sgoetzin Posted December 12, 2008 Share #21 Posted December 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use the Nikon LS-9000 for the scanning of small and medium format negatives. Please see attached 2 pictures of the same model, one taken with the Leica R8 + FP4 (LEFT picture), the other taken with a digital camera (RIGHT picture). Same work to get the pictures ready for showing -> both pictures have been fine tuned in PS as far as sharpness, levels and for the digital one, conversion to black and white is concerned. Serge 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/71068-film-scanning/?do=findComment&comment=744715'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Hi sgoetzin, Take a look here Film + Scanning. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Pedro Posted December 15, 2008 Share #22 Posted December 15, 2008 Question from someone with no experience with digital. Why not scan the photo on paper instead of from the negative? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted December 16, 2008 Share #23 Posted December 16, 2008 My view is that all the available information is contained in the negative, and I would like to work with everything I can get my hands on. A print will inevitably have less resolution and perhaps a reduced tonal range when compared to the negative, and there will probably be some sharpness loss, particularly if the print was not made on glossy paper. Generally, fewer intermediate steps is preferable, so scanning the negative (or slide) eliminates the middle man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted December 16, 2008 Share #24 Posted December 16, 2008 I had a Nikon Coolscan V ED for a short time and sold it after I got an Epson V700 flat-bed scanner. The Epson - used with ANR glass inserts for 135 to keep the film flat - gives nearly the same quality but only needs a fraction of time. The Nikon V ED was only usable with the optional film-holder FH3 (only slightly bent / curled film didn't work without this holder), which means that every single frame has to be inserted manually. The Epson V700 can scan 24 frames (135) in one batch (or 6 frames 6x6). These two images are 100 % crops from the same frame, scanned with the Nikon V ED and Epson V700: Nikon V ED (with Nikon Software, 3200 dpi. AE / AF) Epson V700 (Epson software, ANR glass inserts, 4800 dpi, AE) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted December 16, 2008 Share #25 Posted December 16, 2008 Mmm... Well; I would have thought that the Nikon results were considerably better rather than "nearly the same." And I had convinced myself to stick with my flatbed! And there's dust on the Epson image. A comparison of the two is a bit like two digital images, one taken at 100asa and the other at 400. I don't do any colour scanning, and the effect of the Epson is almost like grain, and I live with grain quite comfortably, but if I did colour and needed a good scan I'd worry about the Epson's output. However, the other thing to bear in mind is to take account only of the end use of the scan and not worry too much about it a 100% pixel level, and this may well bring the Epson back into the picture. I find that many of the artefacts I worry about on the computer when looking at a scan are actually insignificant when I look at the image either as a print or on a web-page. I think, for my purposes (black and white and not needing professional standards), I'd be happy with a V700 (I also have a 120 rollfilm camera) and don't worry too much about peeping at the pixels, but I would find the two images you posted slightly worrying were my needs more critical... Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted December 16, 2008 Share #26 Posted December 16, 2008 Sure, for more critical needs, a dedicated good film-scanner (Coolscan 9000 ED or better Imacon) would do a better job. My point is, for web-use and printing up to A3 size, the Epson V700 is nearly as good as the Coolscan V ED but easier and faster to use. I have printed 135 frames up to A3 and 6x6 frames up to 60 x 60 cm, from scans done with the V700 and the results looked more than OK for me (both, in color and BW). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 16, 2008 Share #27 Posted December 16, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why not scan the photo on paper instead of from the negative? If it's a commercial print from a 1 hr lab it will have been printed with a resolution of approx 240-300 DPI. That means if you're scanning a 7x5 print you won't be able to re-print much larger than that without a degredation of quality. The negative holds a lot more information. With a traditional silver print then scanning the print can be worthwhile, in fact I think that's what Ralph Gibson used to do. Of course that means you have to have a print in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted December 16, 2008 Share #28 Posted December 16, 2008 Question from someone with no experience with digital. Why not scan the photo on paper instead of from the negative? The amount of information on the actual negative far exceeds anthing you will get out of a print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted December 16, 2008 Share #29 Posted December 16, 2008 I tend to scan with very low black and white points giving a flat, low contrast, looking scan. This lets me play around with curves in Photoshop to give the look I'm after. Yes, it is easier to add contrast on flat image than to try to get details in shadows and highlights if during scanning one made contrasty image and there are no or very little details. Me too, when scan image for work, allways scan with low contrast and add contrast in post processing imaging software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R2-D2 Posted December 16, 2008 Share #30 Posted December 16, 2008 [...]Bad point for the Nikons is the fact that they use "cool" harsh light in comparison to the Minolta Scanners which are no longer new in the market but better for scanning especially silver based b/w film.[...] This is only true for the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 which has a "Grain Dissolver". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R2-D2 Posted December 16, 2008 Share #31 Posted December 16, 2008 I had a Nikon Coolscan V ED for a short time and sold it after I got an Epson V700 flat-bed scanner. The Epson - used with ANR glass inserts for 135 to keep the film flat - gives nearly the same quality but only needs a fraction of time. [...] Are you referring to the ANR inserts from betterscanning.com?What resolution do you have to set on the Epson V700 to match the resolution of the Nikon set at 2000dpi? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alw Posted December 16, 2008 Share #32 Posted December 16, 2008 I have the same problem - the negs do not lie flat in my flatbed scanner. Has anyone used Gepe glass slide mounts with scanning? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica dream Posted December 16, 2008 Share #33 Posted December 16, 2008 Do ANR glass inserts come with the Epson V700 or does one have to purchase separately? If so, are they an Epson specific add-on for the V700 model. If not from where can they be obtained? Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted December 17, 2008 Share #34 Posted December 17, 2008 To answer the questions ... I use the ANR glass inserts that come from betterscanning.com for 135 film. They are readily available for this scanner (Epson V700). With the Epson, I always use 4800 DPI for 135 film and 3200 DPI for 120 film. I couldn't find any improvement in my scans using the highest resolution of 6400 DPI yet. To show how it looks like, I have taken a photo with my cell-phone last night: The pices of rubber band are necessary to hold the glass plates firmly in place since the bending force of the film would lift up the glass plates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_uk Posted December 17, 2008 Share #35 Posted December 17, 2008 This is an interesting thread for me, as I have fairly recently bought an M6ttl and will be shooting at least some mono fil (probably chromogenic). I used to shoot mono all the time in EOS SLRs, and have a Minolta Scan Dual II film scanner, which I use with VueScan. However, it is quite old - 10+ years? - and I've been wondering what the film scanner scene was like these days: I get a strong feeling that the DSLR revolution has pretty much killed off almost all scanner development. Can I ask a couple of question about use of the flatbed scanner, please? a) When the V700 is scanning a number of negatives, do you get a separate file created for each negative? and what software do people use? - Epson's own (in the case of the V700) or third-party (e.g.Vuescan)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted December 17, 2008 Share #36 Posted December 17, 2008 Hi Tom, it really seems that the "digital-can-all-do-better" mainstream has killed the market for dedicated film scanner scanner ... To address your questions, I use the Epson software delivered with the scanner (and downsample and or correct levels in PS Elements) and the Epson software creates single files for every frame scanned with increasing number for every frame. The starting frame number can be set and also the suffix of the file-name. Also, the Epson software allows to save as either TIF or JPG files. Cheers, Gabor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R2-D2 Posted December 17, 2008 Share #37 Posted December 17, 2008 Thanks for your answer.[...] With the Epson, I always use 4800 DPI for 135 film and 3200 DPI for 120 film. I couldn't find any improvement in my scans using the highest resolution of 6400 DPI yet.[...] And these settings correspond to 2000dpi on a Nikon film scanner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bwcolor Posted December 19, 2008 Share #38 Posted December 19, 2008 I posted the original question, and much appreciate the many constructive answers herein. So based on this thread and much other investigation, I bought a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 new from Calumet. My reasons: no new digital cameras and lenses to buy, have many ,many negatives I would like to print using a modern ink-jet printer (yet to be purchased, but probably Espon 2880), work in black and white almost entirely, can manipulate scanned negatives pretty much like manipulating direct camera digital images I belive from reading stuff including Coolscan instructions. Can and do process my own film. My gamble is in whether the scanner will deliver the same sharpness and dust-free as my enlarger. I will post some results here after I do some scans (scanner still in box) and make some prints to compare with prior wet prints of same image. Provided, of course, this thread is still around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 19, 2008 Share #39 Posted December 19, 2008 I bought a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 new from Calumet. Congratulations. If you have any further questions once you have the scanner up and running, feel free to ask. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocker Posted December 20, 2008 Share #40 Posted December 20, 2008 For 35mm B&W I use an imacon scanner at 3000 dpi scanned at full tonal range and then adjusted in photoshop As far as I can see there is no issue of sharpness and the tonal range of a neg certainly appears to be wider than my P45 when comparing for B&W output . And as far as I can see the quality when printed on Harman gloss FB AI is providing a far better outcome that if I was going to print the myself .That is not to say that a master printer could not produce a better print from the same neg ,but given the fact that I am a photographer not a printer that is not an issue t . I would suggest that a scanned neg will certainly be a lot more user friendly and will allow you to obtain much more controllable and repeatable results , I have not used any other scanners so cannot pass judgment on them but if they offer the same quality as the imacon then they certainly are a more viable option for shooting B&W than digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.