Giving up on developing and scanning

[remegius]

I have finally decided to give up on developing and scanning film. I have tried my best to educate myself on different methods of getting acceptable results, but to no avail. I have also tried to educate myself on the inherent problems of scanning negatives and here is what I have found: scanners simply do not know how to handle grain. The result is aliasing. When I say that I am primarily speaking about lower end scanners such as the V500, V700, etc. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford and use an Imacon or Nikon 9000 will no doubt have a different experience. I have tried any number of film/developer combinations, and none of the results are acceptable to me. Having said that, I have found that C41 films like BW400CN produce quite acceptable results, but using those films precludes the necessity of a home scanner. The scans that I am able to get from Costco have produced satisfactory prints up to 11X14, and if I need anything larger there are always specialty labs.

So I conclude that, at least for me, the only way to achieve really acceptable results from traditional films is via the wet darkroom, which is outside of my purview, both logistically and in terms of desirability.

I know that there are those who seem to be quite happy with the hybrid process, and to them I say "God bless..." It just doesn't work for me.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I've never been completely happy with the results from scanned film because the grain is accentuated. Many people who shoot film, though, like the grain and are not troubled that the scanner makes it more obvious. C41 B&W was also my solution until every one-hour lab within a 40 mile radius finally closed. I mostly scan only 4x5 these days.

 

[Beemermark]

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#

 

[remegius]

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?

I should have made clear that I am not talking about scanned images that are reduced to 800x600, or 1024x768, or whatever, and placed on the web. I am talking about prints, which are the only output that interest me.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[Steve Bellayr]

No one ever said: "Photography is easy." Early on I learned that the taking of photographs and the printing of images were two separate set of skills. Most great photographers chose to concentrate on the art of photography rather than the technical aspects of printing a quality image. Personally, I feel that photographers in forums such as this are too critical of their own abilities to print a quality image. What I mean is if the image is good then plus or minus a little on contrast or saturation is arbitrary.

 

[remegius]

Personally, I feel that photographers in forums such as this are too critical of their own abilities to print a quality image. What I mean is if the image is good then plus or minus a little on contrast or saturation is arbitrary.

You have your standards, I have mine. For years I printed via the wet darkroom, and that is my standard. I personally cannot produce anything that compares to that using the hybrid method.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Are you being too harsh on yourself?

 

[remegius]

Are you being too harsh on yourself?

No. I am being harsh on the prints that have so far been produced. BTW, at the risk of being drawn and quartered, I have seen some remarkable prints as of late that were produced from digital capture and printed on some of the new baryta papers.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[mgd711]

Maybe your doing something wrong, I scan on a V700 and print on an iPF5100 and I struggle to get grain in my prints... (Obviously, this is something I’m wanting in my B&W prints)

 

[archeophoto]

Maybe you should learn the different digital techniques properly just as you had to learn the wet darkroom techniques years back. It's not the scanner that doesn't "know" how to handle grain, it's you! There is noise reduction software available that will give you exceptional results. I scan 35mm negatives on an Epson V700 - by no means a "low end" scanner - and my 24x36 prints look awesome. Yes, with 200 ISO films and above, it 's a bit of work, but I get to satisfactory results everytime.
With medium format negatives my scans will blow my D700 files away...

Yes, everybody has different standards. the problem is that without digitizing your photo you will have a hard time sharing them nowadays.

The ugly truth is: If you want to participate in the world of photography these days you "have to suck it up" and scan them in - high standards or not.

I give you an example: In the years before computers and DTP I was a typesetter. The fonts I used were of outmost quality and can't even remotely be compared to anything used today. I wish every day that those old days would come back, but they will not....

You have your standards, I have mine. For years I printed via the wet darkroom, and that is my standard. I personally cannot produce anything that compares to that using the hybrid method.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[apconan]

are you printing with a lab? if so, you're already spending a premium for the prints, spend a little extra to either get scans done by them, or rent out a drum/virtual scanner

 

[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.

 

[archeophoto]

How long ago was that? Scanners have come a long way you know....

Sorry, but I'm just not happy with people giving the impression that a good scan has to cost a mint and affordable scanners can't produce satisfactory results.

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.

 

[FrankS]

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.

 

[Rob-F]

No. I am being harsh on the prints that have so far been produced. BTW, at the risk of being drawn and quartered, I have seen some remarkable prints as of late that were produced from digital capture and printed on some of the new baryta papers.

Cheers...

Rem

So then, you are finding that it's best to either go analog all the way, or else digital all the way, and not mixing the two? I think that makes sense.

 

[cnphoto]

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.

 

[glchua]

How long ago was that? Scanners have come a long way you know....

Sorry, but I'm just not happy with people giving the impression that a good scan has to cost a mint and affordable scanners can't produce satisfactory results.

I used and still own the Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED, running it on the latest version of Vuescan all the time.

Note that I didn't say I don't get good scans from film. Only traditional BW film is giving me poor results.

 

[Rayt]

I get nice b/w prints from my Epson R2400 from scanned b/w films on the LS5000ED or LS9000ED. Compared to my wetroom fiber prints they may look inferior but that only means I am not good enough of a digital printer. I may give up shooting b/w eventually as shooting color slides and then my lazy way of converting via Nik's Silver EFEX seems to give my prints an extra sparkle. I don't know how to explain it but I like it. Maybe it is the lower grain and higher contrast at the right places.

 

[remegius]

Maybe you're just not a fan of grain? Have you tried turning OFF sharpening for the scan? This will definitely make grain more noticeable, as will underexposing your scan. Scan on the light side and do your sharpening in Photoshop.

I don't know how this thread got off track. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post. I don't mind grain. I love grain. What I was alluding to, and what much more experienced practitioners have made clear in other forums (DF Cardwell in both the hybrid and APUG forums) is that low end scanners handle grain poorly. Grain is rendered as aliasing. It doesn't look like grain...it looks like noise. I have spent most of this evening looking at scans of different films and the C41 stuff generally looks great. That is where I will stay, until such time as some unnamed photo god drops an Imacon or a Nikon 9000 on me.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[filmfan]

If you ask me, nothing compares to a nice wet darkroom print. Since the print is all you care about anyways, why even bother with scanning in the first place? If you are trying to save time by scanning, it will cost money (cost of decent scanner). It's going to be hard to find a cheap AND easy/quick way to do this.