Scanning - Negs or Prints

[Gid]

Some of you may have seen my recent posts on giving up film - not because I don't like film, but because I've been struggling to reconcile results versus the time invested. I've just not been getting results I like from scanned 35mm negs (Epson 4990). The results from 645 have been much better, but the whole process is still too time consuming - shoot 🙂 , dev 🙁 , scan 😡 , clean up in PS :bang:.

I decided to try scanning prints to see if the quality of the result was any better. I scanned some lab (Ilford) 6x4s from my Canon F1 (HP5+). The results were very, very good - printed out on A3 there was no apparent quality loss, no scanner induced grain etc. Only real problem was, initially, accidently setting scanner to 2400 dpi, which would have produced a 48x24 print at 300dpi 😕

Taking this route could be manageable from a time and quality perspective, but will be relatively expensive - around 11 GBP for 35mm/36 and around 8.50 GBP for 120/15, excluding the cost of the film. If I just concentrated on film MF, I guess it would cost around 500 GBP per annum if I shot an average 1 roll/week - not a cost that really needs highlighting (new D50 every year 🙄 ) .

So to the point of the post. Any of you scan prints rather than negs? Do you get better results from scanned prints? Do you think I'm just being stupid? Should I just bail out of film?

Any help for a man clutching at straws will be appreciated.

 

[tom_f77]

Interesting... When I set up my printer the other week I scanned some favourite darkroom prints to print on it as tests, and yes - they're very good. Subsequent experiments with scanning film for prints are a bit more variable...

I think in the end, to get the best of both worlds (the detail and texture of a darkroom print, and the easy manipulation of tones in photoshop) I'm going to end up making flat grey (easy) prints in the darkroom, scanning them and playing in photoshop, and then printing on the inkjet.

It's early days yet, but I think this avoids some of the difficult parts of both processes and takes advantage of each.

I know you don't have a darkroom, but if you can find a lab that will do you nice flat prints I think you might be on to something.

Tom

 

[Andy K]

Hi Gid,
It seems a bit redundant to have the lab enlarge an entire roll of negs and then scan the prints to make inkjets.
Wouldn't it be easier just to get larger prints from the lab in the first place? You could still scan your negs, but instead of going on to print them yourself via inkjet, use the neg scans as a proofing sheet, select those you like and have the lab enlarge only those.

 

[sf]

Scanning negs gives you more range - you can get more from the negative than a print. Scanning a print, you have no depth, no ability to lighten or darken anything unless it is there in the print.

Scanning photos, well, you have to make them first. For me, producing prints of everything i want to scan would be too costly ($2000 just for my pics from the trip @ $10 per print). And the point of my scans is so that I can use my printer to produce decent prints from my negs. Scanning prints, then, is redundant.

You're right about grain - that will be lower. If you are able to produce a completely perfect print, you should be fine.

ANother thing. . . .you ARE scanning with a flatbed. No comparison to a dedicated scanner - no matter who says it is. My Epson 3170 was no competition to the Multi Pro - and I'm willing to be that the 4990 is also no challenge to it. If you bought a decent dedicated scanner, you'd be having a very different experience.

 

[Gid]

Andy,

I can't argue with your reasoning. However, I'm trying to find a compromise solution that gives me some control and more time right now. In practice, I'd probably get 5x4s from 645 and 6x4s from 35mm which would be good enough to determine if there were any keepers and more than big enough to scan at low res for the web. I would have the ability to scan at higher resolution and create inkjet prints if I wanted to and was happy with the quality, but I would also still have the original negs and the ability to get lab prints. Additionally, when I get more time and space I might be able to set up a darkroom and revisit the negs for wet printing. Basically, I don't want to abandon film, but I need to find a way to make it work in the short term.

 

[tom_f77]

Scanning a print, you have no depth, no ability to lighten or darken anything unless it is there in the print.

Are you sure about this? What I thought I was doing was setting black and white points for a slightly flat 16 bit grayscale scan exactly like I would with a negative. Once the file is in photoshop it certainly seems to be just as flexible as one from a neg scan.

Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere?

Tom

 

[jano]

Are you sure about this? What I thought I was doing was setting black and white points for a slightly flat 16 bit grayscale scan exactly like I would with a negative. Once the file is in photoshop it certainly seems to be just as flexible as one from a neg scan.

The print has no where near the range contained in the negative. What that means to you is when you go to compress the range by setting white/black points, you're going to lose a lot from your scan, and can end up with some very blotchy areas. Now, assuming you have a very good print to start with, and assuming you have a good scanning technique, then this is certainly an option if all you wish to do is have images to display on the web.

To Gid: it's not a bad idea if all you wish to do is display the images on the web. If you wish to print them, then you'll pretty much be limited to same size or smaller prints. With good technique you might be able to blow up the prints, but, eh, quality won't be as good.

Jano

 

[aad]

I think of scanning prints as a quick way to share, but you lose a lot of detail. For B&W, you can get superb results from a decent flatbed-I don't care who says otherwise(!).

Is it developing you want to avoid? Try slides-but then you may want to get a film scanner-on the other hand you'll have a "maximum quality" source you can print if you like.

If I were scanning prints, I'd use C41 film, and be done with it.

 

[T_om]

For B&W, you can get superb results from a decent flatbed-I don't care who says otherwise(!).

I am one of those that says otherwise.

With any comparably priced scanners below the $5000.00 price point, a dedicated film scanner will win over a flatbed every time.

Even over that range, drum scanners will beat flatbeds, every time.

Now, if playing the game means you set the quality level you are describing as "superb results" low enough, then fine... you can have a kid with crayons copy the shot and declare the result "superb" if you like.

But "superb" output from scanners is a pretty well-defined and well-recognized output level. And you don't get it from inexpensive flatbeds. Sorry.

Tom

 

[marbrink]

The better flatbed scanners have an optical resolution of about 1600 dpi. That means you get about a 3-4mp file from a 35mm neg. For small prints it will work nicely but not if you want to go bigger.
The exception is the new Epson V700/V750 flatbed scanners. V700 outperformed the Nikon LS4000 with the film height adjusters adjusted.

 

[aad]

No apologies needed. I have my own comparisons and standards-not being a professional, I only need to please myself, and have no need to quarrel-or change my mind.

 

[RML]

Quarreling isn't necessary indeed. But sometimes it pays to at least give changing your mind a thought. In a faraway past I too scanned on a flatbed. I was pleased with the results... until I saw what even a cheap and simple neg scanner like the HP 20S could do. The difference is huge, and I never returned to scanning negs (or prints!) on a flatbed.

 

[Duncan Ross]

It might be irrelevent in most cases but I've had problems scanning prints from some high-street labs. I think some cheaper labs use digital printing and the resulting prints seem to interfere with the scanned resolution(?) giving me stripy images!

 

[aad]

Hey, I have a film scanner. I'm not just sticking my head in the sand or whatever.

 

[courtney]

Scanning Film

Scanning Film

Im a film photographer and i use the Epson 4990 PHOTO Perfection to scan my medium format negatives. I have had some great results from this scanner, despite it being only a flatbed, i still believe it performs quite well. Firstly i would not recomend 35mm for scanning. Its great for medium format because intially you have a larger high quality negative or slide, shot on the sharpest opticall cameras, thus producing a sharp high resolution image. Works best at ISO 200 or less, 400 ISO and beyond gets grainy.
Of course dedicated film scanners produce best results, but this flatbed is great and all i need. From what i know this is common for use of editorial photographs for magazine work.
So to make film photography cheap i have the negs processed only, scan and view on my computer and then choose the desired negs for reprint. Simple !!!
Would like to hear some posts with some other positve comments on how to get the best results from film scanning.

Courtney

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

If you're developing in a lab and they're producing the prints then very likely they are scanning from your negs to their printer. Not an injet like we have at home but a photographic printer.

In my experience their scanners are good, certainly better than anything I could buy for under €5000. So, as they have scanned the negs anyway I always order a CD.

Personally I go for the 'Dev and CD only' for €6, but there are other packages such as prints, index print and 'contact' print.

You may have to choose carefully where you go. A photography shop is likely to have better quality control than a booth in a shopping mall.

 

[sf]

I am one of those that says otherwise.

With any comparably priced scanners below the $5000.00 price point, a dedicated film scanner will win over a flatbed every time.

Even over that range, drum scanners will beat flatbeds, every time.

Now, if playing the game means you set the quality level you are describing as "superb results" low enough, then fine... you can have a kid with crayons copy the shot and declare the result "superb" if you like.

But "superb" output from scanners is a pretty well-defined and well-recognized output level. And you don't get it from inexpensive flatbeds. Sorry.

Tom

I'll agree on this one. My Multi Pro produces scans that are sparkling, razor sharp and remarkably tonal compared to anything I get from the Epson 3170 Photo. I can easily print poster sized prints from the grain sharp scans of 645 negs.

There is no comparison. I can scan the same frame in each scanner, and what appears as flat or black or white in the Epson suddently has tonal range and detail in the Multi Pro.

I had scanned some images with the Epson that apeared dull and muddled because of the narrow DMAX, but on the Multi Pro, they came alive.