kj_
Member
Long time reader, first time poster here. I've been really enjoying the discussions as well as the wealth of information on this forum.
As for the topic at hand, I've read countless threads from the archives by now, but a few questions remain. I hope no one will mind if I collect them here in a new thread. I'll try and keep everything short.
Background - I've been shooting more film lately and really enjoying it. I plan to do even more in 2016. Up until now I've had my local lab scan my negs. I've been reasonably satisfied, but a few issues make me wonder if I'd be better off scanning myself:
- Cost. The scans at the lab I'm using are quite expensive. Especially for a reasonable resolution (I generally order their highest res scans at 8MP - good enough for a majority of my needs but given a choice I’d like a bit higher). At their current rate I'd save the entire purchase price of a scanner by scanning just 5-15 rolls myself (5 rolls gives me an entry level flatbed, 15 a dedicated 35mm one)
- Consistency. The lab scans are usually nice enough in isolation, but often both colour and sharpness vary greatly from frame to frame.
- Tonality. The tonality of the lab scans I'm getting are generally a bit harsh for my tastes, and compression makes it hard to make any major adjustments in post.
That's a bit about what I'm seeing. As for the scanners I've been eyeing, I'm mainly interested in a Plustek Opticfilm 8200i since I'm shooting mostly 35mm. If I'd be able to get reasonable resolution (good enough for 20x30cm prints, the largest I ever do with any regularity) from a flatbed I'd consider going for that, since I occasionally shoot 120 as well (the Canon 9000F probably my prime candidate).
Moving on to the questions:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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)?
Sorry if that got a bit long winded or if any of the questions seem basic. I'm trying to learn and thankful for any input.
Regards / KJ
As for the topic at hand, I've read countless threads from the archives by now, but a few questions remain. I hope no one will mind if I collect them here in a new thread. I'll try and keep everything short.
Background - I've been shooting more film lately and really enjoying it. I plan to do even more in 2016. Up until now I've had my local lab scan my negs. I've been reasonably satisfied, but a few issues make me wonder if I'd be better off scanning myself:
- Cost. The scans at the lab I'm using are quite expensive. Especially for a reasonable resolution (I generally order their highest res scans at 8MP - good enough for a majority of my needs but given a choice I’d like a bit higher). At their current rate I'd save the entire purchase price of a scanner by scanning just 5-15 rolls myself (5 rolls gives me an entry level flatbed, 15 a dedicated 35mm one)
- Consistency. The lab scans are usually nice enough in isolation, but often both colour and sharpness vary greatly from frame to frame.
- Tonality. The tonality of the lab scans I'm getting are generally a bit harsh for my tastes, and compression makes it hard to make any major adjustments in post.
That's a bit about what I'm seeing. As for the scanners I've been eyeing, I'm mainly interested in a Plustek Opticfilm 8200i since I'm shooting mostly 35mm. If I'd be able to get reasonable resolution (good enough for 20x30cm prints, the largest I ever do with any regularity) from a flatbed I'd consider going for that, since I occasionally shoot 120 as well (the Canon 9000F probably my prime candidate).
Moving on to the questions:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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)?
Sorry if that got a bit long winded or if any of the questions seem basic. I'm trying to learn and thankful for any input.
Regards / KJ
bmattock
Veteran
There is a learning curve, and it can be easier or harder depending on what your technical abilities and expectations happen to be. I can only speak to my own experiences, for what that might be worth to you.
I like to scan my own negatives. I haven't had mine scanned by the 'one hour' places for a great many years, so I don't know what they are like now. Back in the day, I tried a couple times to have the lab scan them and then quickly stopped doing that. I felt their scan quality was horrible and they often scratched my negatives, sometimes badly. I ended up just having my C-41 color negs processed - no printing, no scanning.
Now I am just doing B&W.
I have a Konica-Minolta ScanDual IV and a pair of Epson flat-bed scanners, a 2400 with the optical scanning adapter which scans 2400 dpi and I use it for 4x5, and a 4490 which I use for medium format and very scratched color negs or slides (because it has ICE capability). I bought them all quite some time ago, I'm just glad they are still working.
I run Linux as an OS and use the paid-for version of Vuescan Pro. For me, this works well. Many find it hard to use or don't like the output.
I use The GIMP for photo editing, also under Linux. Again, some like it and some hate it.
If I had to put a time value on scanning, I would say it is not unusual for me to spend an hour scanning a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Add another 20 minutes if I am flat-bed scanning and running ICE, because it requires a second scan on each frame. After that, editing time can vary greatly depending on what I need to do. I typically spend 10 minutes or so on each frame that I decide to edit (some are not worth even doing that), adjusting levels, removing dust or scratches, cropping, or whatever else. I typically do not do a lot of editing, I just do basic stuff.
Hope that helps!
I like to scan my own negatives. I haven't had mine scanned by the 'one hour' places for a great many years, so I don't know what they are like now. Back in the day, I tried a couple times to have the lab scan them and then quickly stopped doing that. I felt their scan quality was horrible and they often scratched my negatives, sometimes badly. I ended up just having my C-41 color negs processed - no printing, no scanning.
Now I am just doing B&W.
I have a Konica-Minolta ScanDual IV and a pair of Epson flat-bed scanners, a 2400 with the optical scanning adapter which scans 2400 dpi and I use it for 4x5, and a 4490 which I use for medium format and very scratched color negs or slides (because it has ICE capability). I bought them all quite some time ago, I'm just glad they are still working.
I run Linux as an OS and use the paid-for version of Vuescan Pro. For me, this works well. Many find it hard to use or don't like the output.
I use The GIMP for photo editing, also under Linux. Again, some like it and some hate it.
If I had to put a time value on scanning, I would say it is not unusual for me to spend an hour scanning a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Add another 20 minutes if I am flat-bed scanning and running ICE, because it requires a second scan on each frame. After that, editing time can vary greatly depending on what I need to do. I typically spend 10 minutes or so on each frame that I decide to edit (some are not worth even doing that), adjusting levels, removing dust or scratches, cropping, or whatever else. I typically do not do a lot of editing, I just do basic stuff.
Hope that helps!
I gave up on local lab scans a long time ago, as I found doing my own scanning to be much better.
There are now several high quality labs that can provide pretty amazing results. I don't know of any in Sweden, however.
I use a Pakon F135+, scans an entire roll in about 5 minutes. It will handle C41, transparencies, and B&W, and does a fantastic job.
And I use a Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV for legacy mounted slides.
Previously I've owned most of the Coolscans (up to the 8000) but I no longer need a scanner for medium format as I've settled entirely on 35mm.
There are now several high quality labs that can provide pretty amazing results. I don't know of any in Sweden, however.
I use a Pakon F135+, scans an entire roll in about 5 minutes. It will handle C41, transparencies, and B&W, and does a fantastic job.
And I use a Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV for legacy mounted slides.
Previously I've owned most of the Coolscans (up to the 8000) but I no longer need a scanner for medium format as I've settled entirely on 35mm.
mfogiel
Veteran
Scanning has a degree of learning to do, but once you get to your correct set up, then it is only a matter of time available. I have a job which permits me to scan while I work, so in this sense the time does not cost me anything. In terms of speed flatbed is the slowest, then dedicated scanners, then a hi res adapted digital camera. I scan on Nikon CS9000 and a full 35mm film at full resolution takes me about 4 hours.
I would generally suggest to shoot colour on digital and B&W on film, unless you REALLY want to get that creamy colour negative film look which comes from shooting MF - particularly appreciated by portrait and wedding photographers. The software of choice is Vuescan - by a large margin - and as to the choice of the scanner, it will primarily depend on how big you want to print. Here is a useful article to look through:
https://www.trippingthroughthedark....5mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/
I would generally suggest to shoot colour on digital and B&W on film, unless you REALLY want to get that creamy colour negative film look which comes from shooting MF - particularly appreciated by portrait and wedding photographers. The software of choice is Vuescan - by a large margin - and as to the choice of the scanner, it will primarily depend on how big you want to print. Here is a useful article to look through:
https://www.trippingthroughthedark....5mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/
Perks
Established
I would encourage you to go for it, particularly if you develop film yourself.
I started last year and enjoy the process. I have an older plustek and scan only black and white at home. I get my colour done professionally with processing.
As I am still mastering the entire process I find that the time it takes to scan is related to how well my film is exposed. A roll will take at least an hour.
I am only scanning in 8bits as I cannot yet get vuescan to work with my system and so am using a home version of silverfast 6.x yet I am very pleased with my results.
It may be that I dont know any better though.
I started last year and enjoy the process. I have an older plustek and scan only black and white at home. I get my colour done professionally with processing.
As I am still mastering the entire process I find that the time it takes to scan is related to how well my film is exposed. A roll will take at least an hour.
I am only scanning in 8bits as I cannot yet get vuescan to work with my system and so am using a home version of silverfast 6.x yet I am very pleased with my results.
It may be that I dont know any better though.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I personally hate scanning, I find it boring at best and a pain most of the time. I scan all my BW at home to save on lab, but I have to say colour scans from the lab are unsurpassed.
If you're serious about this I recommend you invest in a dedicated film scanner
If you're serious about this I recommend you invest in a dedicated film scanner
Gregm61
Well-known
Scanning takes a little practice. The biggest learning curve in some cases is figuring out the software. I have Silverfast and Vuescan that I have used with my Plustek 8100 scanner and have settled on Vuescan for its' ability to multi-scan and output a DNG (raw) file I edit in Adobe Camera raw/Photoshop CC.
giganova
Well-known
Go for it, it's exciting to see the image build up on your screen! Plus, two hours after you came back from a photo shoot, you'll have your images digitized and ready to share!
I also use Vuescan with a Plustek 8100 scanner. It's a small investment that you will have recouped in a couple of weeks.
Scanning takes a lot of time, so I'd recommend that you get a light table (or build one yourself) and a loupe to decide which negative/slide you want to scan.
I also use Vuescan with a Plustek 8100 scanner. It's a small investment that you will have recouped in a couple of weeks.
Scanning takes a lot of time, so I'd recommend that you get a light table (or build one yourself) and a loupe to decide which negative/slide you want to scan.
giganova
Well-known
Are all your images so fantastic that you have to scan them all?
Gregm61
Well-known
I feel really good if I wind up scanning 15-20 keepers out of a roll of 36.
froyd
Veteran
This has always been the biggest beef for me, when it comes to lab scans. There are two options: find a lab that will give you flat scans, with no adjustments so YOU can make the editing decisions; or scan yourself, and retain the control. In a trade off between sophistication of scanning equipment (lab likely wins vs home), and control over finished scan, I pick control.
If you find 8mb files too small for your needs, flatbeds are marginal, and so is the dedicated film scanner Pakon.
It's 1h for me on a Coolscan, scanning maybe 25 frames out of 36.
The difficulty with color is getting it to be accurate. The Pakon does it pretty accurately right off the bat with the more common emulsions, but other scanners take a degree of tweaking to get right. I found this part the steepest learning curve when I started scanning, and the most time consuming.
BW avoids issues of color balance, but no ICE on silver film means that you'll need to keep your negs pristine or spend time cloning out dust spots. I like XP2 because I can use ICE with it.
Bille
Well-known
ferider
Veteran
Scanning itself is not difficult (and not difficult to learn either - there are tons of tutorials on-line). And with a good film scanner, you can easily get better quality yourself than most labs, unless you pay custom for special scans. An automatic film loader (as in my Nikon Coolscan) helps a lot.
I find most of the work going into the cleaning scan results (dust and scratches). Self-developed B+W in particular, since ICE can not be used. The cleaner the negatives, the easier. So, start from an as clean as possible negative.
I find most of the work going into the cleaning scan results (dust and scratches). Self-developed B+W in particular, since ICE can not be used. The cleaner the negatives, the easier. So, start from an as clean as possible negative.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Let me preface by saying, this is not something I would relish doing. I have a flat bed scanner that I've never used. I will say it's unpacked, sitting on top of a two drawer file cabinet in my office, the USB cord plugged into the scanner but that's it.
For the first tine in my life I have an analog darkroom! I enjoy using it for printing. Omega B-22 XL! Beats putting the fixer tray on the floor in the bathroom!
My thinking now is, why use film if I'm going to scan the negs? I have nice digital cameras so I use them. No scanning!
So I'm going to use film for film and that includes making a contact sheet of each roll in the darkroom.
I only use black & white film. No more color. Color is all digital capture. Decades ago I printed color, even from color slides! Drum processing.
I have a question for you. Why do you want to scan? Why not just do digital capture? Or find an analog darkroom. Thought I'd ask!
Hope this helps you.
For the first tine in my life I have an analog darkroom! I enjoy using it for printing. Omega B-22 XL! Beats putting the fixer tray on the floor in the bathroom!
My thinking now is, why use film if I'm going to scan the negs? I have nice digital cameras so I use them. No scanning!
So I'm going to use film for film and that includes making a contact sheet of each roll in the darkroom.
I only use black & white film. No more color. Color is all digital capture. Decades ago I printed color, even from color slides! Drum processing.
I have a question for you. Why do you want to scan? Why not just do digital capture? Or find an analog darkroom. Thought I'd ask!
Hope this helps you.
Shac
Well-known
Lately I've been using a Sony A7r2, Nikon bellows and a 55 or 60 mm macro, plus a TTL flash. I find the "scans" as good or better than using my coolscan 4000 - and way faster. Output DPI is almost the same with these 2 systems.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
A recent method I'm trying to refine is shooting the negatives in their sleeves with the iphone on the light table and invert the values in PS after, relatively quick to do and decent enough resolution to see the frames well
Ronald M
Veteran
Not a bit hard depending on experience.
You need flat film.
Scan to get the histogram centered like a "normal" digital camera. High and low key scenes are skewed naturally.
Get the color correct.
Do everything else in photoshop.
You need flat film.
Scan to get the histogram centered like a "normal" digital camera. High and low key scenes are skewed naturally.
Get the color correct.
Do everything else in photoshop.
Richard G
Veteran
1. It isn't that hard.
2. It is tedious and time-consuming.
3. The scan once at high resolution and never scan again is a counsel of perfection that costs more time and more hard drive space. It is a good idea if your negatives are so disorganized that you might never find your daughter's favourite photo again.
4. A flatbed is fine. But my very good V700 Epson is on a shelf at work as I have no room for it here. I love the Ilford FP4 black and white scans I did with that.
5. The Nikon 5000ED I have is great for slides and black and white negatives and colour negatives. It is quick to set up and put away and takes up little space.
6. I am increasingly disappointed with any scan I get from my higher end photo developer.
7. Thanks to RFF you can learn it all pretty easily.
2. It is tedious and time-consuming.
3. The scan once at high resolution and never scan again is a counsel of perfection that costs more time and more hard drive space. It is a good idea if your negatives are so disorganized that you might never find your daughter's favourite photo again.
4. A flatbed is fine. But my very good V700 Epson is on a shelf at work as I have no room for it here. I love the Ilford FP4 black and white scans I did with that.
5. The Nikon 5000ED I have is great for slides and black and white negatives and colour negatives. It is quick to set up and put away and takes up little space.
6. I am increasingly disappointed with any scan I get from my higher end photo developer.
7. Thanks to RFF you can learn it all pretty easily.
kj_
Member
Wow! Thanks a lot everyone. Loads of excellent input and some real insight here. Really appreciate it!
- For those of you using the Plusteks - how much time do you spending a roll (or the keepers, if that's your approach).
- I see some recommendations on Vuescan, but not much endorsement of Silverfast. Is that the general consensus? How do they handle colour respectively?
Sounds like I should probably forget about the flatbeds, right.
I've looked at the Pakons and like what I see, but I find the price prohibitive for the limited resolution and uncertain reliability.
I've seen some pretty nice results with macro lens photography of the negs, but that approach doesn't hold any appeal to me for some reason.
- For those of you using the Plusteks - how much time do you spending a roll (or the keepers, if that's your approach).
- I see some recommendations on Vuescan, but not much endorsement of Silverfast. Is that the general consensus? How do they handle colour respectively?
Sounds like I should probably forget about the flatbeds, right.
I've looked at the Pakons and like what I see, but I find the price prohibitive for the limited resolution and uncertain reliability.
I've seen some pretty nice results with macro lens photography of the negs, but that approach doesn't hold any appeal to me for some reason.
mfogiel
Veteran
"Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
a full 35mm film at full resolution takes me about 4 hours.
Are all your images so fantastic that you have to scan them all? "
- I make a preview at low resolution and then decide if to scan or not, so all frames get pre-viewed, and this by itself takes some time. I would guess, about 25 out of 37 images get scanned on average. Then two thirds of these get culled in the editing phase. I scan one negative at a time, to avoid inaccurate frame definition or other preliminary issues.
a full 35mm film at full resolution takes me about 4 hours.
Are all your images so fantastic that you have to scan them all? "
- I make a preview at low resolution and then decide if to scan or not, so all frames get pre-viewed, and this by itself takes some time. I would guess, about 25 out of 37 images get scanned on average. Then two thirds of these get culled in the editing phase. I scan one negative at a time, to avoid inaccurate frame definition or other preliminary issues.