Scanning vs Digital caputre

[Philinflash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just bought one of those $500 scanners that Bill Parsons references and have started scanning some of my b&w negatives. They tend to be out of Hasselblads so are all 6x6 from pretty good glass on conventionally-developed Tri-X. It is a slow, tedious, and time-consuming process, Even at the higher scanning resolutions (4800 dpi), there is grain noise that you would not see in your average ISO 320 M8 shot. It is manageable in Photoshop but it is in non-issue with an M8 RAW file. And then there is the inevitable dust, spots and cat-hairs on a proper negative that just don't exist in digital. The scanner does a good job of optimizing exposure of the scanned negatives, so a reasonble dynamic range seems to survive the process. However, I am not so sure it is as good as what I would expect from the M8.

 

It is very difficult to compare on-screen results of film-to-digital to straight digital given the wide range of variables. But I feel straight digital gives "better" images. Even if the time it takes to convert negs to digital were not as issue, I think I would still prefer the output of an M8 perhaps even to my Hasselblad gear let alone the smaller format of 35 mm.

 

BTW, the $500 scanner seems to be more than adequate for this kind of work. Hasselblad has got something at $20,000 which seems just out of the question.

[Olsen]

The best part of scanning is the availability it gives to old negatives. I have tons of negatives stretching back to the late 60'. Scanning 135 system negatives was passed by digital cameras a long time ago, quality wise. Scanning MF is somewhat more equal to digital cameras, but scanned negs have this 'digital look', as one mentioned here. I would prefer a M8 to a 8000 ED. I have both.

[jaapv]

My main problem with scanning is that it is my #2 on the list of "photographic galley slave jobs",(#1 being the printing of colour negatives) which I will avoid if I can.

[Philinflash]

My main problem with scanning is that it is my #2 on the list of "photographic galley slave jobs",(#1 being the printing of colour negatives) which I will avoid if I can.

 

 

The only payoff is seeing your old forgotten negatives come to life. That is, however, not to be minimized. Also, just think of the things you can do in Photoshop that would have killed you in the wet darkroom.

[charlesphoto99]

I see. You are saying film compresses the captured dynamic range. Which does not alter the fact that by scanning film you add the disadvantages of film to those of the digital capture you turn it into. Better to eliminate one quality-lessening step by either cutting out the film part and going digital all the way, or staying with film and paper and leaving out the alien digital process.

 

Okay, problem with digital is if there are no pixels (ie blown highlights) there are no pixels. Film you can usually pull something out of those same blown highlights.

 

Regarding the difference between scanning and direct silver printing: a good scanner has much more dynamic range than a piece of silver gelatin paper. There's a big difference between the dr of the film and of the paper. So a good silver print will involve a lot more hardcore dodging and burning than a well scanned neg will. Of course, with a silver print one can keep burning and burning whereas with a scan one has to find a good initial balance between the highlights and the shadows and then go from there. But it's also a lot easier to do more intricate work with a scan than by hand with a print in the darkroom. So, in my experience it's a lot easier to pull a good print from a scan than a direct silver print. Sharpness, resolution, and paper surface is another thing and the last hurdle to overcome between the silver print and the digital. But definitely not dynamic range.

[bokelley]

It is a slow, tedious, and time-consuming process, ...And then there is the inevitable dust, spots and cat-hairs on a proper negative that just don't exist in digital.

 

I use a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 and while it has done an admirable job digitizing my old negatives, it's biggest weakness is in the B&W arena. The included software (Digital ICE) does a great job of removing the effects of dust, spots and dog hairs.....as long as you are scanning color negatives or slides. It simply does not work on B&W due to the fact that the ICE system looks for the pure white (as would be seen in the print) that the foreign matter projects or pure black as is the case with scratches. In short, it gets very confused and renders some strange effects. So one is relegated to an unaided scan and no mater how carefully I clean my negatives, there are dust particles that show up due to the high resolution of the scanner. Scratches are a big problem these days because it seems that all of the machine processing (at least that I have used) leaves tiny scratches in the negs.

 

Thus one can spend hours on a single negative to get an acceptable image. Great when they are done but be prepared.....So for me, digital M8 is the way to go.

 

Brock

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMHO, as someone who got into the digital darkroom for 12 years via scanning before I got a digital camera - film scans are essentially very good "dupes": the original film image copied through an additional lens onto another media.

 

Better than any film-to-film dupes I ever saw in DR and resolution (even 4x5 copies from 35mm), but a dupe nonetheless, with artifacts and errors introduced by feeding the image through yet another generation or two of interpretation (the scanner lens, the scanner silicon, and the scanner software).

 

In terms of the hard-nosed facts the original poster asks for - I have never gotten B&W prints as simply - beautiful - as the ones I'm getting from an M8 printed on Harman (ex Ilford) Fiber Gloss via an Epson 3800. Even in my old days of printing negs wet on fiber Ilford, Agfa, and Kodak papers.

[pgk]

Okay, problem with digital is if there are no pixels (ie blown highlights) there are no pixels. Film you can usually pull something out of those same blown highlights.

 

Of course, with a silver print one can keep burning and burning whereas with a scan one has to find a good initial balance between the highlights and the shadows and then go from there.

 

Film compresses extreme highlight data (high intensity reciprocity law failure) which gives a look which we have got used to. Digital is MORE linear but often does have highlight data which can be retrieved - I'd guess that its 'lost' because it is no longer as linear as it could be. So comparing film and digital has to be carried out with caveats.

 

If anyone can be bothered, it should be possible to scan a negative several times at different settings and then do HDR conversion and adjustments to see what if anything can be gained. Of course introducing a scanner inevitably alters everything as it is yet another step in the process.

 

Personally the thought of having to spend hours in a darkroom (I have spent far too many already) with more equipment, unpleasant chemicals and a high wastage rate of both paper and chemicals (which then have to be disposed of) simply does not appeal any more. Digital post processing is a far more pleasant experience for me - although I fully accept that to some, the delights of a darkroom are part of their enjoyment of photography.

[jaapv]

In terms of the hard-nosed facts the original poster asks for - I have never gotten B&W prints as simply - beautiful - as the ones I'm getting from an M8 printed on Harman (ex Ilford) Fiber Gloss via an Epson 3800. Even in my old days of printing negs wet on fiber Ilford, Agfa, and Kodak papers.

 

I think we can regard this as the bottom line.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

I think we can regard this as the bottom line.

 

Jaap, music to your ears hey...

 

for you this thread might be finished, other might still find it interesting to add or discuss some matters, like me for instance for I by no means agree with this comment being the Bottom Line of this thread and am still interested to hear and read other conclusions concerning this topic.

 

I also realize you often want to draw "a bottom line" to threads which apparently please or displease you at some point in time.

[jaapv]

:confused: Since when does the expression "bottom line"mean end of discussion?

I suggest you start reading before indulging in this kind of agression. It is not the style of this forum..

Also your understanding of me wanting to stifle discussion has no relationship with reality

[Guest stnami]

Beware Isabelle Japp is the true voice of the forum:p

[jaapv]

Beware Isabelle Japp is the true voice of the forum

 

:D Where is your connection to reality then, Imants?

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Don't want to get into this, but i will ....

 

The Bottom Line; the conclusion or main point of a process, discussion, etc

 

in this case being applied to:

 

In terms of the hard-nosed facts the original poster asks for - I have never gotten B&W prints as simply - beautiful - as the ones I'm getting from an M8 printed on Harman (ex Ilford) Fiber Gloss via an Epson 3800. Even in my old days of printing negs wet on fiber Ilford, Agfa, and Kodak papers.

 

Implying: OK this is it, this concludes it, no use going on about it.... it's the bottom line.... finalizing the matter

 

and as for:

 

"indulging in this kind of agression" well ....I guess you don't realize the meaning of "aggression" either

 

 

As the regular (non-financial ) meaning, the bottom line is "the bottom line" nothing beyond the bottom line otherwise it wouldn't be called bottom line in the first place,

[jaapv]

Sorry, your English must be different from most:

 

See definition 3

 

bottom line: Definition from Answers.com

 

"main or essential point"

[pgk]

I'm sorry but is there a suggestion here that a discussion shouldn't reach a conclusion? If this IS the case we might as well stop bothering with a forum at all. In reply to the original posters query jaapv is indeed right the answer given is the bottom line. If you don't agree with it then say so, and re-orientate the discussion, don't simply decry it being made.

 

I would reiterate though that producing such superb digital prints as described requires a considerable learning curve and great deal of effort.

[KevinA]

I would appreciate thoughtful and knowledgeable comments on the subject of whether the quality scan of a black and white negative, as produced by a good film camera like the M7 with a Leica lens, will be equal to or inferior to or better than the identical image captured by an M8/8.2 using the same lens, and all other data for the compartive images being the same. My assumption would emcompass the fact that the comparative prints produced would be made on the same printer, appropriately adjusted. The impetus for my question is whether I should buy an M8.2 or try buying a good modern film scanner for M7 negatives. I use modest film speeds (100, 200). My maximum print size would be c. 12 X 18. My inquiry is limited just to matters of sharpness and overall print quality, not other matters of difference between film and digital, or features of the two cameras. Factual information as opposed to specualtive opinion will be most valuable to me.

 

Well there's a question, if you are looking for unbiased yes or no's it can't happen.

How do you intend scanning the film, you on an Epson or pro drum scans?

If sharpness and tonal range is the most important for you on 12 x 18 why not MF.

I shoot MF and LF film, I have a flatbed, a Coolscan and a Drum scanner, I also have a Kodak SLR/n a Canon 1DsmkII and a Canon 1DsmkIII, one day I think the digital is ahead other times I think MF film is best. What I will say is 99% of my commercial work is done with the digi's, my fun and relaxation is shot with film.

The only person in the World that can decide which does best what you want is you. If you are serious about the maximum quality from your parameters with the equipment mentioned, you need to hire a M8 and shoot your subjects side by side with film, it really is the only way. You can't get anything but biased opinions because that is what an opinion is.

 

Kevin.

[stunsworth]

One other thing, the colours on slide film tend to be better than negative film, but my experience on a Nikon Coolscan III, Minolta Scan Dual III and currently a Nikon Coolscan V is that it can be an absolute pain to scan. The results I've achieved have lost a lot of shadow detail in the original was taken in bright sunlight. Maybe that's why I tended to stick to FP4 and Tri-X.

[andybarton]

In my experience, scanning C41 colour film is the worst experience, closely followed by Kodachrome.

 

E6 and silver B&W are the easiest.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[vanhulsenbeek]

Sorry, your English must be different from most:

 

See definition 3

 

bottom line: Definition from Answers.com

 

"main or essential point"

 

But Jaap, if you had written : "That sums it up for me" you would have had the same result, financially , and perhaps would have ruffled fewer feathers.

 

A War of Words: only the 101st Fighting Keyboarders can win!