bert26
-
If I'm scanning my negatives flat in Vuescan and making adjustments in post, what's the point of choosing one film stock over another? After scanning HP5, TriX, or Delta 3200 in Vuescan, they look exactly the same except the 3200 has more grain. A contrasty lens doesn't make a scan more contrasty; the scan has no contrast because again, it is scanned flat and looks like ****.
My adjustments in LR are very minimal. I set the whites, blacks, shadows, highlights, and contrast and call it good. This process normally doesn't take any longer than five minutes. But sometimes I look at these images and wonder if this is actually how they're intended to look. How can anyone differentiate between film stocks when they all look exactly the same after being scanned?
And for the record, I'm using a Plustek 8200i and shooting with an M6 + 35 v3 Summicron + 50 collapsable Summicron.
Here are some screenshots of my Vuescan settings:
My adjustments in LR are very minimal. I set the whites, blacks, shadows, highlights, and contrast and call it good. This process normally doesn't take any longer than five minutes. But sometimes I look at these images and wonder if this is actually how they're intended to look. How can anyone differentiate between film stocks when they all look exactly the same after being scanned?
And for the record, I'm using a Plustek 8200i and shooting with an M6 + 35 v3 Summicron + 50 collapsable Summicron.
Here are some screenshots of my Vuescan settings:
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Most old-timers are going to say that film must be wet printed to look its best, and that is true. It is more costly, in work & money to move from just developing your own film to a full darkroom set up. Scanning a well-done darkroom print is best, if you need the best to show online.
However, if you are doing photography for a hobby and wish to limit the costs, developing, scanning, and ink-jet printing is a viable, though compromised, plan. I use this system and am perfectly happy with the final prints.
Someone else will post advice to help you with software settings, I am limited in that area.
However, if you are doing photography for a hobby and wish to limit the costs, developing, scanning, and ink-jet printing is a viable, though compromised, plan. I use this system and am perfectly happy with the final prints.
Someone else will post advice to help you with software settings, I am limited in that area.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have Plustek 8200i/Vuescan for color and it works good for it. For bw it is so so.
I prefer Epson V500 and its software for bw. Shows difference between Foma and Delta well.
To see difference between lenses I recommend to get Jupiter-12 аnd Jupiter-3, not Leica lens.
I prefer Epson V500 and its software for bw. Shows difference between Foma and Delta well.
To see difference between lenses I recommend to get Jupiter-12 аnd Jupiter-3, not Leica lens.
RichC
Well-known
Or you can do what I do and build a set of defaults that match wet prints from the original film stock as closely as possible. I shoot Portra because I like its look, one that’s impossible to replicate using a digital camera - so to destroy that uniqueness by arbitrary tone, colour, contrast changes seems rather pointless...
Scans are never going to replicate wet printing, whether your film’s B&W or colour, but, then again, even wet printing gives different results as there are so many variables and choices during picture taking, developing and printing. So, my aim when scanning is not some mythical end result but something Portra-like. What I do ensure is to always scan in the same way and apply my defaults, so my scanning process is 100% consistent, to give me what I consider to be as accurate scans as I’m able to achieve.
Afterwards, I may tweak to taste, but do so knowing that such changes are purely arbitrary.
Scans are never going to replicate wet printing, whether your film’s B&W or colour, but, then again, even wet printing gives different results as there are so many variables and choices during picture taking, developing and printing. So, my aim when scanning is not some mythical end result but something Portra-like. What I do ensure is to always scan in the same way and apply my defaults, so my scanning process is 100% consistent, to give me what I consider to be as accurate scans as I’m able to achieve.
Afterwards, I may tweak to taste, but do so knowing that such changes are purely arbitrary.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
1. Don't use 7200dpi res. You will only get bloated files. I think 3600dpi is the real resolution.
2. I always turn on Auto Level, and it fixes 90% of the colour abnormality.
3. My PlusTek 7200 tends to give low contrast scans as well, because it tries not to give up highlights. You can drag the triangle to the left on the histogram when a frame is previewed to give up those highlights to enhance the contrast. Or just edit the scanned image afterwards in other software.
2. I always turn on Auto Level, and it fixes 90% of the colour abnormality.
3. My PlusTek 7200 tends to give low contrast scans as well, because it tries not to give up highlights. You can drag the triangle to the left on the histogram when a frame is previewed to give up those highlights to enhance the contrast. Or just edit the scanned image afterwards in other software.
bert26
-
bert26
-
Thanks, I'll give that a try!
bert26
-
I wish I had the time/money for a darkroom. I barely even have time to take pictures these days.
Dwig
Well-known
The hybrid fim/digital approach does removed, or at least massively reduce, the tonal differences between various film/developer combinations. Differences in resolution and grain are still present. With lenses, contrast differences are largely moot, but differences in bokeh, resolution, distortion, and some other optical characteristics are still a factor.
Personally, I don't feel that the hybrid method for B&W is inferior to a purely photochemical method or to pure B&W. It is just delivers somewhat different results. I have many decades of experience doing wet printing. I was a regular darkroom user for over 30 years beginning in the very early '60s. I'm now purely digital for new work, but have done a lot of scanning and printing both my earlier work and the work of the art photographer that I work for.
For art, any process is fine as long as you get the results you envisioned when shooting. For commercial work, I wouldn't even think of using film these days. With color, digital capture and printing wins, hands down and going away. If you just like working with old cameras then you're stuck with shooting film. Scanning and printing digitally is the only practical solution for color and, for most people, B&W as well.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
According to filmscanner.info, the maximum actual resolution of the PlusTek 8200i is 3250, and in order to achieve it you must scan at 7200. If you scan at less than 7200, you will get less than 3250.
mod2001
Old school modernist
The spectral response of each film stock is different, if you would shoot the same scene with different films you would see the difference even in the scan and after contrast adjustments. Thats why you have so many different film stocks in software like DXO for b&w, they emulate the spectral response of each film. But yes, like Dwig said, the influence of the film stock for the end result gets less important when you work hybrid. I work hybrid too these days, but have always in mind to go back to the darkroom some day and print the best photos in the good old way.
BTW, i have the Plustek too and scan normally with 3600dpi, at least for ISO 4OO films I couldn't really differ between a 7200dpi and a 3600dpi scan, the problem is that the 7200 setting gives you 3 times bigger files with maybe only a slight difference compared to 3600dpi.
Here's what Plustek said in regards to the settings: http://plustek.com/plustekdoc/How%20to%20apply%20a%20proper%20scanning%20solution%20on%20your%20film%20scanner.pdf
Jürgen
BTW, i have the Plustek too and scan normally with 3600dpi, at least for ISO 4OO films I couldn't really differ between a 7200dpi and a 3600dpi scan, the problem is that the 7200 setting gives you 3 times bigger files with maybe only a slight difference compared to 3600dpi.
Here's what Plustek said in regards to the settings: http://plustek.com/plustekdoc/How%20to%20apply%20a%20proper%20scanning%20solution%20on%20your%20film%20scanner.pdf
Jürgen
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Your experience is a valid data point, but I would caution against making a generalization out of it, personally.
I am using a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with Silverfast Archive Suite scanning and processing software, and different film stocks, and lenses, will show the same distinct characteristics they showed in a purely analog workflow, wet printing, etc. Different films don’t look the same IOW, they look just as different as they should look.
If the negatives from different filmstocks are different, which people usually more or less agree is the case, then a perfect scan will show the same differences. The transfer function should be 1:1, and the scanning workflow should not be editorializing or homogenizing.
If scanning results from disparate filmstocks are being homogenized down to “looking the same” regardless of the film stock, there’s a problem in the workflow somewhere. Or, let’s just say, could be better.
Not saying it doesn’t involve a lot of work.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I like how it is done with 8200i and Vuescan. I scan at 7200 and Vuescan resize it to 3200 or less before image is saved.
Huss
Veteran
This is where scanners like Pakons are so good. They have film specific profiles so different films do look different.
bert26
-
Are you doing most of your work within the scanning software or in post? I have Silverfast SE, but had no luck with it when I was trying it out about a year ago. The Tri-X preset underexposed my images and I wasn't too happy with the HP5 preset either. Perhaps it would be wise to go ahead and use those presets and THEN alter in post?
I've always been told that it is bad form to adjust curves or make other changes in scanning software.
To be honest I got the best results using the auto settings with the Epson software, but when the software stopped automatically advancing frames I ditched my ****ty v300 or whatever it was. The resolution was garbage but at least the grain/contrast/sharpness all looked on point.
Any chance you'd be willing to share your workflow? Or will it differ since I'm using SE instead of AI? Would it be worth it to upgrade to AI?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
It depends on how skilled you are at wet printing. It is an art that takes a good deal of experience to do really well. I have seen this with the students I interact with. The prints they make in the darkroom are nowhere near as good as the inkjet prints they make from the negatives they scan and adjust in Lightroom.
Huss
Veteran
I am a very basic wet printer, and have not done it in a while. But I was amazed as to how much more detail was in some negatives I scanned and printed, compared to the wet prints of the same negatives I did years ago.
michaelwj
----------------
My experience is the Tri-X and HP5+ are very similar after being scanned. But, it is easy to see the difference between FP4+ and HP5+ for example, or HP5+ and Delta 400. I could see a difference between Delta 400 and TMax 400, but more in the spectral response that anything else (I prefer TMax400). Foma films have (in general) a weaker antihalation layer which is obvious to see in high contrast areas.
As for developers, the aim of developing for scanning is to get a negative that is medium contrast, as contrast can be added but not removed. You are not trying to get a negative that's easy to print - they are different.
But saying all that, if you can't see the difference then just shoot the cheapest film you can find. And scan the Plustek at 3600 not 7200.
As for developers, the aim of developing for scanning is to get a negative that is medium contrast, as contrast can be added but not removed. You are not trying to get a negative that's easy to print - they are different.
But saying all that, if you can't see the difference then just shoot the cheapest film you can find. And scan the Plustek at 3600 not 7200.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I printed in my wet darkroom for about 10 years and thought I was reasonably good. I have scanned film and printed digitally for the last 16 years.
My scanning workflow has only one objective. That is to capture in a digital file as much information on the film as possible. That means my output from the scan is flat and lifeless. So no conclusions can be drawn from that.
I take that flat lifeless scan file and adjust it to how I want the final output to look. And that is the same regardless of the film or lens originally used.
So basically, other than the slightly larger grain from higher speed films, any differences in film or lens is neutralized in the post processing.
My scanning workflow has only one objective. That is to capture in a digital file as much information on the film as possible. That means my output from the scan is flat and lifeless. So no conclusions can be drawn from that.
I take that flat lifeless scan file and adjust it to how I want the final output to look. And that is the same regardless of the film or lens originally used.
So basically, other than the slightly larger grain from higher speed films, any differences in film or lens is neutralized in the post processing.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
At normal print sizes there isn't much difference between a wet print and a scan/print. The scan might look sharper even since you can manipulate that (you can do unsharp masking in the darkroom too, but it is a pain. Where do you think the name comes from? Lol)
At bigger sizes though, the wet print will start to shine, but only if you know what you are doing. That means being technically proficient and quite honestly very few people achieve that. People think they do but it is a case of you don't know that you don't know kind of thing. There is more detail in a black and white neg than your scanner can extract. In the case of cheaper scanners it is more an impression than a copy. Scanners also don't resolve grain. The "grain" you think you see is just the difference in the pixel values.
To the OP- if you want to keep the "look" of a film you might try using the various profiles that Hamrick put in Vuescan under the color tab. For color they aren't so great, but for black and white there is quite a choice under the TMax category. You can choose a contrast level that fits your film. If you play with it you may find you like different settings for different films. Maybe that will help you a bit.
At bigger sizes though, the wet print will start to shine, but only if you know what you are doing. That means being technically proficient and quite honestly very few people achieve that. People think they do but it is a case of you don't know that you don't know kind of thing. There is more detail in a black and white neg than your scanner can extract. In the case of cheaper scanners it is more an impression than a copy. Scanners also don't resolve grain. The "grain" you think you see is just the difference in the pixel values.
To the OP- if you want to keep the "look" of a film you might try using the various profiles that Hamrick put in Vuescan under the color tab. For color they aren't so great, but for black and white there is quite a choice under the TMax category. You can choose a contrast level that fits your film. If you play with it you may find you like different settings for different films. Maybe that will help you a bit.