PaulW
Newbie
Hello all, I've been an M7II user for about 5 years and owned a 6MF before that. Even though I end up using a D100 more often these days, I still have no intentions of selling the M7. It's too much fun to use.
My question isn't strictly one about the Mamiya though. I'm wondering what people's workflow is with regards to scanning medium format output. What scanner, software and techniques do you use?
I ask this because I have a Minolta Multi Pro. By reputation it's a great scanner and I got it for a very good price. However, I find I'm not happy with the results when compared to the output from the D100. I've also used a Nikon 8000 and am wondering if that, the 9000ED or maybe a Polaroid SS120 would be a better bet.
I mostly scan B&W and have lately been using Ilford Delta 100 processed to a slide by www.dr5.com. This does seem to be easy to scan vs. other films I've tried but I still want to get the most out of this process.
FWIW, here's a couple of shots I've taken with the M7 and scanned with the Multipro. The first was using Konica IR processed as a neg, the second using Delta 100 as a slide:
http://24.61.139.127/picturehosting/delicate_arch.jpg
http://24.61.139.127/picturehosting/sequoiacar.jpg
Thanks for any help.
My question isn't strictly one about the Mamiya though. I'm wondering what people's workflow is with regards to scanning medium format output. What scanner, software and techniques do you use?
I ask this because I have a Minolta Multi Pro. By reputation it's a great scanner and I got it for a very good price. However, I find I'm not happy with the results when compared to the output from the D100. I've also used a Nikon 8000 and am wondering if that, the 9000ED or maybe a Polaroid SS120 would be a better bet.
I mostly scan B&W and have lately been using Ilford Delta 100 processed to a slide by www.dr5.com. This does seem to be easy to scan vs. other films I've tried but I still want to get the most out of this process.
FWIW, here's a couple of shots I've taken with the M7 and scanned with the Multipro. The first was using Konica IR processed as a neg, the second using Delta 100 as a slide:
http://24.61.139.127/picturehosting/delicate_arch.jpg
http://24.61.139.127/picturehosting/sequoiacar.jpg
Thanks for any help.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Hi and Welcome Paul 
I'm not an expert but I think you'd be hard pressed to get a converted analog medium to be "as good" as a direct to digital medium if you're doing a comparison.
That's not to say that it can't be done, but I think the only thing I've ever seen that comes close to making some medium format film look "like digital" (per se) is using an Imacon scanner.
Maybe someone with more experience (and knowledge) in the scanner field would be able to offer more but that's just my 2 cents on the whole thing - you're taking an analog medium (film) and converting it to a digital medium, so I just think there would be some degradation in the process versus having something go directly to digital.
And I'm also not saying that because of this that digital is "better" just that it's a completely different medium
Cheers
Dave
I'm not an expert but I think you'd be hard pressed to get a converted analog medium to be "as good" as a direct to digital medium if you're doing a comparison.
That's not to say that it can't be done, but I think the only thing I've ever seen that comes close to making some medium format film look "like digital" (per se) is using an Imacon scanner.
Maybe someone with more experience (and knowledge) in the scanner field would be able to offer more but that's just my 2 cents on the whole thing - you're taking an analog medium (film) and converting it to a digital medium, so I just think there would be some degradation in the process versus having something go directly to digital.
And I'm also not saying that because of this that digital is "better" just that it's a completely different medium
Cheers
Dave
skipc
Hill William
Nothing wrong with your scanner. I found the images soft in the midtones, ie dynamic range. In Photoshop an Unsharp Mask at A=20, R=10, T=0 popped them nicely...skip
PaulW
Newbie
Thanks Skip, I'll try that. There's a distinct possiblity that the problem is that I suck at Photoshop. In particular, sharpening properly without oversharpening seems a lot tougher with the scans vs. the D100 images.
T_om
Well-known
There have been a ton of 'scanner' posts lately... and they all boil down to a very easy denominator.
Answer these two questions and it will all become clear to you: 1) What is your budget and 2) What will you settle for as "acceptable" performance?
No one can make a serious recommendation without knowing the above.
Scanners range from cheap and terrible to expensive and wonderful... take your pick.
I have a Nikon LS8000 and it fills the bill *for me*. I needed outstanding MF and 35mm performance and my budget allowed me to be pretty free with my choice. I was looking at scanners under $5,000.00
Before I bought the Nikon I compared scans from everything from flatbeds (terrible) to a Imacon Flextight Photo (wonderful)... then I went with the Nikon. Scans comparable to the Flextight, but half the price at about $2500.00 and MUCH faster.
So, what are YOUR selection parameters?
Tom
Answer these two questions and it will all become clear to you: 1) What is your budget and 2) What will you settle for as "acceptable" performance?
No one can make a serious recommendation without knowing the above.
Scanners range from cheap and terrible to expensive and wonderful... take your pick.
I have a Nikon LS8000 and it fills the bill *for me*. I needed outstanding MF and 35mm performance and my budget allowed me to be pretty free with my choice. I was looking at scanners under $5,000.00
Before I bought the Nikon I compared scans from everything from flatbeds (terrible) to a Imacon Flextight Photo (wonderful)... then I went with the Nikon. Scans comparable to the Flextight, but half the price at about $2500.00 and MUCH faster.
So, what are YOUR selection parameters?
Tom
PaulW
Newbie
Tom,
I hear what you're saying. However, at least part of the problem also seems to be the type of film and the software being used. Some films scan well and some don't. Also, it seems one scanner program will do well with one type of film whereas another combination will be poor. I could likely sell the Minolta scanner and buy a used Nikon 8000 if that would work better. So cost as far as that goes is not a problem. An Imacon is too much $ for my budget.
What I want is to get the best 11x14 and 13x19 prints (on an Epson 2200) reasonably possible.
I hear what you're saying. However, at least part of the problem also seems to be the type of film and the software being used. Some films scan well and some don't. Also, it seems one scanner program will do well with one type of film whereas another combination will be poor. I could likely sell the Minolta scanner and buy a used Nikon 8000 if that would work better. So cost as far as that goes is not a problem. An Imacon is too much $ for my budget.
What I want is to get the best 11x14 and 13x19 prints (on an Epson 2200) reasonably possible.
photogdave
Shops local
Are you doing mult-pass scans? I choose the 16x pass on anything I consider important, and am pretty happy with the detail. It's a noticeable difference from one or two passes. I use the latest version of the Minolta software and photoshop.
I used to have a Nikon LS-IV but found it wasn't great for B&W. The LED picks up too much grain and I found myself forced to scan at lower res than colour. I prefer the Minolta's flourescent bulb for B&W and find the newer grain films like T-Max and Ilford Delta scan better.
I used to have a Nikon LS-IV but found it wasn't great for B&W. The LED picks up too much grain and I found myself forced to scan at lower res than colour. I prefer the Minolta's flourescent bulb for B&W and find the newer grain films like T-Max and Ilford Delta scan better.
PaulW
Newbie
I have done multi-pass though I haven't noticed a huge difference. Do you use the Scanhancer modification at all? Is it worthwhile? The Multi Pro does seem to enhance grain in certain films where it seemed the Nikon 8000 did not.