Giving up on developing and scanning

Rem,youve answered youre own question,Sean Reid tackled this very question and concluded that its a question of scanner resolution,it needs to be high enough not to suffer this "resonance"or whatever it is that causes this apparent clumping.I use a minolta 5400 mk1 scanner and do not suffer this ailment,....you can only buy second-hand but is cheap for what you get.
 
A really good compromise IMO is shooting MF in 6x4.5 ... still reasonably economical at 16 shots per roll and far removed from the quality you get from scanning 24x36m film on the Epson V700. Not quite the range of films to choose from admittedly but it can make a huge difference.

But then again I'm pretty happy with the results I get from 35mm film on the V700 but film choice and developing procedure are extremely important as is the correct exposure to provide a negative more suitable for scanning rather than wet printing.

The hybrid process is no doddle IMO and takes time and patience to learn!
 
Last edited:
I gave up trying to get good prints from 35mm scans, but the issue was print quality, not scans.

And my experience with flatbed scanners showed them to be quite inferior to dedicated film scanners. It's not resolution so much as tonal range. Subtle details got lost as the flatbed only seemed to have a limited number of steps from black to white - subtle details were lost that my film scanner resolved easily. And good luck getting those subtleties out of an inkjet.

Nothing I was ever able to get out of a computer printer has ever compared to a wet print put next to it. It'd look OK by itself, but when put next to even a half-assed straight print, it was not a contest on so many levels.
 
glchua said:
I too had given up on scanning traditional BW film, and that was long ago.

The only film, to me, that really scan and yet can be printed nicely in the darkroom is XP2.

Nowadays I do only wet prints, and I scan the prints just for web use.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Every now and then I scan negs for articles, and XP2 is so far and away the best for scanning that there's no competition. But I still vastly prefer wet prints for B+W. Although 8x10 negs can be scanned quite satisfactorily...

Cheers,

R.
 
FrankS said:
IMO, in order to achieve the full potential of film, one has to use traditional darkroom printing methods. This takes some skill. Just as scanning/post processing does in the digital realm. If one does not have either of these abilities in adequate amounts, and one lacks the perseverance or potential to develop these skills, then pursuing an alternate process is understandable. My point is that the fault lies in you, rather than a process you are not be successful with. Sorry, that may be harsh, but it is the way it is, IMO.
Click to expand...

not just that but, it’s a matter of getting the most out of each stage, it’s a weakest link thing, drop the ball anywhere from assessing the light to handling the print and it’s spoiled some extent.

Roger Hicks Quote:
Originally Posted by glchua
I too had given up on scanning traditional BW film, and that was long ago.

The only film, to me, that really scan and yet can be printed nicely in the darkroom is XP2.

Nowadays I do only wet prints, and I scan the prints just for web use.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Every now and then I scan negs for articles, and XP2 is so far and away the best for scanning that there's no competition. But I still vastly prefer wet prints for B+W. Although 8x10 negs can be scanned quite satisfactorily...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

XP2 is the best by a long way

taxi38 Rem,youve answered youre own question,Sean Reid tackled this very question and concluded that its a question of scanner resolution,it needs to be high enough not to suffer this "resonance"or whatever it is that causes this apparent clumping.I use a minolta 5400 mk1 scanner and do not suffer this ailment,....you can only buy second-hand but is cheap for what you get.
Click to expand...

that’s my experience too, I can pull a good scan from HP5/id11 on the KM 5400, not as easily as from XP2 but it is doable.
 
Would not give up. With some perseverance you can get good results. To be frank I found nothing really wrong with your online pictures. Maybe some more care in scanning and more time in post processing, but that is easy. You may want to try Vuescan as your scanning software.

A couple of links:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/2957090203/in/set-72157608202483073/
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15304&highlight=vuescan

On postprocessing (including a lot on Color to B&W conversions) take a look at following link, it has tons of interesting sub links. Worthwhile for anybody interested in digital Black and White


http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/ph...ing-color-image-black-white-grayscale-bw.html

For finetuning of my B+W images I uses luminosity masks, please see Tony Kuypers site for more information on the technique. http://www.goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html. Some other techniques: http://www.layersmagazine.com/black-and-white-fine-tuning-in-photoshop-cs3.html . This of course assumes you have Photoshop on your computer.

I see the digital darkroom as the analogue darkroom. You need to invest time in it and be curious and experiment to get good results. I also agree that nothing beats the quality of wet darkroom prints. On the other hand where the digital darkroom beats the wet one is the enormous amount of local contral you have, beats my split grade printing easily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are talking 35mm, I recommend to try a Nikon 5000 ED, as long as they are still available. Does not cost more than a good used Leica.
 
cnphoto said:
I have concluded that, for me, 35mm scans just lead to so much disappointment that it's not worth the time and effort. If I produce nice images from now on, I will print a wet print and scan that.

I am now also shooting 4x5, and those scans (and 120 film) are superb.
Click to expand...

Same for me. Except that I am getting very good results with 35mm E-6. I, personally, got bad results using C-41 for both 120 and 35mm, but the change to E-6 made it all work better.

I print 35mm and 120 optically (they get scanned for web use). 4x5 gets scanned and contact printed, if at all, and 8x10 gets contact printed. Black and White, obviously. For color, I use E-6. I have no issues with grain on Astia or even Provia 400X.

I do not claim it is better than digital (I do claim that 6x7 and larger is much better than even the best digital SLR on the market, including the MF digitals), but I get to use a camera that I like rather than one I don't like as much.
 
Another vote for the 5000, but I also think you can not go wrong with a 4000 or Coolscan IVED (sometimes to be found second hand for reasonable prices). At the moment I have no choice (no darkroom) but to work in a hybrid way; developing (changing bag/tank) and scanning and slowly, slowly am getting better at it. I still have not been able to get good B+W out of color, so that is holding me back from ordering a M9. Probably by the time the M10 comes on the market I will have saved enough to buy one and gained enough experience in the digital darkroom to get good results.
 
Film is for silver, digital is for digital - pressing one to conform to the other, whether it's scanning silver negatives or positives or wet printing film bubble printed from digital, will bring out the difference. Silver is chaos, digital is a gridiron of pixels. Accepting the limitations and advantage of one, the other or a mix, each with its peculiar characteristics, has expanded our wonderful world of photography. As I see it, remegius's problem is his scanner. Flat bed scanners (FBS) are made to digitize pieces of paper with images of fairly low resolution lying as flat as possible on the scanner glass. While the do have some impressive depth of field to their tiny lenses, flat bed scanners try their best to make a "pleasant" image. However, most OEM film holders for FBS are bad at holding film flat and most software very good at trying to reduce noise. To the point where grain in shadows just dies. Vue Scan and variable height film holders with anti newton ring glass to hold film flat help a lot, but dedicated film scanners do a much better job. After all they are made to scan film, not paper. There is a simple comparison here of results from an Epson 4990 and a Microtek ArtixScan 120tf: http://abdallah.hiof.no/photography/4990-artixscan/. (Note that the epson is using both its OEM film and a jury rigged flat ANR glass holder.) The FBS is quick and easy to use, the film scanner is excruciatingly slow and terrifying loud, neither smells, my fingers don't prune up, they don't bother my eczema and don't have me hidden away in a dark room (with someone outside wanting to use the bath) for hours on end. My compromise is the Epson FBS with variable height film holder with ANR glass and Vue Scan set for medium format and up. The ArtixScan is fired up for 135 and 8x11mm negatives.

- Børre
 
borrel said:
Film is for silver, digital is for digital - pressing one to conform to the other, whether it's scanning silver negatives or positives or wet printing film bubble printed from digital, will bring out the difference. Silver is chaos, digital is a gridiron of pixels. Accepting the limitations and advantage of one, the other or a mix, each with its peculiar characteristics, has expanded our wonderful world of photography. As I see it, remegius's problem is his scanner. Flat bed scanners (FBS) are made to digitize pieces of paper with images of fairly low resolution lying as flat as possible on the scanner glass. While the do have some impressive depth of field to their tiny lenses, flat bed scanners try their best to make a "pleasant" image. However, most OEM film holders for FBS are bad at holding film flat and most software very good at trying to reduce noise. To the point where grain in shadows just dies. Vue Scan and variable height film holders with anti newton ring glass to hold film flat help a lot, but dedicated film scanners do a much better job. After all they are made to scan film, not paper. There is a simple comparison here of results from an Epson 4990 and a Microtek ArtixScan 120tf: http://abdallah.hiof.no/photography/4990-artixscan/. (Note that the epson is using both its OEM film and a jury rigged flat ANR glass holder.) The FBS is quick and easy to use, the film scanner is excruciatingly slow and terrifying loud, neither smells, my fingers don't prune up, they don't bother my eczema and don't have me hidden away in a dark room (with someone outside wanting to use the bath) for hours on end. My compromise is the Epson FBS with variable height film holder with ANR glass and Vue Scan set for medium format and up. The ArtixScan is fired up for 135 and 8x11mm negatives.

- Børre
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and for the link to a very interesting comparison. Clearly, you understand the situation and your analysis is correct, the scanner is the problem. I have to smile when advocates of flatbed scanning reduce my problem to poor technique (BTW, I use Vuescan and BetterScanning glass). Ignoring that, and cutting to the chase, a V500, despite the fact that it comes with negative holders (horrible negative holders) cannot possibly produce (for me) acceptable scans of traditional films. The flatbed is simply out of its depth with these kinds of scans. On the other hand, my scans of C41 films are quite nice, but, as stated earlier, why bother when Costco provides better scans from the git-go.

So, the solution, if I decide to jump back into using traditional films, is a dedicated film scanner. This is a costly solution. Nothing I have seen produced by a Plustek, though a dedicated film scanner itself, impresses me. You get what you pay for. More will be revealed.

Cheers...

Rem
 
Back home

Back home

Myself, I came back home 2.5 years ago. Left home for digital, went hybrid now fully analog again.
 
Henk said:
Myself, I came back home 2.5 years ago. Left home for digital, went hybrid now fully analog again.
Click to expand...

You are fortunate. Notwithstanding some kind of architectural rearrangement of this little house there simply is no room for a wet darkroom. But my father-in-law is a contractor...hmmm...

Cheers...

Rem
 
Beemermark said:
I can't figure out how to post pictures here but go over to my google website and check out the folder labeled SPENCER. Taken this weekend with Arista Premium 400, developed in Ilford ID-11 1:1 and scanned with a Dimage Dual Scan. No retouching. Do you find the grain in these photos objectionable?

http://picasaweb.google.com/113091145775152549903/Spencer#
Click to expand...

If the law gets after me I'll run to No 9. They can't corner me there.
(anybody remember that old song?)

Where is that wonderful place Beemermark?
 
I have just been pondering if I really need 5 medium format cameras with 15+ lenses in order to produce satisfying 13x17 prints (this is the maximum my Epson R2400 will handle).
So I took my M4 with a Super Angulon 21/3.4, Summaron 35/2.8 and DR Summicron, and a Gitzo travellers tripod, a couple of rolls of Rollei Retro 100 (APX 100) and I went out to make a few shots. I have just made a couple of prints - a portrait and a landscape. I scan on Nikon CS 9000. I printed on hahnemuehle William Turner matte' paper in advanced B&W mode. This is not giving the maximum sharpness - you get more of it on a semigloss paper. The film has been developed in Rodinal 1+50. The results are different from a wet print, but are by no means unsatisfactory. I would say the sharpness is probably superior, while the surface is more like a photogravure than a traditional print, but I am very satisfied with the result. The tonality is not as smooth as in MF, and some grain is visible, but the effect is anyway largely superior to any digital output. So for me the B&W hybrid process is still valid. If you think you cannot afford a decent scanner, sell a couple of your Leica lenses and substitute them with Voigtlander or Canon - the end result will be better in my opinion.

Here is an example of what you can obtain with a hybrid workflow and a decent technique:
Fomapan 200 in FX39

2891752276_f29fe9c459_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with these?

What's wrong with these?

$150 pre-4990 Epson flatbed scanner and Epson film holders. Various formats from 35mm to 4x5. Various films. All Xtol 1:3. Except the color of course. Resized for the web. 8 bit JPEGs suck. These all print well up to 16x20. No Photoshop. Only Lightroom. Very little adjustments in Lightroom.

Wayne_Torry_09.jpg



Wayne_Torry_06.jpg



Wayne_Torry_03.jpg



Fence001.jpg



Giddings+Proj-8.jpg



Balcony+-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Full marks to those bravely posting examples to be knocked down, but I don't think that's the point the OP is making.

There's an Irving Penn exhibition on at the National Portrait Gallery and interestingly the review in the morning free paper made a reference to the quality of the images and recognising what we may have lost with digital printing.

Personally, I consider my V700 as a brilliant scanner that has enabled me to make great use of mechanical Leicas, Hasselblads and Nikons in a digital age. They may not produce the very best results but they're awfully good in their own right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom