kanzlr
Hexaneur
ask yourself why you need utmost detail and sharpness.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Do you clearly see the film grain (or dye clouds) in your film scans if you zoom in?
jschrader
Well-known
grain
grain
yep. It was a Zeiss research binocular, I think 100x enlarged. No doubt about that. Since it was XP2 it was no grain but whatever you want to call that structure.
I agree ultimate sharpness is not the aim in photography but some pictures do profit from details. Others don't; i have a picture of a girl in my pocket (15 years already) that is only 3x4cm and totally out of focus........
grain
yep. It was a Zeiss research binocular, I think 100x enlarged. No doubt about that. Since it was XP2 it was no grain but whatever you want to call that structure.
I agree ultimate sharpness is not the aim in photography but some pictures do profit from details. Others don't; i have a picture of a girl in my pocket (15 years already) that is only 3x4cm and totally out of focus........
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Film and digital are different - film has a chaotic dither pattern and the individual grain dot density is a matter of size rather than opacity, where digital has a grid structure and density by intensity/opacity. Besides, film gains resolution with increased subject contrast, where digital is mostly neutral to contrast.
Even for measurably identical resolution, one will have an edge over the other in perceived sharpness on some subject structures, while it will perform worse on others.
And the comparison is skewed, the forte of XP2 is its huge tonal range, in terms of sharpness it is rather underwhelming. You compare a relatively low sharpness (chromogenic negative film is no match for black and white silver, nor for colour slides, and a 400 ISO film is not even among the sharpest CN films) film to a pro DSLR which still is in the top 10% regarding sensor capabilities.
Besides, every media transition is lossy, with a desktop scanner probably to the tune of something like 25-50%. Compare both downscaled to 5-6MP, after judicious unsharp masking of the scan to hide the scanner induced softening, and the results will already be closer.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
XP2 is chromagenic, that is dye clouds make up the image, the cloud structure forma around the exposed grain, the silver grain is removed during bleaching the leave the cloud ghost.
Any conventional film will be sharper, something like Fuji Acros would be a better comparison to make.
jschrader
Well-known
I am really thankful for all suggestions. I am just beginning this change back to black&white, and just try things out.
XP2 is attractive as I do not need to reactivate my old film developing stuff. My main problem is, however, I would prefer not to go below ISO 400, I love and use the high ISO on the D700 and would feel rather limited with, say, 100 ISO. I guess with ISO 400 silver film I will get a nice grain structure (that maybe the scanner will not resolve, so it may get lost) but to gain more details, I would need a low ISO film.
Can anybody give advice for this?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Not all 400 ISO films are the same or have the same grain structure. Tmax 400 is very different from Tri-x or HP5.
I quite liked Fuji Neopan 400:
Although not super high resolution, it has quite fine grain with nice tonality.
TMax 400 is smoother and slightly finer grain.
You should be able to find a film that has characteristics that match your needs, part of the fun for me is film has lots of different looks, while digital tends to make you work towards that in post more-I've never really liked that approach personally.
I use a D700 too and prefer the look of high speed films, but then with 120 portraits detail isn't always the main concern, I might think differently if I made landscapes and move to 8x10
Here is a 120 rangefinder with 3200 Ilford rated at 6400 in Rodinal.
I quite liked Fuji Neopan 400:
Although not super high resolution, it has quite fine grain with nice tonality.
TMax 400 is smoother and slightly finer grain.
You should be able to find a film that has characteristics that match your needs, part of the fun for me is film has lots of different looks, while digital tends to make you work towards that in post more-I've never really liked that approach personally.
I use a D700 too and prefer the look of high speed films, but then with 120 portraits detail isn't always the main concern, I might think differently if I made landscapes and move to 8x10
Here is a 120 rangefinder with 3200 Ilford rated at 6400 in Rodinal.
Ronald M
Veteran
Scanning is a learned art which requires the very best equipment. A flat bed scanner will not come close. You need at least a nikon 4000 of KM5400 both of which are discontinued. then you need to be a photoshop master and know how to do noise reduction and sharpening with proper masking.
IF YOU DO ALL THIS, you can make 16x20 that looks the same.
IF YOU DO ALL THIS, you can make 16x20 that looks the same.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I am sure a recent Reflecta or Plustek provides similar quality to a Nikon 4000, etc.
Ronald M
Veteran
Get a camera with no AA filter. Leica or D800E Nikon
Photo_Smith
Well-known
You don't need a top class scanner if you're just posting on the web, You certainly don't need to master Photoshop.
The key is matching your equipment to your needs, if you're showing your images on an iPad or computer then you don't need high resolution scanners.
Also to my eye wet prints don't look the same as scans, they have a different character. Even an Imacon or drum will look very different to an enlarger made print.
I make dozens of exhibition prints every year, some conventional, some inkjet they have a different character-differnt subjects require different solutions.
jschrader
Well-known
Problem solved?
Problem solved?
I originally posted the complaint why XP2 negatives are less detailed then digital pictures from a Nikon D700.
I now developed two short films (FP4 and T-Max 100), and repeated a shot of a view of my city from a higher building I had made before with both XP-2 and D700, to see if a poor resolution of XP2 was the problem.
Films developed in D76 1+1. Haven't done it for 10 years but all the reflexes were still there
I checked them now under the same microscope. TMax was best, FP4 second, XP2 third winner. Differences were clear but, practically probably minor.
I then rechecked the same shot from the D700. It appeared much more detailled, but it was also in color, and this gives more information, in addition to that it has of course a higher contrast. I converted in to b&w and inverted it to a negative, to produce the same impression I had with the negatives under the microscope. And then, the results were fairly similar. What was an clearly visible detail in the positive color picture became a "there may be something".
Pity I cannot post the pictures.
For the initially posted pictures, the guess the difference must be due the scan, plus differences in the contrast.
Problem solved?
I originally posted the complaint why XP2 negatives are less detailed then digital pictures from a Nikon D700.
I now developed two short films (FP4 and T-Max 100), and repeated a shot of a view of my city from a higher building I had made before with both XP-2 and D700, to see if a poor resolution of XP2 was the problem.
Films developed in D76 1+1. Haven't done it for 10 years but all the reflexes were still there
I checked them now under the same microscope. TMax was best, FP4 second, XP2 third winner. Differences were clear but, practically probably minor.
I then rechecked the same shot from the D700. It appeared much more detailled, but it was also in color, and this gives more information, in addition to that it has of course a higher contrast. I converted in to b&w and inverted it to a negative, to produce the same impression I had with the negatives under the microscope. And then, the results were fairly similar. What was an clearly visible detail in the positive color picture became a "there may be something".
Pity I cannot post the pictures.
For the initially posted pictures, the guess the difference must be due the scan, plus differences in the contrast.
rbsinto
Well-known
Can you elaborate on this or have any information on actually performing this?
I just set up a Minolta 5400 scanner and am getting slightly soft scans.
I'd love to get inside the unit and eliminate the dust and clean the optical path, but I'm wary of just starting to disassemble the unit without some guidance.
Please and thank you.
jschrader
Well-known
Nikon coolscan cleaning
Nikon coolscan cleaning
I found two sites with Nikon cleaning instruction. I think I had another one that I maybe didn't bookmark, but anyhow, for Minolta they may not be helpful.
http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/ls2000-cleaning/
http://www.pearsonimaging.com/articles/howto/ls5000cleaning.html
Good luck. In my case, cleaning didn't help much although the device is quite old
Nikon coolscan cleaning
I found two sites with Nikon cleaning instruction. I think I had another one that I maybe didn't bookmark, but anyhow, for Minolta they may not be helpful.
http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/ls2000-cleaning/
http://www.pearsonimaging.com/articles/howto/ls5000cleaning.html
Good luck. In my case, cleaning didn't help much although the device is quite old