Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Godfrey,
This is helpful. I kinda was expecting this. As always it comes down to a good file using great technic.
One thing to crunch the numbers: real experience is another thing.
BTW kinda funny how digital full frame cameras support 35mm film and 120 film.
We are blessed...
Cal
Huss
Veteran
Hey Cal.
The standard size print that I sell in my gallery is 12 by 18 matted and framed to 20 by 28 (whether it is 35mm or 6x9 as the dimensions are the same) or 20 by 20. And there is no issue whatsoever. They can go much bigger, as Godfrey mentioned. And as with everything the key is starting off with a clean image.
Huss
The standard size print that I sell in my gallery is 12 by 18 matted and framed to 20 by 28 (whether it is 35mm or 6x9 as the dimensions are the same) or 20 by 20. And there is no issue whatsoever. They can go much bigger, as Godfrey mentioned. And as with everything the key is starting off with a clean image.
Huss
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
I guess there should be another thread with the topic: "Why buy a scanner?"
BTW right out of the camera and needing only minor tweaking is perfect for a lazy slacker like me.
Cal
Huss
Veteran
FYI it took me 18 minutes to scan a roll of 36exp last night. At full raw rez. So there is a time aspect to this too.
And B&W is much simpler for the lazy slacker tweaking once you scan that.
And B&W is much simpler for the lazy slacker tweaking once you scan that.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
You know me: I'm that B&W slacker. LOL.
This gives me time to do crazy things like shoot and develop 150 rolls of film a month.
Never knew anyone that had a complicated life that was happy.
Cal
Spanik
Well-known
I have been reading this thread and I'd like to do the scanning of my slides and negatives this way. But I'm not sure about what to use. Got a 5DII, 1200D, 100/2.8 macro (and an old enlarger I can change into a copy stand) and a V700 but somehow I'm not sure this is the way to go. And I'd not like to have to start again because of something I didn't think of.
I tried a few times to photograph slides and negatives (b/w) but somehow I never got any decent results. Faster than scanning but not better or worse. Different perhaps but not something that made me say "that's it".
I tried a few times to photograph slides and negatives (b/w) but somehow I never got any decent results. Faster than scanning but not better or worse. Different perhaps but not something that made me say "that's it".
Huss
Veteran
Huss
Veteran
I'm not sure about your process so cannot comment fully, but the fact that you are achieving the same quality but faster already makes it a win.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
Understand that was one year and about 66% 135 and 34% 120.
Know that I really annoyed mucho people because I shot a lot of film when it cost about half what it costs today, without any regard to printing or scanning. Mucho fighting and arguing because people did not understand why I placed such importance on just image capture and just making negatives.
I would buy hundreds of rolls from Freestyle of rebranded Tri-X (Arista Premium) when I could buy unlimited quantities at $2.89 a roll. I also bought short dated rebranded Acros (Legacy Pro) that was short dated for $1.89 a roll. I am almost done with both stockpiles and currently have perhaps a half dozen rolls of each.
When word got out about discontinuing Tri-X Pro 320 I ran down to B&H, but someone already had cleaned them out of all their 220. I ran down to Adorama a wiped out all their stock. Also at that Time Acros in 120 was only about $3.00 a roll.
So now I'm kinda sitting on an archive/mess of sleeved negatives. It seems time is my friend, and it was muy smart to shoot as much film as possible when it cost "no money." In the meantime I'm sitting on a huge mess I created.
BTW my intent was to eventually have a darkroom and wet print. Oh-well. LOL.
"Crazy is good," I say.
Cal
POSTSCRIPT: To be clear this was a peak year where I shot on average 150 rolls a month for perhaps 7 months. It was not sustainable, but I always shot a lot of film. B&W made it cost effective for me, and color was too costly.
Last edited:
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I am not so sure time is your friend. At today's prices, you would only be sitting on a half a mess.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
At today's prices, you would only be sitting on a half a mess.[/QUOTE]
LOL. How true.
Basically there is no way at 59 I can undo what I have created. I already created a legacy. LOL.
This will always be a mess, and it is unlikely I even have the time to scan even with a digital camera, but I know I will not have the remorse of having not shot as much film as possible when it was not costly.
Cal
Prest_400
Multiformat
I'm not sure about your process so cannot comment fully, but the fact that you are achieving the same quality but faster already makes it a win.
It's getting interesting. A flatbed makes cringing when one thinks of non-captured detail or thrown resolution if you may call it.
There is an anal-theorical technicality that is not talked about. Bayer. While scanners have individual lines and do not interpolate. Theorical "better color" from the uninterpolated scanner array. But well, seing the color accuray of my Epson flatbed makes it rather irrelevant. Just throwing it in to discuss.
As you say Huss, if you want big files from lab scans (+8MP 2400px high) it just gets mighty expensive. Yes 8MP scans are good for most uses, but but but. (Gotta love sheer resolution) Think a 2400-3000px 6x6 scan can be offensive because it is like showing a middle finger to the format potential
I'll take a nicer read tomorrow. It is interesting and can't be ignored.
Spanik
Well-known
I'm not sure about your process so cannot comment fully, but the fact that you are achieving the same quality but faster already makes it a win.
Well, it isn't exactly the same. I'll try to explain.
When I scan with the V700 a slide (135 Kodachrome, got 1000's of them) then I get something that only shows about half of what I can see when I project the same slide with an average projector on a well used 30 year old screen. I miss sharpness and detail. But colour, intensity, contrast are spot on. However it takes very long...
Now when I photograph the same slide using a tripod, 5DII, 100/2.8 macro and the slide on a Fuji 4x5 light table (with a black cardboard mask) then I get maybe a bit more detail but that could be just as well a "hint of detail", like a bit more contrast. Now the colour is way off, it is faded and needs quite a lot of work in post-process. And the needed work/adjustment is different for each slide! The only thing that is better is that I see more ofthe dust.
Whatever I use, I never see the grain of the film as I see in a lot of posted images on this site. This is about my reference, as my tought is that once you have got the grain out of it you are at the limit. There is no more info to be got.
I tried with other images: 9x12 glass negatives, 9x6 provia and velvia, 6x17, b/w 4x5. Always the same disappointment.
Now I don't know what is the cause: camera, lens, setup, lightsource, workflow, AA filter, something else? I have tought about several thing that might be "a solution" like getting a Sigma SD1m to get rid of the AA and bayer. Or getting another body with more Mp.
Right now I'm transforming an old enlarger into a fixed copy setup to get a bit more reproducability. But I doubt I'll find a solution.
Huss
Veteran
Spanik, it could be because you are using a tripod and your film is not flat. When I first tried to do this w a tripod for some reason I could never get the sharpness I wanted. That changed when I moved to a copy stand. I also use enlarger film holders to keep the film flat, or a slide copier holder if I am using 35mm film. All that is detailed in this thread.
I also make sure to have the dull side of the film facing the camera. I read someplace that was how to do it, and so that's how I've been doing it! With that and my macro lens I am able to focus on the grain. I use LiveView mode to do the focusing, and it is very apparent when the grain is in focus when I do that. If I can see the grain in LiveView, it will appear in the 'scan'. If I am focusing manually, I enlarge the image on the back screen in LiveView. If I am using AF (which I do most of the time) I use AF in Live View.
I tried to focus optically and could not get a decent result.
As for colour, I create one profile per film stock (save it for future reference) and apply it to all the images on that roll. It will then need maybe minor tweaking from there for the final result. You need to make sure you are shooting in RAW, and you need to make sure the camera does not change your White Balance setting from exposure to exposure. You can do this by using a camera WB preset or setting it manually. This is very important as your profile will be based on the WB setting.
I also make sure to have the dull side of the film facing the camera. I read someplace that was how to do it, and so that's how I've been doing it! With that and my macro lens I am able to focus on the grain. I use LiveView mode to do the focusing, and it is very apparent when the grain is in focus when I do that. If I can see the grain in LiveView, it will appear in the 'scan'. If I am focusing manually, I enlarge the image on the back screen in LiveView. If I am using AF (which I do most of the time) I use AF in Live View.
I tried to focus optically and could not get a decent result.
As for colour, I create one profile per film stock (save it for future reference) and apply it to all the images on that roll. It will then need maybe minor tweaking from there for the final result. You need to make sure you are shooting in RAW, and you need to make sure the camera does not change your White Balance setting from exposure to exposure. You can do this by using a camera WB preset or setting it manually. This is very important as your profile will be based on the WB setting.
Spanik
Well-known
The last ones I did I used the negative carrier of a Durst. Made me worry about scatching the film. Couldn't say I saw much difference.
Good point about wb, never put much tought into that.
Good point about wb, never put much tought into that.
Huss
Veteran
How are you focusing? Unless u see the grain when you do, chances are the image is not optimally sharp. Are you using LiveView?
Huss
Veteran
If you can see the grain in LiveView when you focus, the image is as sharp as it will be.
D750 scan of pic taken with Nikonos V:
D750 scan of pic taken with Nikonos V:
wintoid
Back to film
@Huss how wide are the histograms of the scanned shots? My first attempts seem to be producing a fairly narrow histogram.
charjohncarter
Veteran
That is a very important point, I always after many tries decided to be sure and have room on both the white and black ends of the histogram. Then I would correct with levels. Most of what I've seen here would be hard to do this fine turning in post.
Huss
Veteran
That's a very good question and I never checked until you asked.
I just did this one, and it filled the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the histogram on the camera's lcd. But when edited in LR, it was a nice wide histogram.
Rolleiflex 2.8E, Rolleinar 1, Fuji NPS160 expired July 2000:
(slight use of dynamic skin softener in LR)