How hard is scanning anyway?

[Capt. E]

Flat beds

Flat beds

I will have a basic scan done at the time of processing for 35mm film. Helps evaluating the negatives. Most times 120 and 4x5 can be judged straight from the negative (sometimes 35 on a light table with loop). I never scan everything, though I would love to still have contact sheets. The only scanner I own is an old Epson 2400 that does a very nice job on the 120 and 4x5 allowing excellent prints up to 16x20. I run it on an old Apple G4. Time spent is the only drawback. I will likely try and find something better for 35, mainly to save costs in getting higher resolution scans at my lab (Holland Photo). Coolscan 5000ED or the Minolta IV should work well.
I have to admit I miss my home wet darkroom where I never printed larger than 11x14, but again, cost and time to get it up and going won.

 

[philipus]

Hej KJ

Welcome to the forum.

- Ease of achieving quality. Are my expectations unreasonable in thinking that I'd be able to get comparable results to the lab scans by scanning myself (with a reasonable amount of practice and effort, i.e. after a few rolls)? Should I completely disregard the flatbeds for my resolution needs?

A lot of the answer to this question depends on your preferences and output requirements. From what I've seen the consumer flatbeds won't perform as well with 135 film as the dedicated film scanners. However, if you down-rez a flatbed scan then the pictures will look really good. I think you should be able to get better to much better results than standard lab scans.

As for the "dark art" of scanning (which I agree to an extent that it is) there are ways to simplify and achieve consistently good results. One should not forget, however, that to get a good scan one needs 1) a properly exposed frame, and 2) the patience to adjust in post because some pictures just need more attention. That said, following for instance this guide for Vuescan will output good results. Then one can tweak the settings further. And of course just ask. Most of us have gone (and continue to go) through the learning curve and are happy to share experiences and give suggestions.

- Speed. What is a reasonable expectation for the time it would take to scan a 36 exposure roll, excluding post work? An hour, two? Does it differ greatly between a flatbed and the Plustek.

I can't advice on those scanners specifically, but with my Coolscans (V ED and 9000) I go through a 36 roll in about an hour, with basic post-processing in parallel. I scan each frame at 2000dpi and only if I need much larger (for prints) will I go higher. This is the sweet spot time-quality-wise for me.

- B&W vs Colour. I'm currently shooting both. Is achieving reasonably accurate colour scans far harder than getting B&W scans of comparable quality? I could see myself shooting B&W only while coming to terms with scanning, if it simplifies the workflow greatly. Does Silverfast’s Negafix profiles offer good enough results for colour consistency (mainly asking since it’s included with the Plustek)?

There are many ways to achieve good colour in one's scans and it is a matter of picking what one is happy with. For instance, one can use Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop or a plugin like ColorPerfect. For C41 I find ColorPerfect the easiest and fastest. It is relatively intuitive and quick. For E6 I find ColorPerfect to be inadequate and I scan such films no longer as "linear tiffs" (as required by ColorPerfect) but as normal tiffs and do colour adjustments and basic processing in Camera Raw. That said, it is also easy to correct colour in Photoshop and for very tricky images Photoshop offers more fine-tuning tools than most other applications.

Btw, about scanners. If you are interested in a used scanner, Ffordes is a good dealer for reasonably-priced second-hand scanners. I have been in touch with them and know that they will check and as necessary have, for instance, Nikon Coolscans serviced if necessary.

br
Philip

 

[willie_901]

Using a decent 3-5 year old, preowned DSLR with relatively simple, inexpensive specialized set up for film digitization minimized makes scanning easy. Here's a link for a do-it-yourself set up. It is important to emphasize that any CMOS DSLR sold within the past 5 years can create high-quality, high-res copies.

It doesn't require much imagination to see how a similar set up could be built with purchased equipment.

Using a DSLR has several advantages.

o a high-resolution scan is takes well under a minute... probably much less time after with some experience

o you simultaneously store a JPEG and raw file; the JPEG is for editing (selection); selected images are rendered later on; the raw for unselected images can be deleted (but I can't see a reason to do so)

o you can blend multiple exposures when negatives/transparencies are underexposed

o you don't have to purchase, master or update scanning software (this assumes you already own and know how to use raw rendering software); even if you have to acquire and learn raw rendering software, this could be leveraged for digital imaging in the future

o there are no scanner drivers to update when you update or replace your computer system; connection cables will never become obsolete


There are disadvantages:

o automated dust removal is not available for color (it is not available for silver halide negatives with scanners anyway)

o instead of just taking the scanner out of the closet and turning it on, you have to assemble the DSLR copy rig

o flatbed scanners are more versatile as they can scan larger format film as well as documents, etc.

 

[edge100]

Phase One has a guide to that on their site, but looking into it, NOT CHEAP. The copy stand, expect to pay a minimum of $500 USD, the light box $2000 USD, new. Better copy stands, which are rigid with a heavy DSLR, run in the $1500 range. Used equipment is however widely available, at good prices, a fraction of new.

You need a cement floor for the copy stand.

I do this with a D800, a Tokina 100/2.8 macro, a Kaiser RS-2, an Artograph Lightpad, and a few old enlarger film carriers (including a Besseler Negatrans for 35mm). All tethered to my iMac through Smart Shooter 3. Total cost is less than a Plustek 120, and I get a camera out of it, to boot.

I can do a roll of 35mm or 6x6/6x7, excluding PP, in 5 min. Processing is simply a batch WB correction (not really a correction; compensation for the mask colour) in Lightroom, and then a PS action to invert. 3 clicks. B&W is even easier.

Resolution is outstanding; better than a 9000ED, similar to an Imacon X1, a little less than a drum scan.

DR is tremendous. Same hierarchy applies.

For LF, I stitch 6 macro images to get a 120MP final image that blows the doors off of anything a flatbed can do (whether this matters to you is quite another matter...it does to me).

You don't need Phase One's system to do this. The entire system lives on a table beside my iMac.

I could not imagine EVER going back to a traditional film scanner, either for quality or ease of use.

 

[edge100]

I am just about to fix the Capture One CH (cultural herrirage) presets to work 90-95% in the ordinary version. Some more coding to do, but can share my results when Im done. Plus CH version is about $4000 I think.

This would be HUGE, although one of the major features of CH vs regular C1P is a simple invert and auto crop function.

 

[mfogiel]

@ edge100
When I scan a 6x7 neg with CS9000 in 48 bits, the file is 700MB, and this scanner delivers real resolution very close to nominal resolution, so I am curious, how is it possible to get more resolution on a 40MB shot? Even a B&W file is abt 200MB.

 

[harpofreely]

Can you post some images of your setup? Frankly I have never actually scanned any images myself with success (using on of those garbage Minolta film scanners I sadly own) but was thinking of buying a scanner until I read this thread and began looking at dedicated scanners, which seem to be scary awful.

My plan was to hire an assistant and have imacron scans made. But after reading the "cultural heritage" info, I am leaning heavily toward your solution. The light source seems to be the main issue.

All of my film work is on Kodak color reversal by the way. This thread has turned out to be great. I really appreciate your post.



I had looked at the Kaiser RS-2, can you recommend which Artograph Lightpad?

Do you ever use glass over the negatives to hold them flat?

I'd be up for more info / pics of this setup too - I'm definitely _not_ Phase1's target customer...

 

[rjstep3]

That's another point - you can get better software than the stuff that comes with the scanner. Vuescan is worth every penny - and there is even a book on it you can get from amazon.

You should also check out betterscanning for its range of film holders and anti-Newton glass.

If you use both these suggestions, you will be squeezing the best out of your flatbed scanner. I have an Epson V700 and am thrilled with the results I get from it.

rjstep3

 

[edge100]

Can you post some images of your setup? Frankly I have never actually scanned any images myself with success (using on of those garbage Minolta film scanners I sadly own) but was thinking of buying a scanner until I read this thread and began looking at dedicated scanners, which seem to be scary awful.

My plan was to hire an assistant and have imacron scans made. But after reading the "cultural heritage" info, I am leaning heavily toward your solution. The light source seems to be the main issue.

Artograph Lightpad. Fantastic solution.

All of my film work is on Kodak color reversal by the way. This thread has turned out to be great. I really appreciate your post.

I had looked at the Kaiser RS-2, can you recommend which Artograph Lightpad?

Do you ever use glass over the negatives to hold them flat?

Definitely recommend the Lightpad. Nice and bright and most importantly even illumination. No problems with it at all.

I never use glass.

This is my setup:

It's changed a bit since this was taken. But the important bits are there:

- D800
- Tokina 100/2.8 macro (AF works, BTW)
- Lightpad
- Enlarger neg holder (I have 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5...$30 on ebay for all of them)
- $5 level from Home Depot
- Kaiser RS-2

The most important part of this setup is the copystand (and, besides the camera, it's the most expensive). Stability and being LEVEL are critical.

I tether all of this via USB into Smart Shooter 3, and import to Lightroom. The Besseler Negatrans 35mm holder is a godsend for this; as fast as Pakon to do a roll (minus PP, of course), and FAR more resolution.

I can't say enough good things about this method.

 

[edge100]

@ edge100
When I scan a 6x7 neg with CS9000 in 48 bits, the file is 700MB, and this scanner delivers real resolution very close to nominal resolution, so I am curious, how is it possible to get more resolution on a 40MB shot? Even a B&W file is abt 200MB.

I don't follow.

I've tested my D800 'scans' against a 9000ED, an X1, and a Heidelberg drum scan (can't recall the model).

The DR and resolving power of the D800 exceed that of the 9000ED; that is, I can perceive more detail on the D800 shot. It's not massive, and if you have a 9000ED, good on you. Then again, a D800 has a warranty and detaches from the copy stand for use as a camera, too. Can't do that with your 9000ED, can you?

The X1 res is better on 35mm (for what that's worth), less on MF and LF. DR of the X1 is better in all formats, although not as much as you'd think.

The drum scan is the best in all formats. It's also wildly expensive per frame.

The reason I'm using a DSLR to scan film is simple: it's fast, produces superb quality 'scans', and is relatively cheap if you already have the camera, especially when you consider that you can actually use the camera for other things, too.

I'm not fussed about whether any other solution has marginally more resolution or DR; I'm fussed about making excellent digitizations of my film, and doing so quickly and without hassle.

And I have a terrific solution for that.

 

[edge100]

I'd be up for more info / pics of this setup too - I'm definitely _not_ Phase1's target customer...

http://mfphotography.ca/post/137752399525/my-dslr-scanning-post-processing-workflow-video

All of the images in these two albums were 'scanned' in this way:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137664763@N07/albums/72157661424754404

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137664763@N07/albums/72157661196247504/with/24351367016/

 

[edge100]

@ edge100
When I scan a 6x7 neg with CS9000 in 48 bits, the file is 700MB, and this scanner delivers real resolution very close to nominal resolution, so I am curious, how is it possible to get more resolution on a 40MB shot? Even a B&W file is abt 200MB.

A D800 produces images with 7360 pixels on the long edge; for a 1.417 inch piece of film, this translates to 5194 PPI, which is higher than the 9000ED's 4000 PPI. Granted, there are Bayer array constraints on the D800 that don't exist on the 9000ED, but the proof is in the pudding; the scans look incredible.

For 6x7 (2.36 x 2.76 inches), the 9000ED can theoretically resolve 11040 pixels on the long edge. To get this with my D800, I need to stitch 3 images on the long edge and 2 on the short. In practice, I don't bother with this; I just don't need that type of resolution from most images. But I have the ability to do so, should I need to.

 

[harpofreely]

Why does being level matter, so long as the plane of the camera's sensor is parallel to the plane of the negative? Is having both level simply the easiest way to make them parallel?

 

[edge100]

Why does being level matter, so long as the plane of the camera's sensor is parallel to the plane of the negative? Is having both level simply the easiest way to make them parallel?

Yes, I mean parallel to the film (in both X and Y). Sorry for the confusion.

 

[calebarchie]

@ edge100
When I scan a 6x7 neg with CS9000 in 48 bits, the file is 700MB, and this scanner delivers real resolution very close to nominal resolution, so I am curious, how is it possible to get more resolution on a 40MB shot? Even a B&W file is abt 200MB.

Addressing the file size, it would be a combination of bit depth and bayer array limitations.

For example if the D800 had a 36MP foveon X3 based sensor (108MP in foveon terms) with 3 layers at 14-bits each, imagine raw file sizes then.
The coolscan is 16-bits per channel hence 48-bit but the resolution of each is comparable to a 36MP bayer sensor.

There is probably more to it than that but it gives you a rough idea comparison wise.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Lots of comments. Hope we have not overwhelmed you, KJ.

You asked about making prints 20x30cm and you are considering a flatbed.

I get good prints, and I like sharp prints, at 6x the linear dimension of the film with my Epson V500. The V700/750 will be a little better. Fine for web and small prints, 20x30cm is just a little over my benchmark.

I think the flatbeds are great for MF and larger.

 

[harpofreely]

Lots of comments. Hope we have not overwhelmed you, KJ.

You asked about making prints 20x30cm and you are considering a flatbed.

I get good prints, and I like sharp prints, at 6x the linear dimension of the film with my Epson V500. The V700/750 will be a little better. Fine for web and small prints, 20x30cm is just a little over my benchmark.

I think the flatbeds are great for MF and larger.

Truth be told, 6x is about as big as I like to wet-print, too. Small prints, small flaws.

 

[Zonan]

Are all your images so fantastic that you have to scan them all? 😕

From what I have seen of his work over the years, I would think Yes

 

[edge100]

By the way I was being cheap on the lightpad model, obviously one does not need a large one, but wondering if the color varies by price?

I think the only thing that varies is the size. I have no concerns about the colour of light from my Lightpad 920.

One advantage to a large one is the possibility of doing digital contact sheets in a single exposure.

 

[lukitas]

For best results, I recommend the macro + digital body set-up. Way better than flatbeds, as fast as you can change a negative in a holder, and you get all the megapixels.
If you have to use a flatbed, scan prints. Don't forget you lose data at every step. You lose dynamic range, and you lose fine detail.

Scanning is a bore. And it costs : film, lab, then time. My film cameras are lying fallow.

If I had my druthers, I'd be shooting, developing and printing every day, and editing fanzines every two months, but I have neither the wherewithal nor the time to do so. Digital is what allows me to maintain a daily routine of shooting by day and processing and editing at night. Scanning is too much of a bother.