Best filmtype for scanning...

[MikeBsw]

Hey RFF

I am new here on RFF and must say that I find this site very interesting and informative.

I wonder if anyone here has some facts on /or at least an opinion on which filmtype that gives the best result when scanned.
Negative colorfilm -> Digital
or
Positive colorfilm -> Digital ?

I was also thinking about what way to go if I want BW images, do I get the best scanned pics if I use BW negative film from start, or what will the quality be if I shoot color -> scan -> convert in SilverEfex Pro?

Sorry for the poor language, english isnt my first language 🙂

Best regards from SWE

Mike

 

[thegman]

I would say positive and negative film are equally easy to scan, I've not noticed a big difference really. Only thing is with slide film you really do have to expose it correctly, or you'll get blocked up shadows and/or blown highlights.

For BW images, I really like Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2, they are black and white films with high resolution (Kodak say BW400CN is the finest grain chromogenic film in world), and lovely tones. They process C41, not traditional BW. This makes a big difference in scanning, as 'real' B&W films cannot be scanned with ICE, but C41 can.

For me, for BW, I like XP2 or BW400CN, for colour Portra 400 is a great all rounder.

 

[mfogiel]

There are the following problems with scanning film:
1 - colour film
a- slides
Slides require a high resolution and above all high Dmax scanner with good colour reproduction, once scanned, images are easily edited. I find shooting slide film redundant, because digital is cheaper, has more resolution, higher ISO and DR, and similar end result.
b- negative colour film
This is easier to scan with a lower Dmax scanner, but it also benefits from ICE dust removal. The main difficulty is the scanning software, that has be good enough to let you set the grey point correctly, else, you will have some difficult time editing. It pays to shoot a grey card on the first frame of each roll, just to simplify the task. It also pays to overexpose colour negative film somewhat, to get better tonality and smaller grain. You have to make your own tests.
2- B&W film
The easiest B&W film to scan is a B&W chromogenic film like Ilford XP2, which is nothing else than a colour negative film with a single layer. You can use ICE with this film. The problem with it, is that you also need to overexpose to get decent tonality, and in the end it will never look as good as traditional silver film.
Among the silver halide films, in my experience, the films which scan better are the films, which are not too contrasty, hence avoid low speed repro films, and stick to medium and high speed (100-400 ISO) range. Slight overexposure and underdevelopment (pull), will make the negatives less contrasty and easier to edit subsequently. My preferred films are Tri X and APX 100, but most other types will do as well. ICE cannot be used with silver film, so you have to control the dust as much as possible. Final advice: buy a scanner that you think you cannot afford - it will be just OK.

 

[edge100]

a- slides
Slides require a high resolution and above all high Dmax scanner with good colour reproduction, once scanned, images are easily edited. I find shooting slide film redundant, because digital is cheaper, has more resolution, higher ISO and DR, and similar end result.

When will people realize that photography cannot be reduced to the technical prowess of its component parts? Shooting slides is nothing like shooting digital, and one does not make the other 'redundant', just as sculpture does not make painting 'redundant' because it's 3D.

b- negative colour film
This is easier to scan with a lower Dmax scanner, but it also benefits from ICE dust removal. The main difficulty is the scanning software, that has be good enough to let you set the grey point correctly, else, you will have some difficult time editing. It pays to shoot a grey card on the first frame of each roll, just to simplify the task. It also pays to overexpose colour negative film somewhat, to get better tonality and smaller grain. You have to make your own tests.

Colour negative is easy

1. Use Vuescan
2. Set scanner exposure properly
3. Scan as linear TIFF
4. Covert in ColorPerfect
5. Enjoy the lovely colour images

 

[sevo]

One thing to bear in mind is that back in film days, slide was the only colour film accepted for pre-press scanning - where colour negative was professionally used, it had to be wet (darkroom) printed first.

As a consequence, attempts to establish a standardized colour management system for colour negative film did fail - there is no such thing as IT8 for CN.

 

[thegman]

I find shooting slide film redundant, because digital is cheaper, has more resolution, higher ISO and DR, and similar end result.

Forgive me, but isn't that like saying 'cars are faster than motorcycles'?

What you're saying *can* be true, but it can also be false. I really don't mean to be rude, but what you're saying is a big generalisation, making a lot of assumptions.

You've only got to look at Margus' great thread on drum scanning to see how much resolution slide film can have.

I don't deny for a second that a D800 has more resolution than most 35mm films, but full frame 35mm is almost as small as film gets these days, and about as big as digital gets without spending a great deal.

 

[MikeBsw]

Great, TY all for info.
At the moment I send my films to the lab for dev/scanning as I only have a older Canon MP980 flatbed scanner.
I'm saving up for a new one, any suggestions on that? Im only shooting 135mm so no need for MF-cabability.

// Mike

 

[edge100]

Forgive me, but isn't that like saying 'cars are faster than motorcycles'?

What you're saying *can* be true, but it can also be false. I really don't mean to be rude, but what you're saying is a big generalisation, making a lot of assumptions.

You've only got to look at Margus' great thread on drum scanning to see how much resolution slide film can have.

I don't deny for a second that a D800 has more resolution than most 35mm films, but full frame 35mm is almost as small as film gets these days, and about as big as digital gets without spending a great deal.

^^^This^^^

 

[thegman]

Great, TY all for info.
At the moment I send my films to the lab for dev/scanning as I only have a older Canon MP980 flatbed scanner.
I'm saving up for a new one, any suggestions on that? Im only shooting 135mm so no need for MF-cabability.

// Mike

For 35mm, the Plustek models seem to offer the best value around at the moment. The Canon flatbeds are quite good too, like the 9000f etc. The Plustek will likely be better on 35mm though, but the 9000f is pretty good for MF, if you ever decide to give it a try.