RAW vs. Film Scan

[JeremyLangford]

I do a bunch of editing to my pictures with tinting the white-balance and I am worried that getting my negatives scanned to Jpegs and editing the colors will have far less image-quality than having a Dslr RAW format picture and editing the colors.

Im afraid an edited negative scan (jpeg) will look horrible after I edit the colors and have it printed compared to a Dslr's RAW format after I edit the colors and have it printed.

The only thing that would seem to fix this problem is to have a film negative scanned into a RAW format. Is this possible?

I want to stick with film, but things like this make me want to make the switch over into digital.

Any advice or insight?

 

[rogue_designer]

Scan to a 16bit tiff - then edit and convert, keeping the tiff as a "raw" file.

I think you'll find in practice, that there won't be a serious image degrade from editing a JPG or Tiff versus a raw file.

 

[jbf]

You can scan files to raw format or DNG (digital negative file). Honestly though, the only "benefit" that you would have by using a digital slr's raw file is that it's read through a raw program such as adobe raw, etc. Otherwise it's the same as a 16bit tif (or 32bit if you want to go crazy).

So yeah, you can scan to raw or dng. (DNG is a raw file, just different file type for raw)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I do a bunch of editing to my pictures with tinting the white-balance and I am worried that getting my negatives scanned to Jpegs and editing the colors will have far less image-quality than having a Dslr RAW format picture and editing the colors.

Im afraid an edited negative scan (jpeg) will look horrible after I edit the colors and have it printed compared to a Dslr's RAW format after I edit the colors and have it printed.

The only thing that would seem to fix this problem is to have a film negative scanned into a RAW format. Is this possible?

I want to stick with film, but things like this make me want to make the switch over into digital.

Any advice or insight?

Dear Jeremy,

Scan to TIFF not JPEG. By coincidence I've just been doing this today (2 rolls Portra in an MP instead of digi in an M8). The MP scans are more hassle but better quality with more dynamic range (though not all scanners will read it all).

But never 'have it scanned'. Buy a scanner -- or go digital. Or take up real (B+W, wet-process) photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aad]

Yes, get a scanner-then you can run a few tests and see if the difference (if any) is enough for you to worry about.

 

[DavidH]

I'll echo Roger, scan your own for greater control...

Using Silverfast Ai, I have greater control over neg scans than I do with RAW files using Capture One or Photoshop. It's amazing the level of control you can get with a scan.

Always scan 16bit and as a TIFF. Then keep as 16bit in Photoshop as long as possible.


cheers

 

[MikeL]

Jeremy, with scanning software you can preview a scan, then make adjustments like you do with raw files, and then scan.

I've found scans only suck if I've blown it-exposure, color film type.

 

[DrLeoB]

For those of us who don't use photoshop, VueScan works really well, especially with the Nikon Coolscan'ers. Plenty of format and color control as well as specific film base corrections.

 

[Thardy]

This is probably self evident, but scanner quality makes a world of difference. My 35mm film scanner can sometimes give better results than my Epson flatbed scanning certain 6x7 trannies.

I think my dSLR may beat them both though.

I would love a better flatbed scanner but I sort of promised my wife I'd lay low on the photo related purchases.

 

[Ronald M]

Scan to TIFF and use that as the raw file. A good scanner will make a better image than all the the best digicams, say 12+MP with full size sensors.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I think that TIFF and DNG are similar in terms of how they treat the data in your image. A 16-bit TIFF file will have plenty of one's and zero's left over for subsequent editing. You can always save an 8-bit copy if you want to view it in a browser.

Ben

 

[navilluspm]

Store scans

Store scans

From what I remember, you don't have a scanner and rely on store scans.

Here is an easy fix: When you get the CD from the store, convert the JPG to TIFF's on your Hard Drive. Do your editing, and then you can convert them back to JPG's.

Jpg's "deteriorate" when they are saved, not when they are opened and worked on. We have all heard that JEPG's are a lossy format, the truth is that they do, however, also support lossless compression. Just save at level 12 in photoshop, and your JPG is lossless


It will take quite a few edits and saves to make the quality start to deteriorate noticably.

That said, I try to edit as much as possible in TIFF. On my digital P+S (until the camera fell into the lake) I shot JPG and converted to Tiff to edit. It was absolutely fine.

If you get a film scanner, you will be able to save a TIFF file and edit in TIFF. Vuescan allows DNG files.

 

[navilluspm]

BTW - There are a lot of Professional digital photographers who almost shoot exclusively in JPG. Ken Rockwell is one of them. Check out his site and links about JPG vs. RAW

 

[kipkeston]

ken rockwell, hah

 

[aad]

Well, Ken Rockwell points out that its hard to be a professional shooting raw, just for the time it takes.

 

[marke]

Well, Ken Rockwell points out that its hard to be a professional shooting raw, just for the time it takes.

I think it depends what your demands are, and how much control you might have over the picture making process. When I shoot wildlife, I always shoot RAW, where the light can change quickly (and often). Any edge I can get in maintaining image quality after the click, gives RAW a slight edge during exposure corrections in the RAW conversion. Where as, if I did studio work, I'd probably be fine with jpg, since I would have more control over the light and would't have it changing on me in the middle of a shoot. I have two friends who shoot weddings professionally, and both do well with jpg.

 

[Finder]

I do a bunch of editing to my pictures with tinting the white-balance and I am worried that getting my negatives scanned to Jpegs and editing the colors will have far less image-quality than having a Dslr RAW format picture and editing the colors.

Im afraid an edited negative scan (jpeg) will look horrible after I edit the colors and have it printed compared to a Dslr's RAW format after I edit the colors and have it printed.

The only thing that would seem to fix this problem is to have a film negative scanned into a RAW format. Is this possible?

I want to stick with film, but things like this make me want to make the switch over into digital.

Any advice or insight?

Optimize the scan settings first.

BTW, why are you nervous about this? What has happened?

 

[JNewell]

There are a lot of differences in processer scans. The lowest quality I've gotten is from Kodak. (!) The best, and also the fastest and cheapest, is from the local Costco. If you're going the route you seem to be, you need to start with the best quality scan you can get.

 

[PHOTOEIL]

For digitalising negatives and slides, I am working on a different route.
As I am not the lucky (?) owner of an decent scanner, but still have my BOWENS ILLUMITRAN 3S slide duplicator, fit wit a Rodagon 60 mm and a K bayonet adaptor, I wondered If I could not use this wonderful device for duplicating like in the 'old' days, but with the K10D instead.
By this, I can 'duplicate' in RAW (16 bit, +/- 28,5 Mb) all sizes from 35 mm to 4"x5" and work on them like on a RAW camera file in P.S., to be continued...

 

[JeremyLangford]

Optimize the scan settings first.

BTW, why are you nervous about this? What has happened?

Nothing really. I just have Adobe Lightroom, and my taste in pictures usually involves tinting my white-balance way off from the natural white-balance I shot with.

I got into photography using my dad's 30d, shooting in RAW, and editing with Lightroom. So Im used to messing with RAWs.

I just recently learned how to develop and enlarge B&Ws from school, and I bought an SRT-101, and now Im just trying to decide if I can still do the same editing I used to do with my dad's 30d, with color negatives.