Best Possible Scans?

lawrence said:
I hope you don't mind if I ask a slightly off-topic question that's been bugging me for a while. Do the users of this hybrid process feel that the results are significantly better or different from the results that could be obtained from a purely digital process? If so, in what way?
Click to expand...

I develop my own bw and scan the negs. The short answer to your question, for me, is yes. I like being able to use different film/developer combinations to achieve specific results. Not sure I could obtain the same results in digital. (Is there a digital camera with a "Tri-X in Rodinal" setting?). I'm not saying the results of this hybrid process are "better," but I do think they're different from a purely digital process. And, frankcly, I enjoy developing my own film.

I also think there's a cost factor too, but I haven't used a high-end digital camera so I don't have a solid basis to compare.
 
lawrence said:
I hope you don't mind if I ask a slightly off-topic question that's been bugging me for a while. Do the users of this hybrid process feel that the results are significantly better or different from the results that could be obtained from a purely digital process? If so, in what way?
Click to expand...

That's not the point...
I have both DSLR (14mp) and a M5... I enjoy both also.
The Film scans are plenty detailed too. But, when I want the grain film offers over the noise that digital offers, I shoot film. It is a different quality in the structure of the textures.

When I want High ISO w/o grain/noise (or very little)..I shoot digital. Even in Low ISO Files (DSLR), There are many times I prefer the Digital file.

It boils down to the final textures and "feel" you want in the final image. Whether you want no or marginal grain, or you want a more pronounce grain as part of the image structure.
 
ferider said:
Nikon 5000 ED with roll-film holder for quick scan and high throughput, and film holder FH-3 for selected high quality scans. I use Vuescan and leave all manipulations to color, sharpness, etc. to PS.

Most important for me is to keep the film as clean as possible between development and scanning.

Pretty good results, IMO, but likely not competitive with your Imacon, Bill.
Click to expand...

I just scanned a B&w Neg w/o any adj for the scan... and then did my post in ACDsee Pro 3, and it sharpened up just fine..
I'd thought I had to at least sharpening with the scan..But NOPE..not necessary.

Thanks for all the answers...I have grown a little in scanning work-flows...
 
Bill Pierce said:
Many of the reasonably priced scanners mentioned in this thread have obvious limitations compared to the 10 to 20 thousand dollar scanners that see a lot of professional use. Obviously, these limitations don't apply to web images or relatively small prints. But I wonder if those limitations or the sheer pleasure of locking yourself in a dark room where nobody can disturb you have kept some folks in the wet darkroom? Any folks out there battling the tide? What are the problems of keeping a wet darkroom these days?
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

Maybe you can turn the question around. For guys like me, there never was a wet darkroom. I actually started out digital and because that was at the 640x480 resolution stage, I quickly went to a 35mm SLR. But I started scanning negs right away because computer manipulation and storage already felt natural to me.

But what I don't get is that people here still claim that traditional printing is better than scanning and then printing, while in practice I have never seen this for C41 negs. I have several lab prints (20x30cm) of 2800dpi scans (Minolta Scan Dual II, definitely reasonably priced) that look waaaaay better than traditional prints. So much better that I stopped having traditional prints done altogether!

The argument will probably be that these were cheap prints done by bulk labs, which is true. But still, the 'hybrid' prints are more than good enough for me.

As for the wet darkroom, never been there. I do my own development though so who knows... Maybe I will see the light when I hold up my first traditional B/W print (please not the distinction between B/W and C41 I made).
 
Bill Pierce said:
Many of the reasonably priced scanners mentioned in this thread have obvious limitations compared to the 10 to 20 thousand dollar scanners that see a lot of professional use. Obviously, these limitations don't apply to web images or relatively small prints. But I wonder if those limitations or the sheer pleasure of locking yourself in a dark room where nobody can disturb you have kept some folks in the wet darkroom? Any folks out there battling the tide? What are the problems of keeping a wet darkroom these days?
Click to expand...

I use a Nikon 9000 as most of my film stuff is medium format. I didn't really plan on buying it but I got an offer which I couldn't refuse. Prior to that I planned on renting a Flextight X5 for a few hours every now and then to scan in my best shots. I decided to go with the Nikon as it cost less than 7 hours with the Flextight.

I shoot 90% color neg so a wet darkroom isn't really an option but even if it were I don't think I'd prefer it to scanning. I used to develop my own negs and it was fun in the beginning. However, after the novelty wore off it became just another boring, time consuming activity that has little to do with actually taking pictures.
Don't get me wrong, I hate scanning, but at least I can do other stuff at the same time. To be honest, the perfect solution for me would be to outsource everything - developing, scanning and retouching.

As for the Nikon 9000, I'm more or less happy with it. I miss Silverfast a little (used to use it with my Epson 4990 flatbed). Vuescan is terrible with the Nikon 9000 for MF. NikonScan is alright but not perfect.
 
Ronald_H said:
Hi Bill,

Maybe you can turn the question around. For guys like me, there never was a wet darkroom. I actually started out digital and because that was at the 640x480 resolution stage, I quickly went to a 35mm SLR. But I started scanning negs right away because computer manipulation and storage already felt natural to me.

But what I don't get is that people here still claim that traditional printing is better than scanning and then printing, while in practice I have never seen this for C41 negs. I have several lab prints (20x30cm) of 2800dpi scans (Minolta Scan Dual II, definitely reasonably priced) that look waaaaay better than traditional prints. So much better that I stopped having traditional prints done altogether!

The argument will probably be that these were cheap prints done by bulk labs, which is true. But still, the 'hybrid' prints are more than good enough for me.

As for the wet darkroom, never been there. I do my own development though so who knows... Maybe I will see the light when I hold up my first traditional B/W print (please not the distinction between B/W and C41 I made).
Click to expand...

Actually, those 'traditional' prints you had done by the lab were probably scans. Consumer labs have been doing prints from scans for ages.
 
Using a Nikon Coolscan V, Vuescan and patience, I get unprocessed jpeg files that I save to disk. In Lightroom I import, evaluate, delete losers, fix mistakes and try to crop to either 2x3 or 4x5 (mostly 2x3, because it's the way I frame it and the way I want it printed or displayed). After the fixing, usually with a trip also through PS, I save as a psd file with layers, or a tiff file if there are no layers.

Just got an Epson R2880 printer and the results are quite good with some Moab Lasel paper I got cheap. But I have three packs of sample papers that I will be testing to see what the best is for me. Mostly BW, but still quite a good portion of color lately. My BW stuff gets juried into shows more often than my color.
 
My thinking going forward is that shooting 35mm film is for a special effect, and it is not a "way of life", since my digital camera files are going to be technically "better" and, frankly, easier to handle. So I'm actually less concerned about getting a "perfect" scan and more looking to emphasize the characteristics that only film has... I'll crank the contrast and try to hold a lot of highlight detail at the expense of the shadows, and I actually like it when the scanner emphasizes the film grain. And other than legacy film, I won't torture myself trying to scan 35mm color.

So a cheap Konica-Minolta DualScan IV with Vue Scan is fine for me. I have free access to my friend's Imacon and have never bothered to scan 35mm with it (I do use it for larger film). And in the 90s, when I did shoot a lot of slides for corporate jobs, I was unimpressed with the printer's drum scans from my Kodachromes and E6 slides -- I actually thought my Coolscan and Leaf 45 desktop scans were better. But that was probably because the scanner operators hated 35mm and never really tested or optimized their scanning for it. I understand that the better drum scanners had variable apertures and sometimes the aperture setting would resonate with the film grain and make a very grainy scan, and other settings would produce a lovely smooth scan.

The one scanner I never really used was the Creo-Kodak-Eversmart line of high-end flatbeds. If funds were unlimited I think I'd be really happy with one of their later models. But as with the drum scanners, you'd want to buy two model (one for parts) and maintain a legacy mac system since eventually the OS and interfaces will be unsupported. The good news is that $80K scanners are selling for peanuts, in the $5K range.
 
Last edited:
I scan the old transparencies (something on the order of 30,000 available, but most not scanned) and my present B+W negs with a little Nikon V ED. I don't make too many demands on it, maybe a half dozen scans at 4000 dpi at one sitting. If I get too aggressive or demanding with it, it starts acting up by either quitting mid scan or putting lots of vertical white stripes (in landscape mode) on the image. I'm not saying the white stripes are altogether unattractive or that they don't improve the image — it's just that I'd rather be in control than being manipulated by a recalcitrant scanner.

For black and white work these days, I use Kodak BW400CN, and that scans well and makes me happy enough to not miss the old darkroom days. The old darkroom days in my case were the 60's in my converted latrine in the old SS barracks in Augsburg, Germany. After that, I was mostly an amateur, a part-time magazine contributor and shooting strictly slides until the dawn of the digital age.

Shooting C41 film is like being on vacation compared to transparency film.

So, a little digital, a little film scanning — a nice balance, I think.
 
Bingley said:
I'm not saying the results of this hybrid process are "better," but I do think they're different from a purely digital process. And, frankcly, I enjoy developing my own film.
Click to expand...

I agree on both counts. Just wanted to get a feel for what motivates others to indulge in a relatively time-consuming and complicated process.
 
DNG said:
It boils down to the final textures and "feel" you want in the final image.
Click to expand...

I agree, the texture is different. In particular, even with little grain the micro-contrast appears to be higher with film -- digital b&w looks too smooth by comparison. I do find the scanning process something of a chore -- I enjoy developing film -- but it seems I'm not alone in this ;)
 
Epson V700 for medium and large format and Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. I use the Nikon and Epson software and get great results. Vuescan and Silverfast seem sometimes a bit 'user friendly' in a bad way/ If you know what you're doing the Nikon and Epson software will get you where you need to be. I just wish I could get better holders for the Coolscan V. The frame selection process in the Nikon sucks.

If I were a smart person I would just use the Epson for everything and then when I wanted to make a big print, either get a drum scan or rent and X5. But I'm me, so I bought the Nikon.
 
I am finally learning how to use Vuescan with a Nikon V ED and scanning color slides and both black and white and color negatives. So far I am happy with the results. The attached image started out as a color slide (Provia X 400). -George
 
Last edited:
sper said:
Epson V700 for medium and large format and Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. I use the Nikon and Epson software and get great results. Vuescan and Silverfast seem sometimes a bit 'user friendly' in a bad way/ If you know what you're doing the Nikon and Epson software will get you where you need to be. I just wish I could get better holders for the Coolscan V. The frame selection process in the Nikon sucks.
Click to expand...
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV that I used to use but when I bought a V750 I switched over completely. For traditional mono negs I think the V750 is kinder than the Nikon due to the diffused light source.

The 35mm holders on the V750 suck just as much as the Nikon ones IMHO because the film isn't held completely flat. The only solution I've found is to use the glass inserts from betterscanning.com but this slows you down because there are now two additional surfaces to clean! My solution is to scan contact sheets of everything and then re-scan the best shots with the inserts in place. Not very satisfactory.

Another thing about the Epson is that I always manually select the frame area otherwise if you choose the thumbnail option you find part of the frame has been trimmed off. Apart from the diffused light source and general quality of the scans, I do like the ability to scan four strips of film at once rather than feeding one strip at a time into the Nikon.
 
"hybrid" process?

"hybrid" process?

Fro me the wet darkroom is no longer an option. Don't have the time, or the space. I did have one, once, but it's been gone for over ten years. If I want to work quickly (event or sports) I use an M9 and spend quite enough time with C1 in editing and output. To see things differently, I use an Xpan, Hassy SWC or plain old 500C/M, each of them affordable now (but they weren't back then). Do my own B/W developing, local pro lab for E6 and C41. So far I am scanning with an Epson V500 and Epson software, since the steps up to V700, Nikon 9000 or Imacon look small and each is relatively expensive. Will have to move soon to Vuescan from the free Epson software to handle color negative.

scott

edit: another vote for betterscanning.com's glass inserts and 120 film holder.
 
I would and do scan swice, once to get the shadows correct, once to get the highlights correct. Layer in photoshop dark on top, apply a luminosity mask to the top.
Apply a bit of blur to the mask.

To get perfect register, change to difference mode and us arrow keys.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm

Tutorial on how to do with a digital file, but works as well with film. See the one on blended exposures.

This works for me. but overdeveloped negs are death on scanning. It just may not punch thru the highlights no matter what.

Let me know how this goes for you.
 
Minolta Dimage Multi Pro and Scanhancer inserts. Dimage Utility software. Tried Vuescan and Silverfast but not to my liking.

I also use the expander modification that is available with this set-up.

MF at 2400 dpi and 35mm at 4800 dpi.

I scan B+W as a colour neg or positive and make the relevant adjustments in CS3. This enables me to use ICE without which I wouldn't bother to scan!

I scan as "flat" as possible i.e. extract maximum range without clipping at either end. No sharpening, curves, adjustments in the scanner.

All adjustments and tweaks in CS3.

This works well for me.
 
As amateur, I use Nikon 5000 ed with nikon software, scanning B&W films at highest resolution 16 bit. It s an 110/130 M files which I later work out in CS3 (or LR ). Printing later on HP9180B. After more than one year of learning I'm satisfied. two reason for not having a wet darkroom:

  1. space, living in an apartement is not easy to have a proper darkroom and I do not like to assemble and disassemble each time.

  2. family/social: I'm now retired since a few month, but untill last year I was travelling a lot because of my job. I did not find acceptable to go out of home on monday morning, coming back on friday noght and close my self in a darkroom. Our living room and my studio are an open space. I can confortably sit in front of the computer, my wife look at television not far from me, we can chat and the work on images is done. Even scanning becomes not so much boring.
robert
PS sometimes I feel "nostalgia" of the darkroom I had when I was younger, but times dictate their reasons...
 
One more suggestion came to mind is that negatives can be reduced if over developed.

If have just used Farmers, but there are optimal reducers for contrast reduction without lowering shadow density, ie super proportional reducers and sub proportional ones, can`t remember which for you. you will need a scale and chemicals.

Then proceed with the two scan procedure I previously suggested which I do all the time.

You are looking for a super proportional reducer

http://books.google.com/books?id=3Z...ge&q=super proportional film reducers&f=false
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom