked the settings to suit one image I could make a preset and use it for the rest of the sequence/film/batch. I now have basic Lightroom presets for Ektar and Portra (as well as one for B&W negatives) which speed up the whole process.

 FWIW I'm scanning 4x5 negatives, not 35mm film, with a SL2-S on a tripod and a Kaiser Slimlight Piano.

Incidentally, after scanning, inverting and getting the colours right in Lightroom, I usually set noise reduction, sharpening and clarity sliders to zero, and run the image through Topaz Sharpen AI, which yields a tiff (of course you could avoid Topaz and just export it from LR as a tiff). All the exposure etc sliders are now pointing the right way and you can do other adjustments without having to persuade your brain it's in an inverse universe.   

Edited August 24, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[frame-it]

i use this technique for "exotic" films that have no profile in silvefast

 

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, frame-it said:

i use this technique for "exotic" films that have no profile in silvefast

 

Thanks. A similar process, and executed in PS which will suit some. Alex Burke crops the image before inverting, which means less adjustment is needed of the curve end point in the image shadows (negative highlights). OTOH using the PS colour balance layer is also more flexible than using WB in LR. But whether you use LR or PS both methods help you understand what's going on, while Negative Lab Pro is a bit of a black box.

Edit. He is right that you have to do this process for each image separately, but I do find presets useful for triage of images and getting to the right starting point. For me, though, since I am working on small numbers of 4x5 sheet film images and not a couple of rolls of 35mm, treating each image individually is not a problem! 

Edited August 24, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Guest Nowhereman]

45 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

...But whether you use LR or PS both methods help you understand what's going on, while Negative Lab Pro is a bit of a black box.

Paul - You mean "black box" in the sense that it's very constricting? What I mean is that the two other methods seem to be laborious in that every detailed edit of the three channels seems to be image specific — doesn't Negative Lab automate this in a "good sense" — or does it lead you into something that you can't fix if you don't like the results? I ask because I haven't not yet tried  Negative Lab.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Edited August 24, 2021 by Nowhereman

[LocalHero1953]

10 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Paul - You mean "black box" in in a sense that it's very constricting? What I mean is that the two other methods seem to be laborious in that every detailed edit of the three channels seems to be image specific — doesn't Negative Lab automate this in a "good sense" — or does it lead you into something that you can't fix if you don't like the results? I ask because I haven't not yet tried  Negative Lab.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

I meant 'black box' in the sense that you can't see how it works, but otherwise, you're right! See the edit to my post. 
I do find, though, that NLP doesn't get it completely right and I have always had to do individual tweaking, so the time saving was not as much as I expected, and I saved more time by using presets to get me part of the way there.

Edit. I suggest anyone who doesn't already have NLP to try these processes first, rather than spending the money for NLP first as I did. You can always buy it later.

Edited August 24, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[MikeMyers]

9 hours ago, erl said:

I think to be fair to the situation, the 'muddy' tones are most likely to be due to the flat lighting of the motif. Certainly that can be improved with technique in various ways,

I was thinking about all this last night.  It reminds me of an argument I had with someone in a college course in New York when I was going off to college.  The other person said "grain" is no problem, as he could take a photo of a grainy tri-x photo, using pan-x low grain film in his camera, which would replace the "bad" grain with "new" grain.  Nothing I said to him could convince him that this was not an answer.  To me, the grain doesn't make a photo better or worse - the grain *IS* the picture.   ......never mind that nowadays artificial intelligence may be able to recreate an image that doesn't have visible grain.

At the time, I thought and felt and acted like a "photojournalist", and thought my job was to re-create the scene I was photographing.  If the original scene had "muddy tones" or any other "defect", my photo should accurately represent what I actually "saw", and not my imagination of what the scene should have looked like perhaps with better lighting.  Maybe this was old-fashioned thinking, and maybe software will include more and more artificial intelligence, to create a more pleasing photograph without "defects", in the same way that people can now copy a hundred-year-old photo with cracks and dirt and pieces missing - and turn it into a "perfect" photo, fully corrected.  

I don't have an answer to any of this.  

I guess I ought to learn how to do both, meaning in addition to my new scanner I ordered, I should buy a good copy stand.  To be honest though, if I go that way, I should also start taking my photos with my camera on a tripod.  Until AI finds a way to correct a blurry image, I should do my best to make sure the original image isn't blurry.  

One last thought - if I'm going to go to all this effort to get a "perfect" image out of my film camera, and if the image is going to get digitized at some point, why am I not taking the image with my digital camera to begin with?  Why am I shooting film, which I can capture just as good an image if I shoot digital?  Is all my digital processing removing the reason people use film to begin with, which includes printing with an (analog) enlarger and chemicals?    I suspect what you guys are telling me, is that using a copy stand and a high quality digital camera, I will be able to capture what makes a film image so enjoyable, preferable to a digital image?   

(I think each of us might have a different answer for this question, and in this case, we should all be trying to answer @AceVentura1986 .  The stuff that I just wrote about relates to how I think and how I see, and maybe it doesn't apply to anyone else - I don't know.  I do know that the more I read here, the more confusing it gets, for me.  That's good I think, as I see so many more possibilities now.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MikeMyers]

8 hours ago, erl said:

Mike, never consider you are in 'over your head'. Rather see it as having plenty of 'headroom!' 😁

All your existing film cameras should be fun, keep using them. I recommend persisting with VueScan as software on any scanner you use. Always scan for the widest range of tones (eg. keep BP & WP as wide as possible). This will produce aflat looking scan, which is best manipulated to your taste in other software of your choice. It does not all come together straight away. Just keep chipping away at it and seek advice on this forum at any time. The multiplicity of advice you will attract will mostly include the right answer!

Gee, I wish I read this before I posted a few minutes ago.  I agree, and that fits right into my view of the "scanning" world.

Just one question - you suggest I continue using VueScan - will it work with the Plustek scanner??  I thought the "Silverfast" (??) that comes with the scanner does the same thing.