Scanning Film

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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! 

i made a base develop preset for Fuji Acros 100, as i prefer DNG files from the plustek for b&w, and simply import the scanned DNG's into LR while applying the Develop preset, then its pretty quick to run through all the 30+ images and make minor adjustments to the curvees

[250swb]

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. 

To answer your question Mike, the Plustek will work with Vuescan very well indeed. Silverfast is what you are mostly paying for when you buy the scanner but it comes bundled and you have no option. But Silverfast is horrible software and yet another complicated learning curve in itself.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

29 minutes ago, 250swb said:

the Plustek will work with Vuescan very well indeed. Silverfast is what you are mostly paying for when you buy the scanner but it comes bundled and you have no option. But Silverfast is horrible software and yet another complicated learning curve in itself.

I will certainly trust your experience vs. my total lack of experience, and since VueScan is already installed on my Mac, I'm all set.  I tried to buy the Plustek without the Silverstuff, but B&H called back to say I can't.  In one of the posts I read, one can buy the Plustek in England for a savings of $100 or so.  

The last thing I need is more confusion - I will leave the Silverfast alone, and start out with VueScan, unless you guys tell me otherwise.

[Steve Ricoh]

I use a Plustek Ai which came bundled with Silverfast, and I like it. Easy to use with well supported S/W. I wouldn’t right it off based on reports you may read. Just bear with it, read / view the tutorials and it will become second nature without too much effort. 
 

If you really want to use Vuescan software, purchase the base model 8200 or SE. 

[MikeMyers]

B&H has already shipped the Plustek AI, so I should have it in a few days.  The base model would have saved me around $100 or so.

Does the Silverfast that comes with the AI offer any enhancements that I don't get with VueScan?  My gut feeling is that I should start out with the device and the new software that perhaps works better with the AI than other software?

[madNbad]

I used both Silverfast and Vuescan with a 7600i. Silverfast offers “Pilot” which is a streamlined way to scan your film. In Pilot mode the software leads you through the steps and produces an acceptable scan. You can make adjustments throughout the process. With VueScan,  you import the image and then work on adjusting. Both work fine but both have a learning curve. If you’re only using film occasionally, the Plustek is a fine choice. If you have the opportunity, buy an extra holder. This way you can prepare one strip while scanning another.

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

B&H has already shipped the Plustek AI, so I should have it in a few days.  The base model would have saved me around $100 or so.

Does the Silverfast that comes with the AI offer any enhancements that I don't get with VueScan?  My gut feeling is that I should start out with the device and the new software that perhaps works better with the AI than other software?

i think Ai is referring to infrared scans, for dust / scratch reduction, which will not work for B&W, thats why for B&W, i set silverfast to DNG, so corrections or adjustments are done, each frame takes under 20 secs, then load all 34-36 frames into lightroom, and follow the curve adjustment as mentioned above.

 

i usually load 6 images at a time into lightroom: after changing the first strip and while doing the next prescan, ill import the previous 6 images into LR, saves a lot of time.

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

i think Ai is referring to infrared scans, for dust / scratch reduction, which will not work for B&W, thats why for B&W, i set silverfast to DNG, so corrections or adjustments are done, each frame takes under 20 secs, then load all 34-36 frames into lightroom, and follow the curve adjustment as mentioned above.

Currently I am only shooting B&W, as you note, but you suggest I select DNG in importing images into my computer using Silverfast?  I guess I'll find this out in a few days.  If I continue as I have in the past, I expect to import just one negative at a time, not six.  I also am trying to avoid Adobe - I will continue to send the images to DxO PhotoLab4.  

For a while, I have no interest in saving time - I just want to learn the process.  There seems to be a lot of learning to do.

Question - are you suggesting the AI  dust/scratch reductions won't work for B&W ?

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, madNbad said:

If you have the opportunity, buy an extra holder. This way you can prepare one strip while scanning another.

I'll check the B&H Website or call them.  That sounds like an excellent idea.  Thank you!

[erl]

10 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

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.  

VueScan prides itself on working with any scanner, and IMO superior to Silverfast, (I own both, but will never again use Silverfast). There is a learning curve with VueScan, as there is with any decent software. Never hesitate to ask for help/guidance as you progress. I have been using VS for years, but am still leaning (mainly shortcuts these days). Once 'mastered' scanning becomes a relaxing and useful pleasure.

[MikeMyers]

9 minutes ago, erl said:

VueScan prides itself on working with any scanner, and IMO superior to Silverfast,

OK, I'm convinced.  VueScan is already installed and working on my Mac.  So, once I connect the USB cable, I should be in business.  Does VueScan come up with a suggested setup for scanning images from the Plustek, or do I figure this out manually?  Does VueScan have a selection for B&W film, or is everything configured when I select the film I used?  

This forum is contagious - so many things I read here have a huge influence on what I think and do.   😳

[frame-it]

17 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Currently I am only shooting B&W, as you note, but you suggest I select DNG in importing images into my computer using Silverfast?  

while actually scanning in silverfast, the area where you set the file format and destination folder

use 48bit hdr, and then it shows DNG or tiff as a file options, so i use DNG >>>

 

[Ornello]

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. 

[MikeMyers]

On 8/24/2021 at 7:29 PM, frame-it said:

while actually scanning in silverfast, the area where you set the file format and destination folder

My scanner arrived today.  I'll either unbox it tonight, or more likely tomorrow.  One of the first decisions I need to make, is to use Silverfast, or VueScan.  There were suggestions earlier in this discussion that I start off with VueScan.  VueScan "seems" to be simpler to start out with.  I guess I'll eventually need to try both, and see which I prefer.   However, DxO PhotoLab4 will easily accept a TIFF file, but If I want to use a DNG file it insists on my entering the camera and lens used to create it.  Without that information, PL4 won't open the file.  This is why I convert my Leica M8.2 files to TIFF, then edit in PL4.

I'm sort of used to VueScan already, from using it on my Epson V500 PHOTO.  That gives me a head start on using it with the new scanner.

[MikeMyers]

3 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. 

For starters, my darkroom gear was sold many years ago - I wish I still had it, but I don't.  Second, with all the other stuff I have in my small condo, there is no room to conveniently set up a darkroom, and only one room that I can make "dark", and that room is currently being used as a closet, my workshop, and my Bullseye reloading gear.  Also, no running water.

3 hours ago, Ornello said:

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. 

I completely disagree with this, at least for me.  Maybe it's true for others.  My small amount of experience with scanning Ilford 100 B&W certainly did not create very grainy results.  Second, as I see it, for B&W film, the grain IS the image - it's not like digital, where noise (looks like grain) messes up an image.  If you wrote scanning CAN produce results like that, I wouldn't argue, but I've found a way to avoid that issue.

I have no idea yet how scanning my 35mm color negatives will work out - I decided I would start with B&W, which I feel is more of a challenge.

Regarding good scans, while I agree someone might find that "conventional B&W materials" don't scan very well,  I haven't seen that as an issue at all.  With all the controls available to me with a scanned image, processing it in DxO PhotoLab4, I have infinitely more control than I ever had in my darkroom.....    which might very well be because I didn't understand printing as well as I understand my computer photo editing software, and even that is limited, as people are constantly showing me things I didn't know before, such as @jaapv in showing me how to make an image appear sharper in Topaz AI Sharpen.  That would be impossible with my old Simon Omega 4x5 enlarger.

Edited August 27, 2021 by MikeMyers

[erl]

5 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. 

Your statement is very "B&W" (pun intended) and as such, IMO, completely incorrect. All disciplines require skill and experience to maximize their benefit. My current status includes shooting film (B&W and COL) and scanning to produce an output frequently intended for  large prints. I also shoot digital. Sometimes I compare the choice of shooting digital or film to either painting or sketching to produce my image. The media chosen is usually based on the result I want, never because one is better than the other, because it simply is not. Just preferred.

As far as scanning goes, I can (as can others) produce totally excellent scans that will frequently "outprint" a direct digital file. Usually it is a question of grain V's digital noise. Choose your poison!

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!

[erl]

Perhaps I should also add that the choice of shooting digital or analog can also be a distinct preference for the 'experience' of handling a film camera and then moving to the darkroom processing stage which is an experience missing in the digital stream. Of course, you have to love being the sole creator of the output without external (labs etc.) influence. One of my mantras is: "What I don't do, doesn't happen".

[Ouroboros]

13 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.

 

 My preferred workflow for all of my personal work and a significant portion of the work I sell is  hybrid.  I shoot black and white, colour negative and colour transparency  film in several formats which I scan, edit the files as I wish and ultimately make inkjet prints.

I use an Imacon scanner which cost a significant outlay when I bought it new in 2008.
I know this machine and the dedicated FireWire iMac that I use to drive it inside out and nothing has, or  ever will,  convince me that I need to bin all my film and film camera equipment to achieve better prints than I continue to produce.

I spent over 40 years of my career making colour and black and white prints in a darkroom by hand.  I know what a good wet print is and I appreciate the work that goes into making one.  
 

I also know  and appreciate the work that goes into making a good digital print from a scanned file of a film original. 
From your post, I have a strong suspicion that you have given very little time to actually learning the workflow properly yet you make a bold statement with assumed authority.  Well, I have news for you; you’re wrong!
 

 It’s a workflow that I find satisfying for several reasons, not least the quality of the final output.  Several of my prints have also brought me some recognition in my professional life.

I’m not intending to change my methods anytime soon.  Apart from the arguments I could throw back at you after reading your post, I also enjoy my photography this way!

Part of the endless fascination of photography is in the learning and the mastering of the craft, whatever your preferred route to achieving a goal.  
 

It has f-all to do with forum dogma.

 

My scanner and it's dedicated iMac.  I also use a Nikon D810 with 60mm micro lens and ES-2 for rapid scanning of 35mm originals which works very well.  If I feel a 35mm frame is suitable for a higher resolution scan it will go through the Imacon afterwards.

 

 

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!

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ouroboros

[250swb]

17 hours ago, Ornello said:

Scanning color film generally produces good results. But that is not true for conventional B&W materials. 

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.

Edited August 27, 2021 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MikeMyers]

4 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Part of the endless fascination of photography is in the learning and the mastering of the craft, whatever your preferred route to achieving a goal.  

Yes, again, as Cunard used to say, "Getting there is half the fun!"   I enjoy the "doing" as much as I enjoy the end result - sometimes much more!

Is that your scanner at the right side of your photo?  Wow!!!  Very nice setup you've built.