bmattock
Veteran
OK, I didn't want to stomp all over the other thread on film scanners, but I had a couple of things to share, so here is a new thread...this is just my opinion, for what it might be worth to you.
I have learned a couple of things, and I'm passing them on as tips to whomever is interested. At the very least, if you find my thoughts intriguing, you might consider trying them out. Like lens hoods, a few people have been surprised at the difference a simple thing can make.
On Film:
I've experimented a bit with lots of different kinds of film. I'm now using C-41 consumer-grade film more than pro film. I find that I like 24 exposures better than 36 for most things, and consumer film is a lot cheaper. I like Kodak Gold 100, Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400, and Kodak B&W 400 C-41. Now that Kodak has made their excellent Ultra Color 400 available as consumer film, I'm VERY HAPPY!!! Love that stuff. Velvia for prints. I just wish it was also available at about ISO 100.
If I shoot slides, I go for the pro film - Fuji Velvia, just like the rest of the world! I shoot Velvia 50 at 40 ISO and that seems to work well for me.
For B&W, I have fallen in love with Ilford Delta 100, but if I can't get that anymore, I can go back to Kodak Tri-X pretty quickly. If that ever stops - there are a lot of eastern european boutique films that have that old timey grain and sizzle I like. I may try some Efke and so on pretty soon.
Other films have specific 'looks' or specific purposes that I'm sure suit them well - and the people who love them as their favorite, so I'm not putting any of them down. I just have found that consumer-grade film works pretty well for me, with the single exception of Velvia!
On Processing:
I have mentioned this before - I think with all the new members it may be worth repeating: I recommend having your C-41 negatives processed but not printed. I believe it reduces scratches to a much more manageable level. It is my opinion that the act of printing the negatives does the most damage to them, for reasons I don't fully understand, but that's my experience. I used to have to spend hours with the Clone Tool trying to fix scratches and dust, etc on my negs - if they could be used at all. Now I spend maybe a couple of minutes tops. Really!
Also, it is MUCH cheaper to have your negs developed but not printed locally. I use the Walgreens down the street. Walmart, CVS, etc, all work fine too. It took me a little time to get the local employees used to me and doing what I wanted every time, but they're good now. They process, cut, and sleeve my negs for the princely sum of USD $2.15 per roll of 24 exposures. Saves me a ton of time, and I can often get the negs back in less than an hour - sometimes ten minutes or so if I feel like hanging around.
You *do* want the negs cut and sleeved - I tried having them left in a single strip but found that it didn't really save me a lot of damage, plus it is hard to cut them yourself with scissors, plus they don't want to lie flat after they've been rolled up post-processing (the only real way to carry them if you don't cut/sleeve them at the developer's).
They are not performing a special service for me - the 'negative only' deal is in their computers, just ask them to look for it. Really! Don't let them tell you a) they can't do it because the computer won't let them put in the order that way or b) you will have to pay the full process/print price anyway. Both have been tried on me - untrue at least at the major 1-hour national chains such as the ones I've mentioned. They're just being lazy if they tell you that!
I live in a small town, so I have to send my slide film out and do my B&W myself, but that's usually no problem. But I have so little trouble with my C-41 film now, that I use that the most!
My advice here - if you're having trouble with lots of scratches on your negatives when you scan them - consider just TRYING to have a roll developed and not printed. You might be amazed.
In addition - one of the major advantages of digital (in my opinion) has always been that you can choose to only print the shots you want, instead of all of them. Well, APS...but the less said there, the better, eh? With my new system - I scan ALL negs, then I decide if I want a print of a particular neg. I then clean up the scan and/or crop, etc. Then I either put it on a memory card or I burn it (and all it's little friends) to a CD. Then I take it BACK to Walgreens and make digital prints, just as if I had a digital camera. Twenty-seven cents per 4x6 print! Make blow-ups if I want to.
I have been experimenting - I did a couple of 8x10 prints of some scanned rose photographs I took. WOW! No degradation that I could see. You ever see a nice 8x10 blowup of a 35mm frame that the grain became a problem on? Me too. Now, film has gotten a lot better over the years and sometimes grain is what you want, but frankly, there was ALWAYS a LITTLE bit of compromise when printing at 8x10 - that was one of the things that always leaned me towards medium format, to be honest. Well, not anymore!
I'm selling all my Bronica medium format gear. I don't need it anymore, unless I was going to print 11x14 or larger, and even then I'm not sure. A good 35mm film + good lens + good scan and you get a GREAT PRINT if you take the scan to Walgreens and print it out. An 8x10 color print costs about 6 bucks, by the way. Reasonable.
By completing the circle - perfecting my scans - I now have the advantages that only digital cameras gave me before, plus the joy and capabilities that film gives me. I've got it all! You should try this, it's a hoot!
On Scanners:
I did a lot of soul and wallet checking before getting my latest toy, the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I had the III and I liked it, but it had a mechanical problem and locked up my computer(s) all the time, so I sold it. I vaccilated between the Nikon V and the Scan Dual IV quite a bit, although they are not in the same class. Considered the Nikon LS-4000 as well. Lusted after, but could not afford, the various medium format dedicated film scanners.
I am very happy with the Scan Dual IV. It does everything I want it to do. I do have an ongoing problem with Vuescan and Fuji Superia XTRA 400 - I get 'banding' - bands or streaks of color, very ugly, but not with anything else. Funny, but I'm sure I'll get that sorted out eventually.
I don't have digital ICE, but don't seem to be needing it so far, since I worked out my negative-scratching problems. Yes, I get a few unusable negs, but not very many! I often find myself taking two shots of something I am sure I want to keep - not bracketing exposure like I used to - but making sure that ONE of the frames will be undamaged enough to scan! As I said though, it is usually not a problem anymore.
I have an older flat-bed scanner with a negative adapter for 4x5 and 120/220 roll film that works quite well - the Epson Perfection PHOTO 2400. I am not shooting that much medium format anymore, but I do still have my Fujica G690 rangefinder and I hope to get it fixed up and back in commission before too long. Only B&W though, because I'll have to do the processing myself - no one in my small town who can do medium format and I'm not driving an hour to drop off film!
As has already been mentioned, but I second the motion - I think that scanners have gotten pretty good. Stay with a name brand (Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Epson) and get good scanning software and you should be OK. I hear too many bad things about the low-cost vendors to want to trust them.
After all, consider this - you buy the scanner once, it will probably be with you for a long time. If you scan a lot of film (as I do), your cost of ownership will decline as long as you use it - so would you rather pay 2 cents a scan for a bunch of lousy scans, or 3 cents a scan for a bunch of top-of-the-line scans? When you look at the scanner as a long-term investment, it makes more sense to spend a bit more and get a good one.
I can't recommend a specific brand or model, because I haven't used them all. But I like my Scan Dual IV and my Epson 2400 flat-bed - they work great for me!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - Here is a recent scan I made. Film was Kodak Ultra Color 400. Scanner was Minolta Scan Dual IV w/Vuescan & The Gimp. Camera was an SLR (sorry, they do macro easier).
I have learned a couple of things, and I'm passing them on as tips to whomever is interested. At the very least, if you find my thoughts intriguing, you might consider trying them out. Like lens hoods, a few people have been surprised at the difference a simple thing can make.
On Film:
I've experimented a bit with lots of different kinds of film. I'm now using C-41 consumer-grade film more than pro film. I find that I like 24 exposures better than 36 for most things, and consumer film is a lot cheaper. I like Kodak Gold 100, Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400, and Kodak B&W 400 C-41. Now that Kodak has made their excellent Ultra Color 400 available as consumer film, I'm VERY HAPPY!!! Love that stuff. Velvia for prints. I just wish it was also available at about ISO 100.
If I shoot slides, I go for the pro film - Fuji Velvia, just like the rest of the world! I shoot Velvia 50 at 40 ISO and that seems to work well for me.
For B&W, I have fallen in love with Ilford Delta 100, but if I can't get that anymore, I can go back to Kodak Tri-X pretty quickly. If that ever stops - there are a lot of eastern european boutique films that have that old timey grain and sizzle I like. I may try some Efke and so on pretty soon.
Other films have specific 'looks' or specific purposes that I'm sure suit them well - and the people who love them as their favorite, so I'm not putting any of them down. I just have found that consumer-grade film works pretty well for me, with the single exception of Velvia!
On Processing:
I have mentioned this before - I think with all the new members it may be worth repeating: I recommend having your C-41 negatives processed but not printed. I believe it reduces scratches to a much more manageable level. It is my opinion that the act of printing the negatives does the most damage to them, for reasons I don't fully understand, but that's my experience. I used to have to spend hours with the Clone Tool trying to fix scratches and dust, etc on my negs - if they could be used at all. Now I spend maybe a couple of minutes tops. Really!
Also, it is MUCH cheaper to have your negs developed but not printed locally. I use the Walgreens down the street. Walmart, CVS, etc, all work fine too. It took me a little time to get the local employees used to me and doing what I wanted every time, but they're good now. They process, cut, and sleeve my negs for the princely sum of USD $2.15 per roll of 24 exposures. Saves me a ton of time, and I can often get the negs back in less than an hour - sometimes ten minutes or so if I feel like hanging around.
You *do* want the negs cut and sleeved - I tried having them left in a single strip but found that it didn't really save me a lot of damage, plus it is hard to cut them yourself with scissors, plus they don't want to lie flat after they've been rolled up post-processing (the only real way to carry them if you don't cut/sleeve them at the developer's).
They are not performing a special service for me - the 'negative only' deal is in their computers, just ask them to look for it. Really! Don't let them tell you a) they can't do it because the computer won't let them put in the order that way or b) you will have to pay the full process/print price anyway. Both have been tried on me - untrue at least at the major 1-hour national chains such as the ones I've mentioned. They're just being lazy if they tell you that!
I live in a small town, so I have to send my slide film out and do my B&W myself, but that's usually no problem. But I have so little trouble with my C-41 film now, that I use that the most!
My advice here - if you're having trouble with lots of scratches on your negatives when you scan them - consider just TRYING to have a roll developed and not printed. You might be amazed.
In addition - one of the major advantages of digital (in my opinion) has always been that you can choose to only print the shots you want, instead of all of them. Well, APS...but the less said there, the better, eh? With my new system - I scan ALL negs, then I decide if I want a print of a particular neg. I then clean up the scan and/or crop, etc. Then I either put it on a memory card or I burn it (and all it's little friends) to a CD. Then I take it BACK to Walgreens and make digital prints, just as if I had a digital camera. Twenty-seven cents per 4x6 print! Make blow-ups if I want to.
I have been experimenting - I did a couple of 8x10 prints of some scanned rose photographs I took. WOW! No degradation that I could see. You ever see a nice 8x10 blowup of a 35mm frame that the grain became a problem on? Me too. Now, film has gotten a lot better over the years and sometimes grain is what you want, but frankly, there was ALWAYS a LITTLE bit of compromise when printing at 8x10 - that was one of the things that always leaned me towards medium format, to be honest. Well, not anymore!
I'm selling all my Bronica medium format gear. I don't need it anymore, unless I was going to print 11x14 or larger, and even then I'm not sure. A good 35mm film + good lens + good scan and you get a GREAT PRINT if you take the scan to Walgreens and print it out. An 8x10 color print costs about 6 bucks, by the way. Reasonable.
By completing the circle - perfecting my scans - I now have the advantages that only digital cameras gave me before, plus the joy and capabilities that film gives me. I've got it all! You should try this, it's a hoot!
On Scanners:
I did a lot of soul and wallet checking before getting my latest toy, the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I had the III and I liked it, but it had a mechanical problem and locked up my computer(s) all the time, so I sold it. I vaccilated between the Nikon V and the Scan Dual IV quite a bit, although they are not in the same class. Considered the Nikon LS-4000 as well. Lusted after, but could not afford, the various medium format dedicated film scanners.
I am very happy with the Scan Dual IV. It does everything I want it to do. I do have an ongoing problem with Vuescan and Fuji Superia XTRA 400 - I get 'banding' - bands or streaks of color, very ugly, but not with anything else. Funny, but I'm sure I'll get that sorted out eventually.
I don't have digital ICE, but don't seem to be needing it so far, since I worked out my negative-scratching problems. Yes, I get a few unusable negs, but not very many! I often find myself taking two shots of something I am sure I want to keep - not bracketing exposure like I used to - but making sure that ONE of the frames will be undamaged enough to scan! As I said though, it is usually not a problem anymore.
I have an older flat-bed scanner with a negative adapter for 4x5 and 120/220 roll film that works quite well - the Epson Perfection PHOTO 2400. I am not shooting that much medium format anymore, but I do still have my Fujica G690 rangefinder and I hope to get it fixed up and back in commission before too long. Only B&W though, because I'll have to do the processing myself - no one in my small town who can do medium format and I'm not driving an hour to drop off film!
As has already been mentioned, but I second the motion - I think that scanners have gotten pretty good. Stay with a name brand (Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Epson) and get good scanning software and you should be OK. I hear too many bad things about the low-cost vendors to want to trust them.
After all, consider this - you buy the scanner once, it will probably be with you for a long time. If you scan a lot of film (as I do), your cost of ownership will decline as long as you use it - so would you rather pay 2 cents a scan for a bunch of lousy scans, or 3 cents a scan for a bunch of top-of-the-line scans? When you look at the scanner as a long-term investment, it makes more sense to spend a bit more and get a good one.
I can't recommend a specific brand or model, because I haven't used them all. But I like my Scan Dual IV and my Epson 2400 flat-bed - they work great for me!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - Here is a recent scan I made. Film was Kodak Ultra Color 400. Scanner was Minolta Scan Dual IV w/Vuescan & The Gimp. Camera was an SLR (sorry, they do macro easier).
Last edited:
