JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi there all
So what's the consensus these days about the best film to scan with. I mean, which film of each genre (black and white, color negatives and slide films) seems the easiest to scan? I heard that in the mean time special films have been made to work well with scanners.
Of course, it's always going to be a fight to get the right color, but are there other aspects which make a film easy to scan?
I've done scanning of exclusively of Tmax 100 and 400 and tons of old fire damaged slides. Except for Tmax, my experience with other newer films is limited.
Kind regards, JP
So what's the consensus these days about the best film to scan with. I mean, which film of each genre (black and white, color negatives and slide films) seems the easiest to scan? I heard that in the mean time special films have been made to work well with scanners.
Of course, it's always going to be a fight to get the right color, but are there other aspects which make a film easy to scan?
I've done scanning of exclusively of Tmax 100 and 400 and tons of old fire damaged slides. Except for Tmax, my experience with other newer films is limited.
Kind regards, JP
minoltist7
pussy photographer
XP2 probably
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Of the silver-based films, the newer emulsions - the TMAX line, the Delta line, and the Neopan line - will all scan better than the "clumpier" older emulsions. Little to no grain aliasing, very smooth and long tonal range that responds well to curves and other computer manipulations, etc. But that doesn't mean you'll like the look of the film itself - some just don't.
R
rich815
Guest
While some B&W films may be more "forgiving" than others when scanning (XP2 or CN400BW from Kodak) I have found that when exposed and developed properly that most B&W films scan very well, even on my Nikon LS-4000 (supposedly not a good scanner for scanning traditional B&W films---said so mostly by people who have not owned one but heard they are not good for such). Whenever I am finding too much grain or poor tonality in my B&W film scans it's practically always due to under-exposure or under-development. That said, as kaiyen mentioned, some people end up liking a more grainy or severely contrasty look so like most things in B&W photography it's highly subjective.
You will get a load of people replying to this thread telling you which films work for them for scanning. But that's for their scanner, their scanning technique and also their exposure and development technique as well----and for a look that they want from their B&W film. It's like asking for a good developer/film combination. You will get a load of answers and none are any better than the other because for the most part it will all work.
As for color yes, I think the film more matters as some films seem to have poor "starting points" after the scans and are a real bear to color correct some having severe color cross-over problems, etc. For me some of the hardest films to scan have been the earlier Fuji NPH and NPS emulsions and some of the Kodak Max 400 and 800 films. Fuji Reala, while capable of some very nice scans, can often be troublesome too. Easier ones for me have been the new Fuji NPH (now called 400H I believe) and Fuji NPZ and Kodak Portra 160 NC and 400 NC (The VC are not bad but I see little reason to shoot them when I can just add a touch of saturation to the NC film scans and I'm pretty much there).
You will get a load of people replying to this thread telling you which films work for them for scanning. But that's for their scanner, their scanning technique and also their exposure and development technique as well----and for a look that they want from their B&W film. It's like asking for a good developer/film combination. You will get a load of answers and none are any better than the other because for the most part it will all work.
As for color yes, I think the film more matters as some films seem to have poor "starting points" after the scans and are a real bear to color correct some having severe color cross-over problems, etc. For me some of the hardest films to scan have been the earlier Fuji NPH and NPS emulsions and some of the Kodak Max 400 and 800 films. Fuji Reala, while capable of some very nice scans, can often be troublesome too. Easier ones for me have been the new Fuji NPH (now called 400H I believe) and Fuji NPZ and Kodak Portra 160 NC and 400 NC (The VC are not bad but I see little reason to shoot them when I can just add a touch of saturation to the NC film scans and I'm pretty much there).
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rich815
Guest
I should add for 35mm color film that the Kodak 100 and 200 can be capable of gorgeous scans often not needing too much tweaking in PS post-scanning. And both of these films can often be found slightly out of date for as little as 50 cents USD a roll.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Rich has gotten to the real point, one that I was irresponsible in skipping over. All films scan well. All films scan poorly. It just depends on what your definitions of good and bad are, and what you want as far as results. It's very subjective. It's entirely subjective. It's 110% subjective.
Oh, and that CoolScan 4000? Now, I've never used it myself, but it is terrible for scanning.
Oh, and that CoolScan 4000? Now, I've never used it myself, but it is terrible for scanning.
Henryah
Member
Good films for scanning.
As previously pointed out it depends of film processing,and not to forget the scanners dynamic range. I-e max density in the negatives hiighligths.
As previously pointed out it depends of film processing,and not to forget the scanners dynamic range. I-e max density in the negatives hiighligths.
Joe
Established
I have scanned a lot of film on an Imacon drum scanner, which has presets for common film types. Personally, I only scan color now, and print b&w the old way. I like Velvia and Provia for a saturated "baroque" look, with deep shadows, seamless grain, and minute details. The fuji negative films offer more color fidelity and, of course, latitude. I tried old kodachromes a while back, but won't comment on those since I think the scanner was out of ajdustment at the time.
As far as B&W, tri-x looks fine with the right preset, absolutely awful without it(more grain than image). I found that one thin neg, which was very difficult to print chemically, looked great as a scan and inkjet print.
I've heard quite a few people comment to me that slide films are the best for scanning.
As far as B&W, tri-x looks fine with the right preset, absolutely awful without it(more grain than image). I found that one thin neg, which was very difficult to print chemically, looked great as a scan and inkjet print.
I've heard quite a few people comment to me that slide films are the best for scanning.
Last edited:
TheHub
Well-known
Case in point, I use Reala sometimes and have had no problems at all scanning it
The only film I've had some issues scanning is Kodak E100VS. I still use it however. My biggest problem is avoiding Newton Rings
Ronald M
Veteran
The new version Portra and Fuji 160S Pro scan like gangbusters. Fine grain, nice color.
I never found a problem monochrome film to scan, but I develope to #2 paper and condenser enlarger and use a KM 5400 with the large light source.
I never found a problem monochrome film to scan, but I develope to #2 paper and condenser enlarger and use a KM 5400 with the large light source.
sienarot
Well-known
The only film I've ever had trouble scanning is Reala. So much so that I've given up on it and moved to other more easily scanned films.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
ummm Rich, please send in 100 rolls of the 200 please
Scanning. I just got in from a scanning class. Very interesting and worthwhile if there are such things around you check them out.
The instructor noted that current Fuji 160 C, S, H and
Kodak NC, UC, VC are now formulated for scanning.
amateriat
We're all light!
The view from here:
- Contemporary C41 films: Kodak's Portra line; Fuji's Pro 400/800 (and Superia, by association); chromogenics (Ilford XP2/Kodak BW400CN, in my personal order of preference).
- Contemporary E6 films: Kodak E200; Fuji Provia 400, with the caveat that earlier Provia 400 emulsions elicited a slightly-odd "digital" visual texture with one of my older film scanners (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 2900).
- Conventioal b/w film: anything goes. (Depends on emulsion, developer and such.)
The above is largely based on the last several years of working with my current film scanner, a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (first version), which can scan pretty much anything, but with varying degrees of difficulty. In the case of the mentioned C41 and E6 films, I'm usually able to make scans that require minor tweaking in PS (which isn't the reason I chose these films; I just like their rendering abilities). I tend to regard scanning as two parts science, one part interpretive alchemy: you can get a lot of scanners to work with a lot of films, with the proper effort. But, to quote a Traffic song, there are always exceptions.
- Barrett
- Contemporary C41 films: Kodak's Portra line; Fuji's Pro 400/800 (and Superia, by association); chromogenics (Ilford XP2/Kodak BW400CN, in my personal order of preference).
- Contemporary E6 films: Kodak E200; Fuji Provia 400, with the caveat that earlier Provia 400 emulsions elicited a slightly-odd "digital" visual texture with one of my older film scanners (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 2900).
- Conventioal b/w film: anything goes. (Depends on emulsion, developer and such.)
The above is largely based on the last several years of working with my current film scanner, a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (first version), which can scan pretty much anything, but with varying degrees of difficulty. In the case of the mentioned C41 and E6 films, I'm usually able to make scans that require minor tweaking in PS (which isn't the reason I chose these films; I just like their rendering abilities). I tend to regard scanning as two parts science, one part interpretive alchemy: you can get a lot of scanners to work with a lot of films, with the proper effort. But, to quote a Traffic song, there are always exceptions.
- Barrett
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
and that Traffic song would be...
amateriat
We're all light!
..."Empty Pages", from John Barleycorn Must Die, released around 1970, and one of their very best. Recommended.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Chromogenic mono inherently scans better than conventional mono because there is no Callier effect from the silver grains (scattering of highly collimated light) to block the highlights.
Otherwise it's personal preference.
Cheers,
Roger
Otherwise it's personal preference.
Cheers,
Roger
Arvay
Obscurant
Speaking of classic BW I would give the prize to Acros.
photophorous
Registered User
In my experience with scanning real B&W film with a Coolscan V, finer grain and lower contrast improve scanning. Both can be controlled with development. I find D76 stock produces smoother grain that scans better than D76 1:1. This doesn't make much difference with films like TMX or Acros, but it does with grainier films like TriX. Ilfotec DD-X produces similarly smooth grain. This is more important than the film type, IMO.
Most C-41 films seem to scan well, but some slide films can be hard because contrast is too high. Also, the vibrant colors of something like Velvia can be hard to reproduce accurately. Sensia or Astia works better, but then again, it doesn't look like Velvia.
Paul
Most C-41 films seem to scan well, but some slide films can be hard because contrast is too high. Also, the vibrant colors of something like Velvia can be hard to reproduce accurately. Sensia or Astia works better, but then again, it doesn't look like Velvia.
Paul
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Barrett, it's been a long time, I'll listen to it again.
Last edited:
JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi all, thanks for all the interesting comments. I should have known better than to ask such a general question. But all the comments will help to better judge some experimenting.
As far as my experience goes:
I'm using a Nikon 5000 film scanner, scanning with Vuescan either jpg or raw dngs, then importing into Lightroom. Using Tmax 400, I've never had a problem with grain aliasing. Since I'm not developing myself, that's where the week point is.
Actually the results look good. But, coming very shortly I'm going to do a lot of experiments with analog and digital printing to get some comparative results. Then I can be satisfied or not.
I'll write about them then. But, it'll be a good 4 weeks.
Cheers, JP
As far as my experience goes:
I'm using a Nikon 5000 film scanner, scanning with Vuescan either jpg or raw dngs, then importing into Lightroom. Using Tmax 400, I've never had a problem with grain aliasing. Since I'm not developing myself, that's where the week point is.
Actually the results look good. But, coming very shortly I'm going to do a lot of experiments with analog and digital printing to get some comparative results. Then I can be satisfied or not.
I'll write about them then. But, it'll be a good 4 weeks.
Cheers, JP