Scanner for silver-based B&W film negs

vincentbenoit

vincentbenoit

télémétrique argentique
Local time
7:34 PM
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
762
Hi

I'm looking for a scanner that would do a decent job on 35mm silver-based B&W film negs. I don't care about medium format, slides, APS, color negs, C41,E6 - just good old traditional 35mm B&W. In fact I'm very much into the high-accutance, high-grain look these days (think Tri-X developed in Rodinal) and I would like the scanner to do justice to these negs, i.e. to retain the tonality and texture of the film as much as possible.

Because of the nature of the negs I'm obviously looking for a scanner with high native sharpness so as to minimize the amount of USM needed to be applied to the files. In terms of print size I target 11x17 at 300 dpi (or 13x19 at 220 dpi) which calls for a 3200+ dpi scanner. Batch capability and scanning speed are unimportant to me - I'm after quality, not throughput. I'll be scanning to 16-bit TIFF and processing the files in Photoshop CS.

After some research I've narrowed down the list of potential candidates to five:
- Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (I and II)
- Nikon CoolScan V ED / LS-50 ED
- Microtek ArtixScan 4000tf
- Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US (discontinued, but still available used).

I'd be very grateful for first-hand experience accounts from users of one of these machines. Are the Minoltas really so poorly built and unreliable? Are the LED-based light sources of the Nikon and the Elite 5400 II really incompatible with silver-based emulsions? Is the Canon really so painfully slow? Is the Microtek really low value for money as compared to the competition?

Thanks in advance for your help. :)

Cheers

Vincent
 
I have an ArtixScan 4000tf, and it does a reasonably good job, and is quite economical for a 4000dpi scanner, however I have problems with center to edge sharpness with the scans if the negative strip is not completely flat, and as you know 35mm film tends to curve, and the negative holder does not exert a lot of force on the film to keep it flat.

I have had much better results scanning 35mm with the ArtixScan 120tf, which is a larger scanner intended for 35mm and 120. It is also 4000dpi, and I find that the scans from 35mm are very good in center to edge sharpness. I also like the tonality of the scans from the 120tf better, but that may be just my technique has gotten better.

I have also a Nikon 5000ed, a very expensive 35mm and medium-format scanner, which uses the LED type of light source, and I find that the center to edge sharpness leaves something to be desired on this one with 35mm. However with 120, the Nikon has a negative strip carrier that allows you to put tension on the negative strip and actually stretch it flat, so the results from 120 are superb.

I would assume the less expensive Nikon scanners using the LED light source would perform similarly with 35mm.

There is no incompatibility with LED light sources and b/w film. None. Where did you hear this?

No scanner can perform "digital ice" type of spot removal on b/w images. You have to manually retouch your b/w scans in Photoshop. Doesn't matter what scanner you have, and doesn't matter what light source it has. The "digital ice"type of spotting only works on dye-based images. Not on silver-based images.

All the images in my online gallery here were scanned with ArtixScan scanners, and the Nikon 5000ed. I'll bet you cannot tell which is which.
 
vincentbenoit said:
Hi

Because of the nature of the negs I'm obviously looking for a scanner with high native sharpness so as to minimize the amount of USM needed to be applied to the files.
Thanks in advance for your help. :)

Cheers

Vincent
Click to expand...

The nature of ALL scanning is such that "some" USM is required. If you allow the scanner to apply it, then you will require less in Photoshop, if you turn off sharpening in the scanner software, then more is required in Photoshop, but never-the-less, there isn't a scanner (due to the nature of how scanning is done), that doesn't require "some" USM. Even drum scans are sharpened.

My $10,000.00 Betterlight scaning back for my 4x5 view camera requires that the files be sharpened after the scan. It is unavoidable. It is always done, and all scanners (in their software) have a default level of sharpening. You can override this if you wish and do all your sharpening in Photoshop, or with a custom "action" in photoshop, your choice.

Don't confuse resolution with sharpness. a higher dpi scanner will give you more native resolution, even though you will need to have applied some USM to get tack-sharp grain.
 
I keep adding to my reply, but one other thing that I think I should say, is that:
Scanning is an art. You cannot expect to get the best possible results from your negative by just using the scanner software "default" values. You must learn to use the scanner and the software and make custom adjustments based on your negatives and making test scans and evaluating the results in Photoshop at high magnification. You may even want to try 3rd party scanner software as a step-up from the manufacturer supplied scanner driver software.

Like anything else, optimum scanning is not automatic, and a skilled operator can extract more from a given negative than a neophyte.
 
Vincent, Your plan is what I do everyday. For this type of work I have the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. This scanner does everything you described. Everything that I have posted on my website was scanned using that scanner. I have heard the complaints about the Nikon not being suitable for Black and White but my experience is different. That and my prints look better then darkroom jobs I have had done for me (could be unskilled persons in the darkroom). As for which scanner is the best I cannot offer you any guidance in that, only the experience I have had with mine. I can say that I have scanned every speed of film from Ilford 3200 to Pan F 50 and they all look great to my eye.

Obviously you might try renting some of the different scanners to give each a tryout. The software I use for my scanning is Vuescan located at:

http://www.hamrick.com

Glenn
 
phototone said:
I have an ArtixScan 4000tf, and it does a reasonably good job, and is quite economical for a 4000dpi scanner, however I have problems with center to edge sharpness with the scans if the negative strip is not completely flat, and as you know 35mm film tends to curve, and the negative holder does not exert a lot of force on the film to keep it flat.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat. (sigh). I seem to remember from another thread (about developers, I think) that you use a film hardener of some sort after development, does this help in making film strips less prone to curving?

phototone said:
There is no incompatibility with LED light sources and b/w film. None. Where did you hear this?
Click to expand...
In a number of dodgy reviews on the net...

phototone said:
No scanner can perform "digital ice" type of spot removal on b/w images. You have to manually retouch your b/w scans in Photoshop. Doesn't matter what scanner you have, and doesn't matter what light source it has. The "digital ice"type of spotting only works on dye-based images. Not on silver-based images.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of this. I handle my negs very carefully, dust and scratches are not a significant issue for me.

phototone said:
All the images in my online gallery here were scanned with ArtixScan scanners, and the Nikon 5000ed. I'll bet you cannot tell which is which.
Click to expand...
I can't, at this size and resolution.
 
vincentbenoit said:
I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat. (sigh). I seem to remember from another thread (about developers, I think) that you use a film hardener of some sort after development, does this help in making film strips less prone to curving?
Click to expand...

Well, normal procedure is to use a fixer with hardener incorporated. This doesn't effect the curling. The curling is due to different contraction rates of the emulsion and base of the film as it dries. Properly fixed and washed film that is not very old out-of-date film will have a minimum of curling, but will still have "some" curling.

The actual problem with scanners is that there is no way to "stop down" the scanners lens to get any depth of field to compensate for the slight curve of the negative. When we make prints in the darkroom with an enlarger, we normally do not print with the enlarger lens wide open, such as a scanner uses its lens. We normally stop down to about f8 or f11, at which point most enlarger lenses are at their optimum sharpness, and the depth of field compensates for minor negative curvature.

To get the maximum flatness from my 35mm negatives, I cut and sleeve in page sleeves my b/w 35mm negatives just as soon as they are dry, and I then put the whole page of negatives under several heavy books overnight. This tends to reduce the tendency to curl, and they always are flatter after this treatment.

Also, most scanners are "auto focus" and they will focus on the center of the negative, and if the edges are even slightly curved they will lie outside the plane of optimum focus in relation to the center. Some scanners allow you to manually place the point at which you want the auto focus to read, and in that case, sometimes you can pick a point out towards the edge of the image, but not at the very edge, thus splitting the difference, and this can result in a good average sharp scan (with USM APPLIED), over the whole neg.

Some scanners, such as the Nikon Super coolscan 5000 ED, offer, as a relatively expensive option, a glass negative carrier, and this should solve all the problems of center to edge sharpness, but of course introduce more surfaces for dirt, and on a scanner the dirt is more pronounced in the scan, than a print from a negative in the darkroom printed on a diffusion enlarger.
 
Well, I think I know the difference between resolution and sharpness, and the effect of USM on micro-contrast. My point was, some scanners need so much USM to compensate for their relative lack of sharpness that the files quickly acquire an unpleasant "digital" look. I much prefer doing the sharpening myself in Photoshop, so as to have some control over the way it is applied, for example through the use of edge masks.
 
vincentbenoit said:
Well, I think I know the difference between resolution and sharpness, and the effect of USM on micro-contrast. My point was, some scanners need so much USM to compensate for their relative lack of sharpness that the files quickly acquire an unpleasant "digital" look. I much prefer doing the sharpening myself in Photoshop, so as to have some control over the way it is applied, for example through the use of edge masks.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and of course Unsharp Mask is only one method of "sharpening" a digital image.

There are several "issues" pertaining to sharpness. One, is the quality of the optics of the scanner, and the calibration of them when they leave the factory.

Two, is the quality of the scanner driver softare used to run the scanner.

Three, is the skill with which you use the scanner software, in your choices of settings..

I too, always scan as a 16bit tiff at maximum resolution, make my corrections in Photoshop then resave as a 8 bit tiff. I never reduce the resolution of my master file, only the bit depth once all corrections are made.
 
This is very true. I guess the skills involved in the scanning of negs are similar to those involved in the processing of raw files from a digital camera.
 
vincentbenoit said:
This is very true. I guess the skills involved in the scanning of negs are similar to those involved in the processing of raw files from a digital camera.
Click to expand...

Bingo. As we say here, "You have hit the nail on the head!"

In either case, (shooting raw files with a digital camera), or scans from a negative,
you have a digital file that needs further work to be optimum.
 
phototone said:
I have also a Nikon 5000ed, a very expensive 35mm and medium-format scanner,
Click to expand...
I thought the Nikon 5000ed was a 35mm-only scanner, with the 9000ed being multi-format?!
 
egpj said:
Vincent, Your plan is what I do everyday. For this type of work I have the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. This scanner does everything you described. Everything that I have posted on my website was scanned using that scanner. I have heard the complaints about the Nikon not being suitable for Black and White but my experience is different. That and my prints look better then darkroom jobs I have had done for me (could be unskilled persons in the darkroom). As for which scanner is the best I cannot offer you any guidance in that, only the experience I have had with mine. I can say that I have scanned every speed of film from Ilford 3200 to Pan F 50 and they all look great to my eye.

Obviously you might try renting some of the different scanners to give each a tryout. The software I use for my scanning is Vuescan located at:

http://www.hamrick.com

Glenn
Click to expand...

Thanks Glenn, it's always good to hear from people who are satisfied with the results they get. Renting a scanner to try it out is a good idea.
Cheers
Vincent
 
phototone said:
To get the maximum flatness from my 35mm negatives, I cut and sleeve in page sleeves my b/w 35mm negatives just as soon as they are dry, and I then put the whole page of negatives under several heavy books overnight. This tends to reduce the tendency to curl, and they always are flatter after this treatment.
Click to expand...
I'll try that next time. Sounds easy enough. ;)
Thanks a lot for your contribution to this thread.
Cheers
Vincent
 
How much IS the ArtixScan? I want something that will work with both 35mm and medium format and I don't have that much to spend. :x
 
Stephanie Brim said:
How much IS the ArtixScan? I want something that will work with both 35mm and medium format and I don't have that much to spend. :x
Click to expand...
The 120tf is about $1500, with Silverfast Ai 6.0 included.
 
Konica Minolta 5400 II

Konica Minolta 5400 II

I have the 5400 that I only use to scan silver-based B&W negatives. I use a DSLR for colour photography.

I do not have another scanner to compare it with, but I'm more than happy with the results. For what it is worth, all the images in my gallery were scanned using the 5400.

I agree with Phototone. The scanned images need some post-processing and in particular, sharpening. I do as little processing as possible during scanning - mainly exposure control. Then I find the post-processing is the same as for digitally captured RAW images and it is best to apply sharpening as the last step after resizing.

The amount of sharpening I need is less than I need with digitally captured images.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom