M7 Color Slide Film and Scanner Choices

[tgray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't shot any of it yet (have a couples of rolls in the fridge) but I've heard good things about Provia 400X.

[Guest Xing]

Indeed. Film has certain pleasant qualities that digital does not.

 

I absolutely agree...unless they are scanned on a home-desktop scanner, at which point you've got a digital photo of a negative or slide, overlaying those "pleasant qualities" with all the characteristics of digital capture.

 

 

You forget that some people like the look of scanned film, that ONLY scanned film can give. Not everyone wants that really clean, digital look.

 

I'll take your word for it. Why anyone would prefer the look of a digital photograph of a slide or negative to either an enlarger/wet-process print from it, or digital photograph of the original subject, is beyond me, but of course they have every right to it. I have a right to lay negs on the office Xerox machine and print them on bond paper, if I want the look that ONLY that process can give.

[twittle]

I absolutely agree...unless they are scanned on a home-desktop scanner

 

It's a bit unfair to lump all desktop scanners in the same category as they're not all equal. Nikon's 9000 and 5000 Coolscan models do a very good job. That said, I don't do my own scans, but have them done professionally on a drum scanner.

[Guest Xing]

It's a bit unfair to lump all desktop scanners in the same category as they're not all equal. Nikon's 9000 and 5000 Coolscan models do a very good job. That said, I don't do my own scans, but have them done professionally on a drum scanner.

 

From the standpoint of performance, of course all desktop scanners are not alike and I never ever said they were. From the standpoint of producing prints that look like enlarger prints vs digitized film, all desktop scanners (well I suppose a drum scanner can be set on a desktop, but clearly that's not what the term refers to) are stationary digital cameras that take photos of negs and slides, similar to how we used to make slide dupes and internegatives, only the scanner puts them into digital files instead of another roll of film. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything inherently "wrong" with doing it that way. What galls me is when rather than carry through a completely analog process to the final print, instead people jump ship to digital midway through but insist on ranting against digital. Scanning is digital, no if's and's or butt's.

[twittle]

What galls me is when rather than carry through a completely analog process to the final print, instead people jump ship to digital midway through but insist on ranting against digital.

 

I see where you're coming from, but good scans can demonstrate characteristics of the film that was used, something that could never be achieved through purely digital photography. It's all an issue of convenience.

[NZDavid]

Fuji Astia scans very well, and retains detail in shadows and highlights. You can always pump up saturation if you require. Grain is incredibly fine. Kodak's E100G is also an excellent general purpose film with fine grain and good, though not over the top, colors.

 

Not sure about scanners -- I get mine done professionally, mainly because it saves time, but the consensus seems to be that Nikon's film scanners are best and outperform flatbeds.

 

I agree with Kenneth that if you shoot slides it's great to view them on a big screen, and Pradovit with Colorplan or Super-Colorplan lens is a good investment.

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter,

 

Welcome to the magic world of Leica film photography! You'll never regret your decision.

 

As for your questions:

 

1. I use E100VS (vibrant, saturated), E100G (grainless, natural colors), and Velvia 50 (nice for nature photos, although its greens sometimes come out too dense). However, if you could find K64, that's another story.

 

2. I strongly advice that you read (or at least browse through its over 800 posts) the following thread: Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital - Photo.net Film and Processing Forum

 

Paul

[StS]

... Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything inherently "wrong" with doing it that way. What galls me is when rather than carry through a completely analog process to the final print, instead people jump ship to digital midway through but insist on ranting against digital. Scanning is digital, no if's and's or butt's.

 

I'm not sure - a good scanner will have a resolution high enough to preserve the grain characteristics of film. My Quato 5000's resolution is good enough, although it is not the highest resolving scanner in the market - it is said the scanner does not reach the 5000dpi claimed by the manufacturer (my speculation is the scanner achieves 5000dpi mechanical resolution but the optics is not capable to capture 5000dpi). It is also slow - four times overscan and IR dust reduction will take about half an hour. I should finally mention the IR dust filter is not impeccable as well. For my occasional scan it is sufficient. For fast, high resolving scans I would recommend to have a close look at the Nikons.

 

Besides, the exposure latitude of most films is still beyond digital photography. A good scanner will capture this as well.

 

The rest of the field is pretty thin these days, unless one considers to invest in a Hasselblad. With the print industry going digital, I hear drum scanners can be had quite inexpensively at the moment, if one can spare the time to learn how to run them and the room / spare garage to keep them...

 

I don't have an issue with a 'hybrid' working flow - for prints up to A4, my scanner is sufficient to my taste. When I need a larger print, I have a very good lab in cycling distance, which still does hand prints. Film leaves both options

 

Stefan

Edited April 25, 2009 by StS
Thought I might add some lines about my scanner

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Photoskeptic]

Astia and Provia.

Minolta 5400.

[anabasis]

I like K64 and Velvia 50 and 100 for my slide films. If you get a Nikon scanner (I'd suggest the 5000 which is what I use) you can't use ICE for K64. The same for traditional B&W films. ICE works quite well with E6 as well as C-41 films

 

I second the idea about using a good projector and screen. Scanning is good for posting to the internet and such, but the true beauty of slides is when they are projected, which is the real reason for shooting slides.

 

JCA

[stunsworth]

I like K64 and Velvia 50 and 100 for my slide films. If you get a Nikon scanner (I'd suggest the 5000 which is what I use) you can't use ICE for K64.

 

Vuescan has had the ability to use noise reduction with Kodachrome for years.

[anabasis]

Vuescan has had the ability to use noise reduction with Kodachrome for years.

 

The noise reduction is the "GEM" feature which works on all films. ICE4 on the 5000 is the scratch and dust removal. I don't know about Vuescan, but I know that the standard Nikon software can't deal with those issues on Silver Halide and Kodachrome, and Nikon states as much in the manual. If Vuescan can remove scratches and dust automatically on B&W/Kodachrome films, I will gladly stand corrected.

 

JCA

[cannik]

Honestly speaking, I let my lab to scan for me during developing a roll. Time saves and I don't want to rely too much on the post processing which the scanning require. I switched back to film is because I don't want to put too much attention on the post processing part and want to rely the combination of lens and slide used to give the most original color / definition. The lab gave me a file in 72dpi and file size around 5MB which is good enough for me to share pics online as I won't require large print out, and if I do, I can sent the original slide to my lab to do it.