Scanning Film

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour 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.

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.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

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

Speaking for myself, I'm "happy" with scans I just did, but not with the scans I did before.  I'm sure that once I learn more, that will repeat.  

My "impossible" goal would be to send a scan to Professor Davis, and have him give his approval.  

I have decided that some people here are very knowledgeable, and talented, and I keep learning from them.  There are other "experts" here, that I think have no clue to what's really going on.  Me?  I think it's obvious, and I want to get closer to what that first group can do.  The second group would include my classmate in a course at Pratt University who insisted he could fix a grainy photo by copying it with fine grain film.   🙂

[MikeMyers]

13 minutes ago, erl said:

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.

I guess this will be a problem for me, as 99% of the time, here and in India, the final result is "on-line".  I use SmugMug, and despite their warnings, I post my full-resolution finished images there, so others can see (and copy) them.  The only place I make large prints is every so often in India, and it is much more likely to be something printed in a publication.  They do have a "DTP Department" (Desktop publishing) and they do make large photos to hang on the walls.  Sometimes they do this with some of my photos.  When I get home though, I'm in a digital world.

In the DxO PhotoLab4 forum, I usually post my original DNG file, along with the file PhotoLab creates, a "DOP" file.  Anyone in the forum can select my image, and my "dop" file, and see on their screen what I'm seeing on my own screen, with all my adjustments and corrections.  They re-edit, and send me their 'dop' file, so I can see on my computer what they changed.

I did see some huge prints today, hanging on the walls' and on the workbenches at "Darkroom and Digital", my photo lab.  They were spectacular!  Beautiful!!  I'm sure I could have them print some of my files, but I don't know what I would do with the prints..........    Assessing my images on a display may well be "stupid", but I don't have much choice.

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, Ornello said:

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.

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.

[erl]

I think we all must keep in mind the concept of "fit for purpose". What is totally fine for posting on the web, which a huge amount of created images are used for, the same adequate quality will not cut it for murals and large exhibitions. if web use is your only intent, then using a phone cam will do it, suitable light permitting. My overarching objective is to bring together several exhibitions, possible combined as hard copy mounted and framed large prints. This demands best practice quality. Included will be both images produced from film and digital sources. Of necessity, scanning will be part of the workflow and I have no hesitation in employing it. I have already produced a  number of the prints ready for mounting and framing. The work is at a standstill currently, because of Covid. My greatest source of frustration. We are currently enduring lockdown # 6 with a curfew and continuing. Ugh!

[MikeMyers]

I guess I'll soon find out how I'm doing.  I sent my latest scan (an old barn) to my friends in India, who asked for a full-size file.  I sent it to them using Dropbox - it's 27 megs file size.  I suspect they may want to print it in a very large size.  I hope to hear back from them by tomorrow as to whether it's acceptable.

My thoughts on what you wrote, are to try to create the kind of quality that would be necessary for a mural, knowing that most people will view them in a much smaller size.  They've made one of my photos (actually a composite of two photos) into a huge "mural" that goes in front of two huge windows on a local building - stand back 20 feet, and it looks great.  Walk up close, and it falls apart - partly because it was printed on the material that people "outside" see the printed picture, but people "inside" see right through the picture, as if it isn't there.  It's the kind of material that they put on a bus, so people outside see a huge mural, but people inside just look right through it and see an almost normal view of the world outside.

Anyway, I scanned at 7200 dpi, and made it the best  know how to do.  When I view it full-size on my computer screen, from a foot away, it looks awful.  Maybe with a 4x5 view camera I would have something spectacular.  There were special programs (Genuine Fractals) that allowed a person to make a huge mural from a 35mm negative, but I don't have that software.  The people in India do, so maybe they really can print it in a huge size.  I dunno.  

More things to read up on......

@erl - when you create your murals, do you do a direct "print", or do you use something like Genuine Fractals to help make a very large print?

[madNbad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On another forum there was a rather intense thread about scanning. Bed scanners, dedicated scanners, camera scanners, everyone had their own view. Someone chimed in about wet printing and how much better it was (sound familiar?). A younger poster clearly stated that many of his peers enjoyed using film but had no interest in the darkroom. His statement was basically, darkrooms were expensive and an entirely different skill set they weren't interested in. Now we have a growing group of younger photographers embracing film but wanting a way to be able to post on social media. This is a part of what is driving the interest in scanning. Epson may make some incremental changes to the V850 and after nearly a decade of the Plustek 8200i, who really thinks we'll see a 8300 or 8400?  The biggest changes now are the advancements in digital camera scanning and the conversion software. The newest software is making it easier to convert negatives and give the user the option of adjusting the image to what they want. It will be the younger photographers keeping film alive and we should thank them for it.

[MikeMyers]

Can you please post a link to that discussion?  

[madNbad]

Here it is: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/a-modern-scanner-for-35mm-and-120-film.186177/

[250swb]

10 hours 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.

This is actually very true. But the lack of comparison with better examples and the general desire to tick a box as quickly as possible and say the job is done is widespread in any hobby. There are also the people who know a lot about one thing, and the people who know a little bit about many things. In the middle there are the few people who have mastered a few things and can do all of them well. 

Grain in scanning is not generally the fault of the scanner unless interpolation is being used or the settings for contrast etc. are set too high. This is why a negative should be scanned as a low contrast image that is finished off in post processing. If after that there is excessive grain it is often the result of unskilled post processing and clumsy sharpening. Of course there is also expertise in using films and especially developers that assist scanning. It would seem your only reference is based on some guy you gave the negative to, not your own expertise in scanning, and if you have no expertise in scanning how would you know what a good scan looks like? So your elitist view of the darkroom may be your individual art it doesn't mean other arts don't exist or other artists can't master both. You arrogantly seem to imagine anybody pro-scanning in this thread has never used a darkroom, and you are so, so wrong.

Edited September 1, 2021 by 250swb

[MikeMyers]

10 hours ago, madNbad said:

Here it is: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/a-modern-scanner-for-35mm-and-120-film.186177/

Thank you.  I read all 8 pages of the discussion, then joined the forum.  So many different opinions - it's like asking what is better, a Ford or a Chevrolet.  I came away from it thinking that it's not the hardware, it's the ability of the person using the hardware to get the best results.

Some things I recognized and agreed with. Most things I didn't know enough to evaluate, let alone agree or disagree.  

In this discussion, I think I know enough to recognize which responses to accept, and which to ignore.  I've got lots of answers now, but the more I learn, the more questions I have.  I think I'll just continue scanning with my Plustek, following the guidance in this forum.  Personally, I'm very pleased with the results.  I don't think I ever did as well back when I had my own darkroom.  Back then, I just wanted to see my photos printed, so I could share them with other people.  I wasn't all that "picky", and other than at school, I didn't have any good feedback.  This forum provides lots of feedback.  

I wish more people here were posting images of their results, and all of us could see their talent, or lack of.  This especially refers to @AceVentura1986 - I'm wondering how he is doing with his own scanning, after reading what is now 7 pages of replies and feedback.  I hope it helped him at least as much as it helped me.

[madNbad]

Glad you enjoyed the discussion. It's been a long time since I spent much time in a darkroom and the effort to produce a decent image from a scanned negative seem somewhat familiar. The hybrid process is here to stay. More film is being sold each year and more new users are coming to it. Kickstarter companies like LabBox, Reveni Meters and Negative Supply had their projects funded fully and have delivered products that advance the process. There will always be the purist, either all analog or all digital. I like my digital camera but it's not my first choice when heading out. It has it's place and it's very good at it, I just enjoy the film process. I was tired of disappointing lab scans that were muddy or too much contrast, cost too much and took forever to get back. In an afternoon, I can develop a roll of film, scan it and post process and post it. I call it my digital darkroom. Here is one from Stayton, Oregon. Taken with a M4, Voigtlander 35 2.0 Utron ASPH, 022 filter, TMax 100 developed in HC-110 Dilution B. Originally it was scanned with a Sony A7II, 55 2.8 Micro-Nikkor Ai-S and a Skier CopyBox. It took some effort but it was a pretty good scan. Same image with the Sony A7II, FE90G 2.8 Macro and the Negative Supply setup was finished in a fraction of the time.

I just noticed comparing the two side by side, when I scanned the first image, I didn't realize my Alzo Copy Stand was allowing the camera to tilt out of alignment, now I can see how much!

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 September 1, 2021 by madNbad

[MikeMyers]

My very uneducated opinion is that the lower image shows more detail than the top image, but that might be because the lower image is lighter?  Hmm, had your copy stand been tilted the other way, the vertical lines would have remained more vertical, but that  could have been adjusted in the image  processor.  Also, there is something "dark" in the bottom left corner of the lower image, which isn't shown in the top image.  On my screen, even the lower image is slightly too "dark".  It would be interesting to see the histogram.  Also, there is some dirt (??) on the bottom of the window-sill, that is sharper in the top image than the bottom image.  Now that I'm looking, the left side of the bottom image is sharper than the top image.

(I'm viewing all this on an un-calibrated 2013 iMac screen.  I mostly prefer the lower image more than the upper image.  What camera were they taken with?)

[madNbad]

What you’re seeing is a major upgrade in equipment and the ever popular learning from your own mistakes. The first image was done wit my Sony A7II but with a manual focus lens, a copy stand that was far from true vertical and a light source with a built in holder that held the negatives but not very flat. The second image, the camera is mounted and aligned on a much better copy stand, the same Sony A7II but now with an autofocus macro lens, a holder that flattens the negatives and a much brighter light source. I probably spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to adjust the first image and thought it looks pretty good. The second is almost straight out of the camera with some minor adjustments. I find the process fast and enjoyable. After just a week, your images are looking really nice.

[MikeMyers]

Thanks - glad you like them.  Each one takes "forever".

Now I understand the differences in the two photos.  Obviously all those little details add up.  I would have enjoyed the older one just fine, until I looked closely at the newer image.  

Do you adjust the final settings by looking at the histogram, or by eye?  Does this even apply to "scanning" an image with a camera on a copy stand?  Is the goal still to get a low contrast image to work from, as it would be when using 'film scanners' ??  Or, do you try to get a perfect copy in the camera, already adjusted for all the variables?

[madNbad]

I try to do the best capture possible. I'm still learning how to adjust the histogram prior to exposure but mostly it's done by eye. My goal is to be able to convert the image with as little manipulation as possible. Our house is small and with limited space, tethering the camera to the computer isn"t practical. Also, the Sony software for tethering is old and doesn't work well with the iMac so I capture on the card and import it. RAW Power works as either a stand alone or as a plug in to the Apple Photos app. It makes it easy to import the scans into a new folder and be able to convert them within the app. Currently, I'm only scanning B&W, if I want color, I'll use digital because it's easier. 

[MikeMyers]

12 minutes ago, madNbad said:

I'm still learning how to adjust the histogram prior to exposure

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.  From what I think I've learned in this forum, you have to reduce the black point and white point, probably by reducing contrast??, to get a "flat" copy image with no clipping of either end of the scale.  Then you can bring it into your computer, and make it look good again.  I suspect that if you take a perfectly exposed original photo, and then copy it with the default settings information at either end, or both ends, of the histogram might be lost.  At least that's what I've learned here in the forum.  This way you'll be doing it electronically, not "by eye".  

(My experience at this is ZERO, as in NONE.  It sounds logical to me now, but that doesn't make it right......)

[philipus]

Hi Mike and everyone else, I've read the thread with interest and only wanted to chime in that (and I may well be wrong – happens all the time ) I suspect that 7200 dpi is not the true dpi of the scanner's optical system. If that's right then the scanner only interpolates, or effectively creates, image information to increase the dpi, which in turn affects the output negatively.

But can I ask this – you have a digital M, why not use that to digitise your film? I'm pretty sure that would give really good results.

Oh and I second Steve's @Ouroboros suggestion that you come and join us in the I Like Film thread. That's where it's happening here at LUF.

Cheers

Philip

 

14 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Anyway, I scanned at 7200 dpi, and made it the best  know how to do.  When I view it full-size on my computer screen, from a foot away, it looks awful.  Maybe with a 4x5 view camera I would have something spectacular.  There were special programs (Genuine Fractals) that allowed a person to make a huge mural from a 35mm negative, but I don't have that software.  The people in India do, so maybe they really can print it in a huge size.  I dunno.  

More things to read up on......

@erl - when you create your murals, do you do a direct "print", or do you use something like Genuine Fractals to help make a very large print?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doug A]

I have been scanning 35mm B&W negatives with a digital camera for a number of years. Since the scan is my backup if anything happens to a negative I want as much information in the scan as possible.

I use a Fujifilm X-T20. I do RAW scans with both the exposure and HDR set to AUTO. I make no other adjustments. When I develop the files with Iridient X-Transformer I make no adjustments and I always see a nicely centered histogram with no clipping at either the black end or the white end. This is my "archive scan." [This works just as well developing the RAW files with Lightroom or Affinity Photo. I just prefer the rendering of the grain in Fuji X-Trans images with Iridient.] When I open the Iridient DNG output with Affinity Photo I set the file type to 16-bit gray, invert the image, crop and/or straighten the image,  and set the black and white points to the ends of the curve in the histogram. I make no other adjustments. I export the image as a maximum quality JPG. This is my "working scan."

I use the working scan JPG images to make a physical "contact print" of the roll with ContactPage Pro and for anything else I want to do with the images in the short term, such as posting them online. Once that's done, I file the physical negatives and contact print, put the DNG files in my Apple Finder folder structure and discard both the RAW and JPG files. 

To make a print I find an image I want to print in my contact print ring binders, reopen the DNG file in Affinity Photo (a very nice and very inexpensive Photoshop equivalent) and go from there. 

[MikeMyers]

23 minutes ago, philipus said:

suggestion that you come and join us in the I Like Film thread. That's where it's happening here at LUF.

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!