Finder
Veteran
mgd711, thanks for your reply. I guess I have two thoughts if that is what the posters meant.
First, everything looks different as the illumination source changes. You can't blame a print for that. And that happens with any kind of print: inkjet, dye sub, silver, Polaroid, etc.
Second, that is not metamerism. You Wiki link correctly defines metamerism, but your understanding of it is different. Metamers always refer to a pair of objects. Metamerism has nothing to do with a single object. For example, you buy a red silk tie and a red velvet suit. In the store the colors matched perfectly. You go to the Queen's annual ball and because it is under candle light rather than the lighting used in the store, the red of the tie and suit do not match. Taking the objects individually says nothing as they are still both red and no judgement can be made to which would be the "correct" red.
However, perhaps the posters are thinking about something different. I just don't know what that is.
remegius
Well-known
Finder
Veteran
And to quote the article in the link:
This is not metamerism. Actually, I don't know what they are talking about.
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
I tend to agree, while I just came back to film exclusively I am still pondering if I will buy a scanner or not. I am waiting until my tax money comes back to buy one (if I do) but I always have problems with dust. No matter how hard I try to get the negative dust free before scanning I end up having to clone out a few spots. I have tried blowers and compressed air but alway have some degree of dust spots in a few scans per roll. I have gotten good results from scanning prints on a flatbed however and may just stick to that or professional scans from my local custom lab.
mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
Metamerism has many meanings but in printing it means as above... That the colours/shades in a print will appear different under different light sources.
rya
Established
I don't find scanning to be that boring. It is a little like watching a print in the developer, except that I can multitask while scanning. That doesn't make it better, but I can bear it as long as I have the time to.
Please excuse the dirty negatives, these are mostly untouched and posted only for fun:
Please excuse the dirty negatives, these are mostly untouched and posted only for fun:
It's difficult for me to find the time to scan, which means that I haven't spent enough time working out a systematic plan to actually 'learn' how to get the best results. Just like one can't buy a darkroom and get good prints the first time, scanning takes practice...and there is no getting around the dust issue, as Colin mentioned above.
I now have my film scanned at the time of processing, and I've been extremely pleased. No dust hassles, and 26 megapixel equivalent files, for just a few dollars. I use a local lab that has a Noritsu QSS. Here are examples of what is possible. This scanner works on everything up to 6x7 as well.
I now have my film scanned at the time of processing, and I've been extremely pleased. No dust hassles, and 26 megapixel equivalent files, for just a few dollars. I use a local lab that has a Noritsu QSS. Here are examples of what is possible. This scanner works on everything up to 6x7 as well.
Etabeta
Member
Scanning takes time and care. I like to take part in the process of image-making, but must admit that most people don't. Matter of tastes.
robert blu
quiet photographer
In the beginning i found scanning boring. But now I consider it as an important part of my digital process and when sitting in front of the computer,with a good music as background I have no more problem with it. Sure, it takes time. For this reason after developping B&W I make a low res scan of the 36 images just to print contact mainly for archival purpose and this takes me more or less one hour. I import in LR and batch adjust light and contrast. Give a look and select usually not more than 5-6 shots in a film of which I make an highest possible resolution scan, which usually gives me a file of 110/130 MB. Adjust this in LR or CS3 and go for prints on HP9180B. When I need "real high quality print" for my standard I usually have to make more attempts in order to have it (as it was when I was wet printing, a lot of paper thrown away!).
The result is not the same as a wet print, but it does not mean it is worse or better. Just different. In order to reduce grain I choice Ilford Delta films, 100 or 400 depending on circumstances. I notice from other thread (like best B&W 400 iso film" that most of people, or at least many people in this forum still prefer "more conventional film" like HP5, which are IMHO great for a complet B&W process. But maybe for this reason they have some not satisfactory result when goin hybrid, were film as delta 400 could be easier to scan. Just my opinion and experience.
robert
The result is not the same as a wet print, but it does not mean it is worse or better. Just different. In order to reduce grain I choice Ilford Delta films, 100 or 400 depending on circumstances. I notice from other thread (like best B&W 400 iso film" that most of people, or at least many people in this forum still prefer "more conventional film" like HP5, which are IMHO great for a complet B&W process. But maybe for this reason they have some not satisfactory result when goin hybrid, were film as delta 400 could be easier to scan. Just my opinion and experience.
robert
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
The multi-tasking aspects of the analog-digital process is very nice. Yesterday, while printing 11 photographs for a print exchange, I was able to make a number of digital photographs. Stitch them together. Edit in Lightroom. Etc. I could just as easily have exposed and processed film. I have been known to set up negatives for scanning and leave for work or gone to bed while the scanner did the actual work.
venchka
Veteran
I wish there were such a service in Houston. Prices here seem high to me. Who do you use & do they accept mail in film?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Depends how much you shoot. At $20 for processing and scanning a roll, a hundred rolls bought, processed, and scanned and you still haven't purchased a D700. Not cheap, but not super expensive, either. (Too expensive for me, though; I develop and scan my own B&W).
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Which films take well to scanning? I gather not all are equal.
Steve M.
Veteran
It's not just the scanning that's the problem, it's the inkjet printing vs a darkroom B&W print. And don't think that doing it yourself is beyond you. A small & light enlarger like a Durst 606 w/ a lens can be had for $50 and it does 35mm and 6x6. You can easily and quickly develop the film in a little tank in the kitchen in daylight (or send it out for developing), and grab your enlarger and bring it into your darkroom (closet, bathroom, whatever) and make your print. Simple, and the look you get, as you know, can't be replicated by any other means. The cost of chemicals, paper, enlarger and developing tanks is nothing compared to what you need for scanning & inkjet printing, and the results are as good as it gets.
nikku
Well-known
Wayne, Texas Photo Lab in downtown Houston does processing and scanning. I don't know if they do medium format, but I have used them for 35mm developing and printing and they do a fantastic job. Regular scans that you get with processing are good too. Waheed who runs the shop is very friendly and definitely knows what he's doing. http://texasphotolab.com
You can also check out Houston Camera Exchange, I know they do medium format. Little more pricey.
imokruok
Well-known
NCPS, which is the place that scanned the pics in the Rockwell link above, does an excellent job. I used them for a few rolls, until I found that Samy's Camera in Los Angeles does the same thing with the same equipment and I don't have to go through the hassle of mailing.
I would check out NCPS for mail order. They're very nice and happy to do it. But it's not terribly cheap to do high-res scans - anywhere.
Precision Camera in Austin, yes. The files are great. Something like 6300x4100 pixels.
Last edited by a moderator:
lawrence
Veteran
Robert, I do agree with you that the Deltas are a great choice for scanning but would like to add that in my experience you can get good results from conventional film, depending on your choice of developer. For example, HP5 in Super Prodol is not recommended unless you want a gritty look whereas if you develop in ATM49 it's hard to tell the result from Delta 400.
lawrence
Veteran
It depends on what you want but I agree with Robert that both the Ilford Deltas are really excellent. They give a smooth result that still looks like film. Fuji Neopan 400 and Acros are also very good but I haven't tried the new Kodak TMax 400 (TMY) yet so can't comment on it. I'd also mention that the Deltas give their best when developed D76 or ID11 undiluted, which is what Ilford recommends. You can also get good results from the 'old technology' emulsions like HP5 with the right developer but I think the Deltas are a great place to start.
Ronald M
Veteran
I have a KM 5400 mk 1 and Epson 4780. I use 35mm and a little 4x5
My best results so far with scanning traditional B&W film are slow films in D76 1:1, delta 100 or T Max 100. Plus X in Rodinal 1:75, 11 min is decent.
Faster films plainly are not acceptable.
To be perfectly honest, my first back up digital camera, Nikon D40, is way better than any traditional B&W film. At low ISO, the D200 is pushing Hasselblad quality. The D700 is 6x7 to 4x5.
If you are a stickler for quality, the new Porta Kodak films are superb , as is Fuji 160S, and Ektar 100. They are made to be scanned and it most definately shows. Change to greyscale in photoshop. Nikon silver Effects simulate grain and response curves of traditional films well.
My best results so far with scanning traditional B&W film are slow films in D76 1:1, delta 100 or T Max 100. Plus X in Rodinal 1:75, 11 min is decent.
Faster films plainly are not acceptable.
To be perfectly honest, my first back up digital camera, Nikon D40, is way better than any traditional B&W film. At low ISO, the D200 is pushing Hasselblad quality. The D700 is 6x7 to 4x5.
If you are a stickler for quality, the new Porta Kodak films are superb , as is Fuji 160S, and Ektar 100. They are made to be scanned and it most definately shows. Change to greyscale in photoshop. Nikon silver Effects simulate grain and response curves of traditional films well.