jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Hi guys,
I've been trying to find some tutorials on scanning 35mm with Silverfast where it explains what's best to do regarding sharpening and keeping that film look.
From the top of my head; if I set sharpening to 60%, radius to 1 and threshold to 0, I get great sharper images but also a but of harsh digitally look. Some say sharpen in PS some say in Silverfast.
I love the way film looks when holding a print from a photolab close to my eye but really dislike when I enlarge a scanned photo on my screen.
My goal is to sell my prints so I would like to start getting the best scan results for enlargements up to 1 meter wide/high.
Can anyone give me tips?
I've been trying to find some tutorials on scanning 35mm with Silverfast where it explains what's best to do regarding sharpening and keeping that film look.
From the top of my head; if I set sharpening to 60%, radius to 1 and threshold to 0, I get great sharper images but also a but of harsh digitally look. Some say sharpen in PS some say in Silverfast.
I love the way film looks when holding a print from a photolab close to my eye but really dislike when I enlarge a scanned photo on my screen.
My goal is to sell my prints so I would like to start getting the best scan results for enlargements up to 1 meter wide/high.
Can anyone give me tips?
Brian Legge
Veteran
Consider bigger film? Medium format may work better given your size goals (or 4x5 for that sake). 35mm is going to look soft up close at that size. Viewed from a distance it will still work.
If you are committed to smaller formats and 1 meter prints make sure you are getting as much info as you can out of your scanner. And consider slower, low grain films.
If you are committed to smaller formats and 1 meter prints make sure you are getting as much info as you can out of your scanner. And consider slower, low grain films.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
...if you're going to sell your prints, I would argue that you should just get a traditional darkroom Master Printer to do them for you if you're worried about your reputation at all. A 1 meter wide or high print from a scanned 35mm negative will look terrible in my opinion (and probably yours if you hate how it looks on a screen). When I see a digital print of a 35mm negative of that size, I instantly start to gag and convulse....that's a lie, but I don't see them as a reputable or serious photographer as it is obvious they are cutting severe corners on the quality of the final print. I've seen great results from a very good digital printer at 16x20 with a medium format camera, but when I look close, I can definitely tell it's getting pixel-y. Considering you are going much larger with a much smaller negative, I can't see too much good coming out of it.
Sorry if I'm raining on your parade, but you won't get "that film look" from what you're looking to achieve through scanning. If you don't believe me, find a traditional Print Master to do a 20x24 print of one of your negatives in the darkroom then give that same negative to a digital Print Master to scan on a good scanner, edit to the look you want (send a cd with a small sample of what you want the print to look like) and compare. It would be costly in terms of time to find a good printer at a good price and it will also cost you a few hundred dollars. But do you honestly want to sell your work short?
I don't know a ton about digital imaging to print, but from scanning and editing 35mm film for years, I'm pretty sure that the caliber of sharpening on silverfast is equivalent to PS and you're not going to get a silver bullet answer or program to give you that "film look" from a digital scan, enlarged to ~36 inches.
I did a quick google search of your name and if you are the photographer doing the models, I would definitely not budge on my opinion. That look lends well to grain, not pixels. They seem to be shot mostly at higher ISO films and are probably pretty grainy for the most part and thus, enlarge poorly digitally. You might be able to get away with it had they been Velvia 50 slide negatives, scanned a drum scanner. The only thing I can imagine that would save you, if you still choose to go digital is that the viewer would have to stand back about 12 feet to look at your photograph of 1 meter and from that distance, they might not notice. But as am emerging artist taking (in my opinion), great and unique modelling photographs, don't sell yourself short. You can always sell your photographs for more to offset the cost. For prints that large, people won't bawk over an extra $200 to cover the printing charge. People who buy prints that large want a centre-piece and want the highest quality available.
I know you asked for tips and not opinions, facts and not personal taste, but I thought I might save you some agony, from someone who also tried to take the cheapest route once by getting 35mm scans enlarged, and regretted it immensely.
Sorry if I'm raining on your parade, but you won't get "that film look" from what you're looking to achieve through scanning. If you don't believe me, find a traditional Print Master to do a 20x24 print of one of your negatives in the darkroom then give that same negative to a digital Print Master to scan on a good scanner, edit to the look you want (send a cd with a small sample of what you want the print to look like) and compare. It would be costly in terms of time to find a good printer at a good price and it will also cost you a few hundred dollars. But do you honestly want to sell your work short?
I don't know a ton about digital imaging to print, but from scanning and editing 35mm film for years, I'm pretty sure that the caliber of sharpening on silverfast is equivalent to PS and you're not going to get a silver bullet answer or program to give you that "film look" from a digital scan, enlarged to ~36 inches.
I did a quick google search of your name and if you are the photographer doing the models, I would definitely not budge on my opinion. That look lends well to grain, not pixels. They seem to be shot mostly at higher ISO films and are probably pretty grainy for the most part and thus, enlarge poorly digitally. You might be able to get away with it had they been Velvia 50 slide negatives, scanned a drum scanner. The only thing I can imagine that would save you, if you still choose to go digital is that the viewer would have to stand back about 12 feet to look at your photograph of 1 meter and from that distance, they might not notice. But as am emerging artist taking (in my opinion), great and unique modelling photographs, don't sell yourself short. You can always sell your photographs for more to offset the cost. For prints that large, people won't bawk over an extra $200 to cover the printing charge. People who buy prints that large want a centre-piece and want the highest quality available.
I know you asked for tips and not opinions, facts and not personal taste, but I thought I might save you some agony, from someone who also tried to take the cheapest route once by getting 35mm scans enlarged, and regretted it immensely.
250swb
Well-known
Ask yourself a simple question, do you think that Silverfast can sharpen an image better then Photoshop?
So you answered that one. But it is more difficult sharpening a film scan than a clean digital file because you can simply end up sharpening grain rather than detail, and nobody knows but you how much grain you have, and what type (soft or hard), or indeed the size of file/scan size you are working with. All make a difference to sharpeneing amounts.
But all I do is import a nice big high resolution scan into Photoshop (a nice flat image with all the tones, but not 'finished'), and after adjusting contrast apply some mild sharpening, perhaps 90 Amount at 1 Radius. This just allows you to have something nicer to look at and judge the sharpness of the image etc. I do all my adjustments, dodging and burning, Curves, etc until the image is finished and save that as a TIFF. This is my 'master' file. From then on I only sharpen it to the final stage depending on the image size to be printed. If it is large I could add another 100 to 150 in the Amount with 0.8 to 1.1 in the Radius depending on grain etc. If the image is small and for the internet I may leave the resized image unsharpened any further beyond the initial working amount. You can then 'Save as..' each resized image leaving your TIFF master untouched.
Steve
So you answered that one. But it is more difficult sharpening a film scan than a clean digital file because you can simply end up sharpening grain rather than detail, and nobody knows but you how much grain you have, and what type (soft or hard), or indeed the size of file/scan size you are working with. All make a difference to sharpeneing amounts.
But all I do is import a nice big high resolution scan into Photoshop (a nice flat image with all the tones, but not 'finished'), and after adjusting contrast apply some mild sharpening, perhaps 90 Amount at 1 Radius. This just allows you to have something nicer to look at and judge the sharpness of the image etc. I do all my adjustments, dodging and burning, Curves, etc until the image is finished and save that as a TIFF. This is my 'master' file. From then on I only sharpen it to the final stage depending on the image size to be printed. If it is large I could add another 100 to 150 in the Amount with 0.8 to 1.1 in the Radius depending on grain etc. If the image is small and for the internet I may leave the resized image unsharpened any further beyond the initial working amount. You can then 'Save as..' each resized image leaving your TIFF master untouched.
Steve
Brian Legge
Veteran
Okay, running with what Jordan said.. if the work I see searching the name is yours... your style seems like it can do with a fair amount of grain. At least to me, there is a lot of space for grit in your style.
If that is the case, the drum scan comment may make sense. Or at least a dedicated film scanner to be sure your scans capture the grain in your shots.
If that isn't the aesthetic you are looking for I'd suggest jumping up a format. Channel Avedon and give medium format - particuarly with a slightly longer lens in the 135 range - a shot. Check out videos of his work getting displayed in galleries and the huge size prints.
And don't over sharpen. At least to me, nothing looks worse than a shot where the photographer decided it wasn't sharp enough and bumped up the sharpness way too much. If it isn't there in the negative, it isn't there. Don't try to manufacture it - it just looks cheap at that point. If its in the negative but not the scan, focus on that part.
If that is the case, the drum scan comment may make sense. Or at least a dedicated film scanner to be sure your scans capture the grain in your shots.
If that isn't the aesthetic you are looking for I'd suggest jumping up a format. Channel Avedon and give medium format - particuarly with a slightly longer lens in the 135 range - a shot. Check out videos of his work getting displayed in galleries and the huge size prints.
And don't over sharpen. At least to me, nothing looks worse than a shot where the photographer decided it wasn't sharp enough and bumped up the sharpness way too much. If it isn't there in the negative, it isn't there. Don't try to manufacture it - it just looks cheap at that point. If its in the negative but not the scan, focus on that part.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Hi guys thanks for the replies. I hear what you guys are saying, but the prints I want to be selling are street photography photos. It's a hobby that I'm taking more seriously every day and I'm reading up on how I might sell decent prints. All of the photographers I like use 35mm and sell prints in book formats and wall prints of 50cm to 100cm width/height.
For the modeling work I do. I'm nowhere near the pro photographers that sell prints or publish. I am however working on a book where I shoot models without make up, styling and hair styling on 35mm. The book is about the beauty in the purity of women in a pose to the commercialized fashion norm women are expected to live up to. The book will be printed in A4 size. Grain etc is ok here too, the pure and sometimes vintage look is desirable. I do scan these images myself too but will have them printed in a lab.
The street photography photos I want to print myself, I have the option of buying a showroom model Canon 9000 and or Canon 9500 for less.
Ps: I am growing away from digital for this very reason; enlarged images showing digital squares, noise (not grain), and so many more reasons. I know it's personal but to me all my film results are more satisfying.
For the modeling work I do. I'm nowhere near the pro photographers that sell prints or publish. I am however working on a book where I shoot models without make up, styling and hair styling on 35mm. The book is about the beauty in the purity of women in a pose to the commercialized fashion norm women are expected to live up to. The book will be printed in A4 size. Grain etc is ok here too, the pure and sometimes vintage look is desirable. I do scan these images myself too but will have them printed in a lab.
The street photography photos I want to print myself, I have the option of buying a showroom model Canon 9000 and or Canon 9500 for less.
Ps: I am growing away from digital for this very reason; enlarged images showing digital squares, noise (not grain), and so many more reasons. I know it's personal but to me all my film results are more satisfying.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
Jaimie...I used to have the Canon 8800 and it was great for web, but I would never consider it for a second for printing anything above 8x10. I think you will be horribly disappointed with the quality from this flatbed scanner for 1 meter prints off a 35mm neg. The photographers you speak of that are selling wall prints from 50cm to 100cm are likely getting drum scans or high-end scans from a dedicated film scanner.
Great idea for your book by the way. I think it would be well-recieved based on what I've seen so far. When you say "nowhere near the pro photographers that sell prints or publish", I would have to say that I've seen pros who are boring, repetitive and copying everything else they see. It's all relative. I'd rather have one your photos than 80% of the "pro model photographers" out there.
Great idea for your book by the way. I think it would be well-recieved based on what I've seen so far. When you say "nowhere near the pro photographers that sell prints or publish", I would have to say that I've seen pros who are boring, repetitive and copying everything else they see. It's all relative. I'd rather have one your photos than 80% of the "pro model photographers" out there.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
You are too kind!
You're talking about the 8800 scanner, I have a dedicated 35mm Plustek.
The Canon 9000/9500 printer (A3 max) would be for printing. So actually my images wouldn't have to be enlarged more than A3 size.
But scanning and minor editing is done by myself obviously. I use a Plustek dedicated 35mm scanner with which I'm actually pretty happy with. I just don't want to destroy the photo by over sharpening etc. that's why I'm looking for the best way to scan without seeing too much digitalization.
You're talking about the 8800 scanner, I have a dedicated 35mm Plustek.
The Canon 9000/9500 printer (A3 max) would be for printing. So actually my images wouldn't have to be enlarged more than A3 size.
But scanning and minor editing is done by myself obviously. I use a Plustek dedicated 35mm scanner with which I'm actually pretty happy with. I just don't want to destroy the photo by over sharpening etc. that's why I'm looking for the best way to scan without seeing too much digitalization.
Joosep
Well-known
My technique....
Scan without sharpening->Open PS->Correct color->Unsharp mask->History Snapshot->Go back in history before sharpening->Use history brush from the snapshot to sharpen only few things
Sharpened her eyes, few hairs, small part of the scarf and hat
Lips and frames
Only the text
All shot on 400.
Scan without sharpening->Open PS->Correct color->Unsharp mask->History Snapshot->Go back in history before sharpening->Use history brush from the snapshot to sharpen only few things
Sharpened her eyes, few hairs, small part of the scarf and hat
Lips and frames
Only the text
All shot on 400.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
That actually does make sense Joosep. Although in PS I use inverted high pass filter technique for sharpening.
I am however afraid that if looked closely at an enlargement you'd see the difference between what has and hasn't been sharpened; clearer grain around the sharpened area.
I am however afraid that if looked closely at an enlargement you'd see the difference between what has and hasn't been sharpened; clearer grain around the sharpened area.
Sparrow
Veteran
My production route at the moment is;
Expose 135 xp2+ at box speed ... develop c41
Scan at print size on Minolta dImage 5400 ... I work on 12"x18" at 402 dpi (to match the printer)
Edit in Photoshop ... as little as possible to keep it clean, usually Colour Profile/Levels/Curves/Dodge/Burn/Sharpen
Print on a local labs Agfa dLab II, they do the printing for £1.20 each
... I got to this point by addressing the weakest part of the system and improving it over a number of years
PS always work in Layers in Photoshop to preserve the original image
Expose 135 xp2+ at box speed ... develop c41
Scan at print size on Minolta dImage 5400 ... I work on 12"x18" at 402 dpi (to match the printer)
Edit in Photoshop ... as little as possible to keep it clean, usually Colour Profile/Levels/Curves/Dodge/Burn/Sharpen
Print on a local labs Agfa dLab II, they do the printing for £1.20 each
... I got to this point by addressing the weakest part of the system and improving it over a number of years
PS always work in Layers in Photoshop to preserve the original image
Joosep
Well-known
If Im printing big, then I go really close and use a very very small brush.
And I dont really like the high pass method. Especially because I want to preserve the "film look".
BobYIL
Well-known
First off, there is a great difference between what you initially said -50cm to 1m- and the A3 size: 29.7 x 42cm. Further, I do not think that the scans you get from your Plustek would differ much from drum scanned ones for at 42cm enlargement a 35mm B&W print loses all its creamyness; i.e. if you are able to see the grains sharply following scanning on the Plustek, then this is the limit. I scan with a Minolta 5400 II, over 30MB for a B&W 35mm frame to figure out that if I want something better at this size then I need to shoot slower film.
For book size (A4) the post processing would not be that critical as the one for the A3 size where the effects and artifacts as well as degradations of the A/D conversion & PP would be magnified. I would propose you to take the negative of the frame showing people skating on a frozen channel -as it seems of having long gradations- to a professional lab for wet printing on fine baryta paper like the Art for example, enlarged to A3 size and use it as your reference for post processing and then do whatever you like by trial & error. At the end it's possible that you might prefer to deliver your large size prints as wet-printed.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
That's a lot of info BobYIL, but let me start replying.
Indeed the skaters on ice I had printed on a 1 meter wide polyester foil. The photo was shot with an X100 (raw of course, converted to b/w with Silver Fx, saved to Tif and saved as Jpeg 300dpi) and although it was shot at iso200 f11 s125 or 250 (not sure), the enlargement shows hairlines as squares! This to me was the point I started thinking I would only shoot film in the future.
I recently got my first prints from a simple 1 hour photo service of a Portra 160vc, shot at f11-16, s125-500 on a Canonet QL17 Giii and holding it close to my eyes I can only see beautiful colors, fine grain and a sharpness that makes me smile
(even on these cheap prints)!
The idea is to achieve the same creaminess and vividness I see on these prints, on my screen and later on prints between A3 size (to start with) up to 1 meter wide.
Your tip however is certainly worth trying. But I guess I would choose a negative not a digital file.
Indeed the skaters on ice I had printed on a 1 meter wide polyester foil. The photo was shot with an X100 (raw of course, converted to b/w with Silver Fx, saved to Tif and saved as Jpeg 300dpi) and although it was shot at iso200 f11 s125 or 250 (not sure), the enlargement shows hairlines as squares! This to me was the point I started thinking I would only shoot film in the future.
I recently got my first prints from a simple 1 hour photo service of a Portra 160vc, shot at f11-16, s125-500 on a Canonet QL17 Giii and holding it close to my eyes I can only see beautiful colors, fine grain and a sharpness that makes me smile
(even on these cheap prints)!
The idea is to achieve the same creaminess and vividness I see on these prints, on my screen and later on prints between A3 size (to start with) up to 1 meter wide.
Your tip however is certainly worth trying. But I guess I would choose a negative not a digital file.
Steve M.
Veteran
You're gonna need a very good film scanner, like Nikon V ED or the like. Then, do your sharpening afterwards in PS.
W/ 35mm, a good (great) lens is mandatory for sharpness to begin with, so unless you're shooting something like Leica/ Zeiss glass, it doesn't matter what your scanner and printer are. Make sure you have the best lens you can afford on your camera, use the best scanner and printer you can afford, and even then all images aren't going to work 100% at the large print sizes you're after. Remember, scanners enlarge grain, upsizing the files accentuate the grain, etc. You could always shoot medium format and not have to worry about things looking sharp at large print sizes.
If it were me, I'd shoot Leica glass and make darkroom prints. Why spend a LOT of money on scanners and printers and ink and paper, when a good darkroom print would surely look better? Rather go the scan/inkjet route? Use the best equipment you can afford in the beginning. I used to love printing 12x18 B&W inkjet prints from my Nikon cameras. That is, until I started shooting Leica R glass. There's a considerable difference in resolving power between these 2 systems! With my medium format shots, sharpness isn't an issue even at print sizes much larger than you're after. I shoot Tri-X in both formats, and there is a world of difference between a 12x18 print made w/ 120 film and one made w/ 35mm. The 120 stuff is smoooooth.
W/ 35mm, a good (great) lens is mandatory for sharpness to begin with, so unless you're shooting something like Leica/ Zeiss glass, it doesn't matter what your scanner and printer are. Make sure you have the best lens you can afford on your camera, use the best scanner and printer you can afford, and even then all images aren't going to work 100% at the large print sizes you're after. Remember, scanners enlarge grain, upsizing the files accentuate the grain, etc. You could always shoot medium format and not have to worry about things looking sharp at large print sizes.
If it were me, I'd shoot Leica glass and make darkroom prints. Why spend a LOT of money on scanners and printers and ink and paper, when a good darkroom print would surely look better? Rather go the scan/inkjet route? Use the best equipment you can afford in the beginning. I used to love printing 12x18 B&W inkjet prints from my Nikon cameras. That is, until I started shooting Leica R glass. There's a considerable difference in resolving power between these 2 systems! With my medium format shots, sharpness isn't an issue even at print sizes much larger than you're after. I shoot Tri-X in both formats, and there is a world of difference between a 12x18 print made w/ 120 film and one made w/ 35mm. The 120 stuff is smoooooth.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Unfortunately for street candid shots a mid size camera is not as applicable as a 35mm Leica M for instance. 'They' say that the QL17 has a very very sharp glass so until I own a Leica/Leitz lens camera, this is what I have to work with. ( I also own a Hexar AF but the QL seems sharper and definitely nicer to use).
I don't mind paying extra money for a dark room print or a high end lab print and will certainly do so, if I would sell a photo for a decent price or to an important client. But let's see if I can get the best results out of my Plustek 35mm scanner before investing as if I were mr. Meyerowitz himself
. And the Canon 9000 or 9500 I could get from my employer, though I would only do this if I could make sellable prints with it.
I don't mind paying extra money for a dark room print or a high end lab print and will certainly do so, if I would sell a photo for a decent price or to an important client. But let's see if I can get the best results out of my Plustek 35mm scanner before investing as if I were mr. Meyerowitz himself
. And the Canon 9000 or 9500 I could get from my employer, though I would only do this if I could make sellable prints with it.
BobYIL
Well-known
Here's a 1/4 crop from a negative (HP5 - 35mm developed in D76 1:1); if you see the width as 25cm (10") on your screen, then it's equivalent to 1m enlargement, almost A0 size. Straight out of the Minolta 5400 II, no PP at all.. (Fish picture was deliberately chosen to give you an idea about how mid-tones would be maintained or lost..) You can also zoom out to check how this would look at A3 and A4 sizes too.
For medium size grain 35mm film, I think this is rather off-the-limits; no matter how you try even with low ISO films, the gradation of mid tones would be severely affected. Any size over A3 is the domain of MF format, IMHO..
As you note, there are no artifacts so far however the tonality has been somewhat compressed during A/D conversion; meaning if it was wet-printed to this size then most probably we would be seeing one or two zones wider.
Now add to these the other effects and artifacts to occur during the post processing (if required) and in the printer too.. With the wet printing however no such concerns... To maintain the film-look some photographers like Salgado for example first "print" their digital frames on film and then print the film through conventional darkroom process.
Hope this helps..
