charjohncarter
Veteran
I certainly can tell the difference between the films I use that I scan. But I will say the difference is surely less noticeable than when wet printing.
Does scanning defeat the purpose of using certain film stocks and lenses?
- Thread starter bert26
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 3K
Steve M.
Veteran
It isn't totally related to scanning I'd venture to say. There are so many, many variables! Are you developing your own films? What developer you choose to develop them in, and how you develop them (lots of agitation or a little, developer choices, push or pull, etc), how you exposed the film to begin with.....all of these will give noticeably different looks even using the same film. Just switching from a red to a yellow to a green filter will give big differences in your images. Even the available light will make a huge difference in your prints..... but before you even get to the question of wet printing vs inkjet (and w/ that goes whether you decide to print on fiber paper or not, glossy or matte, lith print, selenium or platinum toner, etc), there's a lot of different things that will determine how your shots look.
Keep in mind that scanners accentuate grain, but even w/ that, what you get on a scan depends on the negative. It will only give what you have captured on the film stock. I'm not sure what problem you're experiencing. Even when I sent my film out to be developed I saw big differences between say Delta 100 and Tri-X, and those differences carried over to the scanned images. When I went to developing my own film and printing in a darkroom I discovered ways to get exactly what I wanted, and believe me, there were many, many ways to change the image before or after the film was developed.
I once shot a test roll of Tri-X at 400, 200 and 100, then developed it normally in D76. All of the shots looked good, but they all looked different too. The tonal range was totally different, and if I had used Rodinal (at 1:25, 1:50, or 1:100) as a developer, who knows what I would have got?
Keep in mind that scanners accentuate grain, but even w/ that, what you get on a scan depends on the negative. It will only give what you have captured on the film stock. I'm not sure what problem you're experiencing. Even when I sent my film out to be developed I saw big differences between say Delta 100 and Tri-X, and those differences carried over to the scanned images. When I went to developing my own film and printing in a darkroom I discovered ways to get exactly what I wanted, and believe me, there were many, many ways to change the image before or after the film was developed.
I once shot a test roll of Tri-X at 400, 200 and 100, then developed it normally in D76. All of the shots looked good, but they all looked different too. The tonal range was totally different, and if I had used Rodinal (at 1:25, 1:50, or 1:100) as a developer, who knows what I would have got?
Richard G
Veteran
I’m surprised by some of the answers. The short answer to the OP’s question is ‘No’ isn’t it? I scanned black and white Ilford FP4 negatives on my Epson V700 with Epson software and got what I wanted with minimal effort and it looked like FP4 and the lens character came through as well. I’ve used the Nikon Coolscan 500 with VueScan and haven’t been quite as happy but need to learn more about that software.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I think a lot depends on the lens in the enlarger too but there are so many variables to wet and dry that there's no "pure" answer. Best to stick to slides and match them to the lens and send the film back to the maker's for processing...
Regards, David
PS Some of you may remember a certain make of slide film that was matched to a certain make and model of lens...
Regards, David
PS Some of you may remember a certain make of slide film that was matched to a certain make and model of lens...
robert blu
quiet photographer
The OP point is something I was thinking about since a long time!
I think you can scan the various film and see the differences among them. But the point IMO is that you always need to post process the scan to get the final result you need.
For sure you'll notice a different in the grain let's say from a Delta 100 and a Delta 3200 or an HP5 pushed to 1600 (just going to extreme to explain my view) but for what concerns contrast and other variable you do not need to change film, you can work on it in post processing.
In this sense the selection of a certain combo film/developer and lens to achieve your desired look becomes less important.
I personally like to use Delta 100/400 (sometimes XP2s) because I find I can scan them easily and later work on the files more or less as I was used to do in the darkroom, a little bit here, something more there...
Just my own opinion,
robert
I think you can scan the various film and see the differences among them. But the point IMO is that you always need to post process the scan to get the final result you need.
For sure you'll notice a different in the grain let's say from a Delta 100 and a Delta 3200 or an HP5 pushed to 1600 (just going to extreme to explain my view) but for what concerns contrast and other variable you do not need to change film, you can work on it in post processing.
In this sense the selection of a certain combo film/developer and lens to achieve your desired look becomes less important.
I personally like to use Delta 100/400 (sometimes XP2s) because I find I can scan them easily and later work on the files more or less as I was used to do in the darkroom, a little bit here, something more there...
Just my own opinion,
robert
Bob Michaels
nobody special
If one steps back broadly and looks at the total universe of photo viewers they will realize that any difference in films and lenses is noticed by a minuscule portion, typically those who are more interested in cameras, film and lenses rather than photographs. The overwhelming majority of viewers are only interested in the message communicated by the photo.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The first image is a scan of a wet print (on ADOX MCC 110).
The second image is a scan of the negative (Tmax400-2).
The scan of the negative looks sharper, although the print is very sharp. I like however the tonality of the print (wich is a split grade print).
Erik.
mod2001
Old school modernist
The overwhelming majority of viewers are only interested in catphotos and selfies 😉 I prefer those who still care about the medium and choose the camera, lens and film (sensor) they think its best to achieve a speficic result.
Jürgen
willie_901
Veteran
Scanning does not inherently defeat the characteristics of film stock and lenses.
Scanning can not increase the information content of a negative or transparency. But scanning technique and post-production workflows can underutilze the information content. A low-contrast (flat) rendering of a high-contrast negative/transparency is easily rendered as a high-contrast digital image.
A flat,low-contrast analog image will be, at best, a flat, low-contrast digital image.
The issue is - how does one produce the best possible model for a digital model of the negative.transparency?
Have you tried making 16 bit per channel Vuescan raw DNG files or Vuescan raw (without IR cleaning and film curves) files? These always retain all the information recorded by the scanner.
RFF member Tim Gray summarized Vuescan raw output options here.
He wrote:
"1) TIFF - normal RGB data, corrected gamma, all other Vuescan post processing baked into the file
2) TIFF/DNG - same as above as a DNG
3) Raw - normal RGB data, gamma 1 (most of the time), IR cleaning and film curve optional
4) Raw/DNG - same as above as a DNG.
Select 1 or 3 if you want to use your files in most image editors. Select 2 or 4 if you want to use your DNG in LR or ACR.
Select 1 or 2 if you don't want to mess with linear gamma files and are ok with the basic conversion Vuescan does (inverting, film curves, etc.). Select 3 or 4 if you want a linear gamma file and want to do everything.
I did find out that if you save a scan as an 8 bit Raw, it is gamma 2.2. Otherwise it is gamma 1./I]"
With all of the data you can render the digital image to meet your needs. The NIK Collection (pre-DxO) provides numerous B&W and color film simulation profiles. This is just one option. LR and PS have all the tolls you need as well.
Scanning can not increase the information content of a negative or transparency. But scanning technique and post-production workflows can underutilze the information content. A low-contrast (flat) rendering of a high-contrast negative/transparency is easily rendered as a high-contrast digital image.
A flat,low-contrast analog image will be, at best, a flat, low-contrast digital image.
The issue is - how does one produce the best possible model for a digital model of the negative.transparency?
Have you tried making 16 bit per channel Vuescan raw DNG files or Vuescan raw (without IR cleaning and film curves) files? These always retain all the information recorded by the scanner.
RFF member Tim Gray summarized Vuescan raw output options here.
He wrote:
"1) TIFF - normal RGB data, corrected gamma, all other Vuescan post processing baked into the file
2) TIFF/DNG - same as above as a DNG
3) Raw - normal RGB data, gamma 1 (most of the time), IR cleaning and film curve optional
4) Raw/DNG - same as above as a DNG.
Select 1 or 3 if you want to use your files in most image editors. Select 2 or 4 if you want to use your DNG in LR or ACR.
Select 1 or 2 if you don't want to mess with linear gamma files and are ok with the basic conversion Vuescan does (inverting, film curves, etc.). Select 3 or 4 if you want a linear gamma file and want to do everything.
I did find out that if you save a scan as an 8 bit Raw, it is gamma 2.2. Otherwise it is gamma 1./I]"
With all of the data you can render the digital image to meet your needs. The NIK Collection (pre-DxO) provides numerous B&W and color film simulation profiles. This is just one option. LR and PS have all the tolls you need as well.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
We must go to different galleries, read different publications, and buy different photo books.
Certainly to each their own. I was simply referring to the overall category of viewers of photos.
mod2001
Old school modernist
Don't think so, these are also my favourite activities, next to take photos of course, but you can't ignore Facebook and Instagram and all the other social media platforms and the prefered type of photos they look at in millions. Thats simply a fact, sad but true. With the result that for example my favourite and also the biggest phtobookstore here in BCN had to close 2 years ago.
Jürgen
Huss
Veteran
The first image is a scan of a wet print (on ADOX MCC 110).
The second image is a scan of the negative (Tmax400-2).
The scan of the negative looks sharper, although the print is very sharp. I like however the tonality of the print (wich is a split grade print).
Erik.
You have added another layer to the process by scanning a wet print.
Enlarger -> print -> scan -> image
vs
Scan -> image
Better comparison would be to compare a wet print directly to a print from a scan.
Either way, both look great.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
As I only make wet prints on gelatine/silver (FB) paper, I've never made a print of a scan. I use film because I want to make gelatine/silver prints. Well made gelatine/silver prints last longer AFAIK. It is not possible to make gelatine/silver prints from digital files AFAIK.
Erik.
Pioneer
Veteran
I think that there are obvious differences that we are ignoring. For example there are situations where I know that I will get a usable negative using Delta 3200 where I haven't got a chance using Pan F 50.
But beyond those obvious differences, I personally think I see what I expect to see whether I am looking at one of my wet prints (very basic at my current skill level) or an inkjet print from a scan. I do believe that I see differences between films and between developing techniques and chemicals.
For me this is fine and I don't worry about it too much. But I think that this topic is similar to the question about differences between certain prime lenses or between certain films. Without doing blind testing I don't think anyone can know for sure whether they actually recognize a real difference or are just seeing something they have come to expect.
Some people have a better tuned eye and seem to be more capable of picking things out during blind testing but I think that the majority of us just see what we expect. If we are using TriX we expect it to look a certain way and...voila...it does!
If you have done testing yourself and find that you can't consistently see any difference in scans of various film then I don't think that is a bad thing. Just pick a film that is easy to develop and scan, and then stick with it. Focus your efforts on the processing of your scan rather than worry about which film you are using.
I suspect the same holds true for lenses up to a point. Older lenses are reputed to be sharp but low contrast. Since contrast can so easily be manipulated in post (dry or wet) I think those differences are less important. However there are also differences related to distortions or sharpness across the field that are not as easy to manipulate. In those cases you may find that a certain lens just doesn't work for your type of photography.
Finally, I think some of these issues become more important the larger the print becomes. This has already been mentioned but a picture that looks good at snapshot size can get dramatically worse as it is enlarged. At this point even someone who is typically more interested in content than technical issues quickly recognizes the differences.
But beyond those obvious differences, I personally think I see what I expect to see whether I am looking at one of my wet prints (very basic at my current skill level) or an inkjet print from a scan. I do believe that I see differences between films and between developing techniques and chemicals.
For me this is fine and I don't worry about it too much. But I think that this topic is similar to the question about differences between certain prime lenses or between certain films. Without doing blind testing I don't think anyone can know for sure whether they actually recognize a real difference or are just seeing something they have come to expect.
Some people have a better tuned eye and seem to be more capable of picking things out during blind testing but I think that the majority of us just see what we expect. If we are using TriX we expect it to look a certain way and...voila...it does!
If you have done testing yourself and find that you can't consistently see any difference in scans of various film then I don't think that is a bad thing. Just pick a film that is easy to develop and scan, and then stick with it. Focus your efforts on the processing of your scan rather than worry about which film you are using.
I suspect the same holds true for lenses up to a point. Older lenses are reputed to be sharp but low contrast. Since contrast can so easily be manipulated in post (dry or wet) I think those differences are less important. However there are also differences related to distortions or sharpness across the field that are not as easy to manipulate. In those cases you may find that a certain lens just doesn't work for your type of photography.
Finally, I think some of these issues become more important the larger the print becomes. This has already been mentioned but a picture that looks good at snapshot size can get dramatically worse as it is enlarged. At this point even someone who is typically more interested in content than technical issues quickly recognizes the differences.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
(bolded) I don't know how a film negative is "intended to look" ... My photographs look the way I intend them to look when I'm done rendering them, which with a film image just as much with a digital image means what I have in mind rather than any specific "look" derivative of film/chemicals/processing methodology.
I can certainly see differences in how films process and render. I take those into account when I make my negatives, and from that my raw scans, and choose them accordingly. But how they're intended to look, well, that's a matter of what I choose to make them look like.
G
Hasselblad 500CM + Zeiss Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 T*
Washi-120 film
Bill Clark
Veteran
Solution for me is to pass on scanning film, for various reasons. Everything I capture with film gets the works in the darkroom. If I need digital, I use one of my trusty Canon DSLR cameras, RAW capture and process with ACR in Photoshop.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
OK, I simply do not look at photos on any of the social media platforms. Reason being is that I find the photography overall to be substandard.
But I do see thousands of very good photos every day. From the photos in my newspaper, to the National Geographic I flipped through this morning while on the throne, all the the photos I saw on CNN.com, hundreds of photos of products and meals just in the grocery store, the billboards along the road, and that list goes on and on. Do these not count as photos? BTW, never once did I ever think of what lens or film or digital. Only the message in the photo.
I suspect that you too are surrounded constantly by photos but do not realize they are such unless they are in some photographic specific environment.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Gosh Bob, I sure agree with your post.
However, there are some fine photography and art pages on Facebook. A person has to look for them, then like the page to see their art as they post.
Here is one titled, “Contemporary Art.”. Beautiful photographs from posing, lighting, composition, costumes. Some show a little nudity so if that bothers you, well don’t let it as it’s about people photography as beauty/art. Enjoy.
https://www.facebook.com/Contemporary-Art-729445103922006/
Your first sentence does have a lot of truth to it.
However, there are some fine photography and art pages on Facebook. A person has to look for them, then like the page to see their art as they post.
Here is one titled, “Contemporary Art.”. Beautiful photographs from posing, lighting, composition, costumes. Some show a little nudity so if that bothers you, well don’t let it as it’s about people photography as beauty/art. Enjoy.
https://www.facebook.com/Contemporary-Art-729445103922006/
Your first sentence does have a lot of truth to it.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Print on Adox MC110, then scanned.
Erik.
Erik.
charjohncarter
Veteran
If you let the scanner control the output then everything will look the same. If you don't want that then do it manually: turn off all the scanner auto controls.
Similar threads
