How do you scan and how well does it work?

[sojournerphoto]

Hi

This is my first post to RFF, and as ever it's a question!

I've been shooting digital exclusively for a couple of years, but recently picked up my old Ae1 and Zorki, whcih I've enjoyed showing the light again. Now I have a few rolls of film and before heading deeper into this, I wondered (as I no longer have either space or equipment for a wet darkroom) how people are scanning for digital output, and what sort of quality can be achieved using different sorts of kit. I suppose my easy options are either epson flatbed (4990, v700 or 750 or a nikon ls V)

Oh everything so far is monochrome, but I would rule out shooting a bit of colour film in the future. Also, this is focused on 35mm, but I've an old 6 by 9 camera somewhere as well...

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks

Mike

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a Nikon LS-8000ED. Its been replaced by the 9000, but they're very similar. I love it. I scan both 35mm and medium format film with it. It is time consuming, and the scans do require photoshop work to make them perfect (they typically need contrast increased, especially scans from negs, which are very flat till you work the levels and curves in photoshop). This isn't a bad thing, it means that, with negs, you can scan really contrasty film and still pull a good print from it.

All of these are scans from 35mm film done on my Nikon scanner. The black & white ones are from black & white negs, the color ones are from slides.

 

[Dan States]

I'd strongly recommend a FILM scanner, not just a flat bed. The increase in quality when scanning 35mm is dramatic. The driver softwear that comes with most scanners is rubbish, so budget another $80-150 for either Vuescan or Silverfast.

You can make far better black and white prints from film and a decent scanner than even the best digital cameras because you get fantastic dynamic range on film. After 2 years in the digital world I went back to film and won't return to digital until they get into a dynamic range war instead of a megapixel war.

Of course, film and scanning is not for those looking to crank out gobs of photo's with little time or effort, but if you are a "One Perfect Print at a time" guy film is still a great way to go.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[peterm1]

I only have a flatbed - a 3 or 4 year old Canon (cant recall the model number.) OK in dog and computer years this is ancient but I cannot justify getting another right now, especially as I am shooting more and more digital. It has resolution that goes right up to 2400 which is reasonable if not brilliant for slides and negs. The first images I scanned with it were frankly crap. Especially slide films, partly because the resolution on the scanned was not good enough and partly due to dust etc on the slides. But I found that for some reason it worked better on negatives. And it worked really very well when scanning standard prints. Through trial and error I eventually found that whatever I scanned needed a lot of tweaking in PS to get to an acceptable image out of it. This requires bespoke tweaking based on the specific needs of particular shots but in general as long as I have been willing to devote the time I can be pretty sure of getting some usable images on most occasions. But take heed, generally this means at least the following. (1) Adjust image contrast / curves. (2) Adjust color saturation (3) Process to filter scratches and dust (my scanner does not have ICE) (4) Sharpen then, if necessary (5) process to get rid of noise and artifacting. Only then could I get reasonable outcomes that sometimes were excellent but mostly were good to OK. I am convinced that you can get reasonable outcomes from a flatbed - especially if working from prints of course but also if scanning negatives. However in the latter case the quality is usable but not top notch in most cases.

 

[mfogiel]

You should get the best film scanner you can afford. Nikon CS 9000 will have you covered up to 6x9, but if you want to start with the 35mm probably a Nikon 5000 will give you the same quality. For 6x9 or larger, the Epson V7xx is acceptable for an up to 6-8x enlargement. Fot B&W I'd recommend to learn how to use Vuescan, and initially scan negs as positive to get the entire dr into your scan. Then you will have to proceed in photoshop.

 

[BJ Bignell]

I have a Coolscan V ED which works very well for slide film, but I have yet to make it work well with b&w and color negatives.

For slides, it's easy: 14-bit full-resolution scans with everything on "auto", Digital ICE on the "normal" setting. The results have so far been excellent. For colour negs, I tried the same settings but find that using ICE results in a very unhealthy blue cast to the pictures; without ICE the results seem quite good.

I haven't done enough b&w yet to make a judgement, but it looks capable. I just wish that ICE was compatible with silver b&w film, because I have a surprising number of negatives that need to rewashed before scanning. So disappointing!

 

[mrb]

I can confirm most of the previous comments. Scanning is slow. The quality can be good, but it takes time and care. I've had good results with both medium format and 35 mm on my Epson V500 flatbed. I turn off the various enhancement settings provided with the scanner software (ICE, sharpening, etc) because they don't work all that well (or perhaps I haven't taken the time to learn how to make them work well). PhotoShop or GIMP are better for these tasks. It's a slow process.

In my experience, black and white film (mostly TMAX100) and color slides (mostly Velvia 50) scan very well. The results are better -- sometimes remarkably better -- than what I see in my digital pics (mostly from a Canon EOS 30D). I've scanned some color print negatives with mixed results. Some old (1950s) Kodachrome slides scanned reasonably well. Did I mentions that scanning is pretty slow?

 

[HuubL]

Anybody shoots negatives/slides with a DSLR-macro lens combo? How do these compare to Coolscan V scans?

 

[amateriat]

Mike: My setup consists of a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (first version), which I've had for about four years and positively love. Compared to just plucking a card from a dSLR or the like, this is obviously more time-consuming, but I personally feel the time spent is well worth it (although having 30 years' worth of 35mm images might bias me somewhat). Having a decent film scanner is a golden thing, IMO. Getting the most out of a piece of film–conventional b/w neg, chromogenic b/w neg, color neg or slide, is a fairly big deal, and the better the scanner, the better the result. (Yes, taken to its logical conclusion, you'll wind up with a $15,000 drum scanner, but I think you get my point.)

Equally important in this adventure is having a robust computer setup. This does not mean having to run out the door this instant and buy this weeks hot PC or Mac du jour. But it means you won't get far on your parents' hand-me-down PC that still has the original copy of Windows Me on it. As with the film scanner, get the best you can afford...even if that means buying used in both cases. And, learn the hardware and software as deeply as you can. nad check in often over here when you run into that Inevitable Unsolvable tag.


- Barrett

 

[sebastel]

years ago i started using minolta dimage dual scan, and i never got it right. whether it was the hardware or the software, i cannot tell.

nowadays, using the nikon LS-50 (coolscan V ED) and either vuescan (linux) or the nikon scanner software (windows), it's much easier and quicker. though still not a "you press the button, it does the rest" job, but now scanning is fun!

so, i can only encourage you and emphasize what has been said before.

cheers
sebastian

 

[sfb_dot_com]

It slightly annoys me when a question is asked, and people reply with an answer to a different question. In this case, the question was, 'How do you scan & How well does it work?' based on scanning some 35mm negs and possibly some 6x9. Some of the answers so far on this thread have been 'You should buy XXX scanner at $$$$$+++ which to me doesn't seem to answer the question. I've used both dedicated film scanners and now have an Epson V750pro. It scans 35mm better than the dedicated scanner in several ways, not least of which is productivity as it will process up to 24 negs at a time. I have prints made with this combo on 35mm up to 16x20. They look fine - to me. Others might disagree. I haven't printed any MF (from my Mamiya C330) really big, but I reckon it would be good up exhibition size. The software bundled, which is the same on all Epson scanners works fine and has the major benefit of batch scanning. Neither Vuescan, nor Silverfast are any good at this. They do have the ability to tweak way beyond the Epson software however. Be warned however, this is a time-consuming process. Getting really good output does take time, and that is true whatever scanner you use. Files can be big, really, really big if you have 16bit depth on, and are using a high resolution. For that reason, I stick (generally) at 3200dpi for 35mm and 2400 for MF. That produces 13 and 25 million pixel files respectively (for 6x6) which is plenty. There are however exceptions to every rule, and some films are an easier scan, and some are difficult eg Kodachrome. My suggesstion in your case would be to pick up a cheapish Epson flatbed because it will (probably) do enough for you. Spending big bucks on a dedicated MF film scanner when you have a MF camera lying around somewhere doesn't seem like good economics to me.

Hope that's been helpful

Andy

 

[Michael I.]

I use an epson 4990.

While the holders are not very good(the MF one is awful) you can get better aftermarket ones. The results of what I managed to get from the scanner(with original holders) you can see in my blog(my signature).

Mike

 

[mr_phillip]

I use an Epson V700, and would largely echo what sfb_dot_com said above.

I thought long and hard about spending big money on a dedicated film scanner, but in the end just couldn't justify it to myself. I mostly shoot black and white (which isn't a great chalange to a scanner), and most of the images I take just end up either as small jpegs on Flickr and elsewhere, or printed at 6x4 on my Canon inkjet. If I were looking to get a particular shot printed at a large size I'd be sending it off to be either drum-scanned and printed professionally, or printed in a traditional pro darkroom.

My scanning method on the V700 is about the same as sfb_dot_com's as well: 35mm gets scanned 3200dpi (16-bit greyscale for b&w) with all auto-gizmos (ICE, exposure correction, etc) turned off and as flat a curve as possible. The scans are saved as uncompressed tiffs, then opened in Photoshop where I set the black and white points, apply a little Unsharp Mask, spot for dust and make any minor adjustments I feel I want then save as high-quality RGB jpegs. I've always been very happy with the results.

I batch scan my negs using the EpsonScan software in Professional mode with thumbnails turned off, using the original film holders with a slight modification (I removed the plastic clips that are meant to hold the negs in place and use specially cut ANR glass inserts from betterscanning.com to keep the negs flat instead). The scanner is connected to a 24" iMac via Firewire (which is a little faster in practice than USB2 on the Mac, even though on paper they should be the same).

It's worth noting that the Epson V700 and V750 models are dual lens designs; they use a different lens for scanning 35mm film than they use for larger media. The cheaper Epson scanners have to make do with a single lens for everything.

Examples (all from the V700 using EpsonScan and Photoshop):

 

[Tuolumne]

This will sound heretical based on what you've read so far, but I have both an Epson 4990 flatbed and a Minolta Elite 5400, supposedly one of the best dedicated 35mm scanners ever made. I much prefer the results of the flatbed over the Minolta. Ialso bought the aftermarket film holders for the Epson flatbed. They are nicely made, but I find the glass cover traps alot of dust. I used to spend a long time cleaning them up in PS. With the stock holder, I just spray with compressed air and scan. Clean as a whistle.

The medium format film holders on the Epson also get a bad rap. Ok, they feel like flimsy POS. But they actually work quite well once you get used to them. I also appreciate the flatbeds ability to scan 24 images in one go. Saves alot of time.

Here's something else heretical. I just use the default settings on the 4990 when I scan. I have tons of books that tell you what to do, but I find the less interference the better.

One othre heretical point. I find one of the big differences between scanned film and digital photos, is that there's really not much that I can do to make the scanned film look better digitally. Yes, it needs a touch of contrast enhancement. Almost anything else ruins it.

YMMV.

Don't agonize over it. Get something and use it until you can make it work for you. There are alot more good options out there for satisfactory results than most people believe.

/T

 

[Robin P]

One othre heretical point. I find one of the big differences between scanned film and digital photos, is that there's really not much that I can do to make the scanned film look better digitally. Yes, it needs a touch of contrast enhancement. Almost anything else ruins it.
/T

That's probably because, by your own admission, you are using the default settings.
A good scan, with attention paid to the histogram and done as 48 bit, should be better and accept far more subsequent tweaking than anything straight from a digital camera.

Cheers, Robin

 

[Aziz]

I scan my 35mm neg's using an Epson V500 with the provided Epson Software.
I scan the b/w neg's at 16 bit grayscale at 2400 dpi and color neg's at 48 bit color at 2400 dpi.
I turn of all the auto options for b/w and scan and save as a TIFF.
I open up in PS3 and do the following:
1) Crop (if necessary)
2) Adjust levels (for proper exposure)
3) Adjust Curves (for contrast)
4) Sharpen using a sharpening plugin that I use
5) Reduce Noise, using Noisewaire Pro (if necessary)
6) Save as 8 bit RGB JPEG

For color neg's I add the following step after step 1., color correct by setting the black, white, and middle gray point.

 

[JPSuisse]

Hi there,

I'm shooting mostly 35mm slids and B/W but also a little digital. My scanning choices were dictated not only by my desire to scan but also to organize ALL my pictures. I'm using Nikon 5000, Mac OS 10.4, Vuescan and Lightroom. The work goes like this:

1. Have film developed
2. Use compressed air to clean the film
3. Scan files to raw DNG files with Vuescan
--> This step is tricky, if you scan to JPEG instead of DNGs because you have to select a scanner resolution, which my be interpolated by scan software. This will reduce your quality. It seems to me that the Nikon can scan either 4000dpi or 2000dpi. Anything in between is interpolated when scanned as a JPEG.
--> Also, the B/W negatives will scan as negatives.
4. Import the DNGs into Lightroom. You have to invert the B/W DNGs into positives. Doing this will increase the dynamic range of the photos.

Hope this is useful. The advantage is that you can view your digtal pics with the analog pics in the same databank keeping the best qualities of the film in the digital form. Note that you probably won't see the increased dynamic range on a monitor by using this procedure...

Good Luck, JP

 

[chris91387]

if i send film out to be processed i spend the few extra bucks and have the lab scan for me. 99% of the time the standard jpg scan is fine for what i need.

if i process the film myself i sometimes use my epson flatbed to get a better look at my negs. i've never really been totally satisfied by my results but if there's something i really want a better copy of i send it to my lab and have them scan for a few bucks. i usually get better results with silverfast than with epson scan software.

lately, i've been putting my self-processed negs in the roll sleeves and taking to the lab and they'll scan the whole roll for $12.

for old negatives and slides from years gone by, i try on my own with my epson flatbed which usually gives me a good enough quality for little reprints and emails. if there's something special i want i just send it out.

btw, mr phillip, the photo of the couple asleep on the bench is fantastic.

- chris

 

[Tuolumne]

That's probably because, by your own admission, you are using the default settings.
A good scan, with attention paid to the histogram and done as 48 bit, should be better and accept far more subsequent tweaking than anything straight from a digital camera.

Cheers, Robin

The Epson software automatically adjusts the dark and highlight points of the scan. So, what else is there to do?

/T

 

[Ronald_H]

Lots of experience here.

Currently I use a Nikon Coolscan V. It is a lot better than my old Minolta Dimage Dual II (noise, resolution, features) The Minolta's output was already good enough for 20x30cm prints though.

Bundled software is not very good in my experience. Vuescan is.

Negs, B/W or slides all work well, but all need different workflows to get the best out of them. Negs are never that color accurate, slides are. B/W looks very grainy on your screen, but with a little noise reduction the scans can print very well. So well in fact that they are hard to tell apart from 'wet' work, if you have a good printer. This is not from own experience, a friend uses that route,

Infrared dust removal is nice, but won't work at all with silver based B/W films and costs sharpness with C41 and E6. Expect do do a LOT of dust removal in Photoshop.

Scanning and post processing is very, very slow compared to digital.

Why film? It's fun. Traditional B/W cannot be emulated in the digital realm. And most of all, the dynamic range of film cannot be touched by digital.