rpilottx
Established
OK, I will be the first to admit I am a luddite and proud of it. I enjoy Leicas, fountain pens, and Rolex watches. And even though my cellular phone has a camera, I have never used it.
I know I am coming late to scanning as a lot of manufacturers are no longer making them. I learned photography back in 1966 using a Graflex camera and 4X5 sheet film. Then it was a Nikon F with miles of TriX, followed by Kodachrome and most recently Ektar 100.
I want to start black and white photography again using a hybrid darkroom ie developing the negatives and scanning the film. So, 1) Can you recommend a good film scanner. 2) I have heard TMax scans better then TriX and that the b&w chomatic films scan best of all. 3) Link to a good website devoted to the basics of scanning. 4) And the best and easiest program to use for scanning and working the photos (remember I have never used Photoshop or Lightroom).
Any tips or advice would be appreciated. The only one I probably would not follow is to get rid of the film M's and get an M9. Thanks in advance.
I know I am coming late to scanning as a lot of manufacturers are no longer making them. I learned photography back in 1966 using a Graflex camera and 4X5 sheet film. Then it was a Nikon F with miles of TriX, followed by Kodachrome and most recently Ektar 100.
I want to start black and white photography again using a hybrid darkroom ie developing the negatives and scanning the film. So, 1) Can you recommend a good film scanner. 2) I have heard TMax scans better then TriX and that the b&w chomatic films scan best of all. 3) Link to a good website devoted to the basics of scanning. 4) And the best and easiest program to use for scanning and working the photos (remember I have never used Photoshop or Lightroom).
Any tips or advice would be appreciated. The only one I probably would not follow is to get rid of the film M's and get an M9. Thanks in advance.
FrankHarries
Well-known
I think the scanner might not be a problem - its more the software you are asking about? Using Leicas, fountain pens and old Vespas (no Rolex ;-) I scan with a Canon 8800f B&W film - for me the scans are more like a contact sheet and sometimes I am lucky that a scn looks alright without working on it. So I am interested in this question too ....
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Do you intend shooting anything larger than 35mm ... if you do the Epson is a good choice because it's better with medium and large format than it is with 35mm. It's very capable with 35mm but I wouldn't say it was it's strength ... still ok for printing up to 8x10 with a good inkjet printer though.
agricola
Well-known
my history in photography is almost exactly the same - and my journey in scanning reminds me of the adage that 'the longest journey begins with the first step'. As for sites, they are legion - I suggest you browse here and Google.
I have an Epson, a multipurpose printer/scanner (flatbed) that will only do 35mm. It is ok for web posting. Gives passable prints to A4. It is not a V700 or V750 (I think Keith was referring to one of those). And I have seen some very good stuff on the net from the V700 series. So if my machine is ok then the V700 series is probably better than ok. And it's cheap compared to the alternatives which will give you whizz bang results from 35mm. You can always keep the Epson for the medium format stuff when overcome by the uncontrollable urge to shoot with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad; it seems to be acknowledged to be pretty good at that.
I follow the hybrid process you talk about. M4 and Nikons and Hexar AF. Developing film is good. So is a digital camera. The only reason I continue with the film gig is because the cameras are just so nice to handle. And there is the craft involved in getting a good negative.
The results from scanning (without an Imacon or a Nikon 9000ED) are rubbish compared to the results I used to get in the wet darkroom so long ago. But, it looks ok on the web ... and that is where most of it goes these days.
I have an Epson, a multipurpose printer/scanner (flatbed) that will only do 35mm. It is ok for web posting. Gives passable prints to A4. It is not a V700 or V750 (I think Keith was referring to one of those). And I have seen some very good stuff on the net from the V700 series. So if my machine is ok then the V700 series is probably better than ok. And it's cheap compared to the alternatives which will give you whizz bang results from 35mm. You can always keep the Epson for the medium format stuff when overcome by the uncontrollable urge to shoot with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad; it seems to be acknowledged to be pretty good at that.
I follow the hybrid process you talk about. M4 and Nikons and Hexar AF. Developing film is good. So is a digital camera. The only reason I continue with the film gig is because the cameras are just so nice to handle. And there is the craft involved in getting a good negative.
The results from scanning (without an Imacon or a Nikon 9000ED) are rubbish compared to the results I used to get in the wet darkroom so long ago. But, it looks ok on the web ... and that is where most of it goes these days.
Arjay
Time Traveller
I started with analog cameras in ~ 1958 and later moved to digital, only to come back to shooting film two years ago, so I'm not exactly in the same boat, but I'll try to extrapolate your expectations.
Assumptions:
What scanner
Consider the scanner to be part of the image making tool chain - the weakest link determines overall quality - especially if you are exclusively using a hybrid lab workflow, and if you're using 35mm film. In this case, don't waste your time experimenting with flatbed scanners. They may offer sufficient resolution if you shoot MF or LF film, and/or if you exclusively intend to publish your work in the internet. But as soon as you want to have good large-format inkjet prints, a film scanner is mandatory.
If you agree with the above, then look for a scanner that features a native (hardware-based) geometric resolution of 3000 dpi or higher (flatbeds can't deliver on this). Also, look for a scanner that can capture the highest possible contrast range (the corresponding parameter is called 'D' for density). Good film scanners feature a 'D' value of 3.6 to 4.0 (choosing higher values means having to spend more money).
This very often calls for a certain illumination technique during image capture - transmitted light. This lighting technique corresponds to slide projection: The scanner's imaging device looks at the film, which is illuminated from the back (unlike 'reflected' illumination which corresponds to looking at a paper print, whith the illumination coming from tha viewer side).
Inherently, 'transmitted' illumination helps to capture a far wider range of image densities than possible using 'reflected' illumination. BTW, only a small minority of flatbed scanners feature 'transmitted' illumination.
If you choose to use a hybrid lab workflow, you won't do 'wet' printing, but you rather do all of your post-processing on your computer. This leads to one more requirement - the data resolution of the individual image dot's tonal value. Our computer screens are rather crude tools - they use a data resolution of just 8 bits per color channel (red, green & blue), i.e. they just feature 256 possible values for every color channel between 'no' color and 'fully saturated' color. Films (and good digital cameras for that matter) offer a tonal value resolution that is larger than this by far. So, following the 'weakest link' argumentation from above, go for the highes possible data resolution: Good contemporary scanners can produce image files with much more resolution than just 8 bits - they often feature 12 or 14 bits of resolution and store their files in a standardized 16 bit file format (while not using the entire numerical potential of the file format). I'll come back to this issue later, when I'll talk about digital image editing ...
This is why I chose to use a Nikon Coolscan V ED, a film scanner exclusively for 35mm or smaller film formats, which admittedly isn't cheap, but in my eyes is a very viable compromise if you want to avoid any 'wet' printing. There are other alternatives, but I can't offer any links in English at present - maybe someone else could fill them in...
Which film
Ooops - I don't want to start any religious wars here, so I won't recommend anything. Just some observations:
Whether a film will meet your expectations or not will depend on more than just the kind of film you use - but rather on the type of images you want to make. E.g., do you prefer high-key images (those which offer most density detail in the bright areas) or low-key images (with a maximum of detail in the shadows)?
From my experience, Tri-X is a very interesting choice not just for flexibility (pushing/pulling capability), but above all because of its rich reproduction of shadow tones. It has a downside, however, and that's grain.
The Tmax films feature much finer grain, but less richness in shadow tonality. Recovering shadow tones is already tricky when these films are used at box speed.
Chromogenic films like BW 400 CN or XP2 IMO are somewhat similar to Tmax films: Nice light/highlight tonalities, difficult for shadows.
You see, you will have to find your own way here, with some experimentation in relation to your own tastes... And then there's a completely new realm of additional challenges (developer choice, developing regimes, effective film speed choice) to be discovered...
Scanner Software
Scanner control and image editing inherently are two very dissimilar tasks, and I don't know of any software that can do a satisfactory job at both. There are some offerings that attempt to find a compromise, but I feel they end up doing a poor job at least in one of the two domains.
Scanning software is the equivalent to a remote-control program for your scanner - it ought to be capable of using your scanner to the max. Consider that your scanner is the equivalent to a camera - you can control cropping, light balance, exposure and contrast measurement, illumination, dust removal, grain reproduction and color reconstruction (think faded colors in old slide films) and many other parameters.
If you want to get good image quality, be prepared for some learning curve - I'm sorry, there's no magic here, just knowledge to ba acquired.
When I started researching film scanning, I reviewed three scanner control software packages: Viewscan (compatible with many scanner models, even older ones, and supports many computer operating systems. Reasonably priced, but clumsy user interface), Silverfast (tries to also offer image editing capabilities beyond scanner control. Strange, inflexible pricing and licensing policy, but this software sure has its following) and Nikon Scan (part of the Nikon Scanners' scope of delivery. Unusual user interface, mainly concentrates on scanner control).
I ended up with both Nikon Scan and Viewscan, and I use Nikon Scan most of the time (because mastering one strange user interface is more than enough for me).
Digital Image Editing Software
If you used a 'wet' darkroom in the past, then you'll eventually love the power of digital image editing. Going into a detailed discussion of software features and software recommendations would break my time limits for writing this post, so let me concentrate on what I think the core features will be with regard to processing scanned ilm images.
Contrast manipulation - the equivalent to using paper gradations in the past is to use gradation curves in an image editor. A gradation curve describes the before/after relationship of a contrast manipulation step in an image editor. Unlike with paper and wet processes, the gradation curve does not only manipulate contrast, but can limit contrast changes to a desired brightness range - very handy once you have understood the concept. Changes in contrast can quickly reveal deficiencies in an image file's data - you can produce banding or posterization if the file's data resolution is too coarse! This is where the scanner's tonal value data resolution comes into play - a correctly scanned 16-bit image file can produce much smoother tonal ranges than one produced in 8-bit resolution only!!
Localized Image Manipulations - this is the equivalent of dodging or burning. In an editor, you do this either by using 'temporary masks' or 'layers' in conjunction with e.g. gradation curves, and this concept allows you to go far beyond just dodging and burning, once you've mastered the software. This is because masks and layers can also be applied to sharpening, color manipulations or a lot of other manipulations.
Retouching - this is where the image editing magic really starts. You have gunk or dust particles on your film? No problem, you can edit them out and automatically reconstruct your film's grain structure where previously there used to be a big white blob (speaking of an inverted, scanned negative). That is, you don't just copy some neighboring part of the image into the place where you had gunk, but you automatically adjust the new spot's brightness, color hue and structure, so that the retouched spot effectively becomes invisible. Good image editors can even work across contrast borders and geometric patterns and help you save hours of work (when I decribed this to my octogenarian mother, a former professional photographer, her eyes lit up and she spoke about long working hours spent retouching her prints under a big magnifying glass, using minute squirrel hair brushes. She then continued that this alone would have been reason enough for her to use a computer if only she were 20 years younger).
So, what you need is a software that can process 16-bit TIFF files, that can do gradation curve manipulations, that can do those manipulations based on either masks or image layers, and that offers a choice of 'healing brush' type retouching functions.
Integrated editor / image management packages like Aperture or Lightroom might do the job. More control can be had using dedicated (but more expensive) editors like Photoshop CS5. A freeware editor alternative might be The Gimp.
Since I have a digital photography background, I use a Nikon Capture NX2 editor, which incidentally has a 'healing brush' retouching function that is IMO sensational - but II'm sure there are alternatives, too.
Assumptions:
- You shoot 35mm film exclusively like I do.
- You used Tri-X because you love shadow detail (I take that from your love for Tri-X).
- You're new to developing film @ home (Only very few folks develop chromogenic BW films and color films at home).
- You haven't had a lot of exposure to digital image processing. You explicitly said so.
What scanner
Consider the scanner to be part of the image making tool chain - the weakest link determines overall quality - especially if you are exclusively using a hybrid lab workflow, and if you're using 35mm film. In this case, don't waste your time experimenting with flatbed scanners. They may offer sufficient resolution if you shoot MF or LF film, and/or if you exclusively intend to publish your work in the internet. But as soon as you want to have good large-format inkjet prints, a film scanner is mandatory.
If you agree with the above, then look for a scanner that features a native (hardware-based) geometric resolution of 3000 dpi or higher (flatbeds can't deliver on this). Also, look for a scanner that can capture the highest possible contrast range (the corresponding parameter is called 'D' for density). Good film scanners feature a 'D' value of 3.6 to 4.0 (choosing higher values means having to spend more money).
This very often calls for a certain illumination technique during image capture - transmitted light. This lighting technique corresponds to slide projection: The scanner's imaging device looks at the film, which is illuminated from the back (unlike 'reflected' illumination which corresponds to looking at a paper print, whith the illumination coming from tha viewer side).
Inherently, 'transmitted' illumination helps to capture a far wider range of image densities than possible using 'reflected' illumination. BTW, only a small minority of flatbed scanners feature 'transmitted' illumination.
If you choose to use a hybrid lab workflow, you won't do 'wet' printing, but you rather do all of your post-processing on your computer. This leads to one more requirement - the data resolution of the individual image dot's tonal value. Our computer screens are rather crude tools - they use a data resolution of just 8 bits per color channel (red, green & blue), i.e. they just feature 256 possible values for every color channel between 'no' color and 'fully saturated' color. Films (and good digital cameras for that matter) offer a tonal value resolution that is larger than this by far. So, following the 'weakest link' argumentation from above, go for the highes possible data resolution: Good contemporary scanners can produce image files with much more resolution than just 8 bits - they often feature 12 or 14 bits of resolution and store their files in a standardized 16 bit file format (while not using the entire numerical potential of the file format). I'll come back to this issue later, when I'll talk about digital image editing ...
This is why I chose to use a Nikon Coolscan V ED, a film scanner exclusively for 35mm or smaller film formats, which admittedly isn't cheap, but in my eyes is a very viable compromise if you want to avoid any 'wet' printing. There are other alternatives, but I can't offer any links in English at present - maybe someone else could fill them in...
Which film
Ooops - I don't want to start any religious wars here, so I won't recommend anything. Just some observations:
Whether a film will meet your expectations or not will depend on more than just the kind of film you use - but rather on the type of images you want to make. E.g., do you prefer high-key images (those which offer most density detail in the bright areas) or low-key images (with a maximum of detail in the shadows)?
From my experience, Tri-X is a very interesting choice not just for flexibility (pushing/pulling capability), but above all because of its rich reproduction of shadow tones. It has a downside, however, and that's grain.
The Tmax films feature much finer grain, but less richness in shadow tonality. Recovering shadow tones is already tricky when these films are used at box speed.
Chromogenic films like BW 400 CN or XP2 IMO are somewhat similar to Tmax films: Nice light/highlight tonalities, difficult for shadows.
You see, you will have to find your own way here, with some experimentation in relation to your own tastes... And then there's a completely new realm of additional challenges (developer choice, developing regimes, effective film speed choice) to be discovered...
Scanner Software
Scanner control and image editing inherently are two very dissimilar tasks, and I don't know of any software that can do a satisfactory job at both. There are some offerings that attempt to find a compromise, but I feel they end up doing a poor job at least in one of the two domains.
Scanning software is the equivalent to a remote-control program for your scanner - it ought to be capable of using your scanner to the max. Consider that your scanner is the equivalent to a camera - you can control cropping, light balance, exposure and contrast measurement, illumination, dust removal, grain reproduction and color reconstruction (think faded colors in old slide films) and many other parameters.
If you want to get good image quality, be prepared for some learning curve - I'm sorry, there's no magic here, just knowledge to ba acquired.
When I started researching film scanning, I reviewed three scanner control software packages: Viewscan (compatible with many scanner models, even older ones, and supports many computer operating systems. Reasonably priced, but clumsy user interface), Silverfast (tries to also offer image editing capabilities beyond scanner control. Strange, inflexible pricing and licensing policy, but this software sure has its following) and Nikon Scan (part of the Nikon Scanners' scope of delivery. Unusual user interface, mainly concentrates on scanner control).
I ended up with both Nikon Scan and Viewscan, and I use Nikon Scan most of the time (because mastering one strange user interface is more than enough for me).
Digital Image Editing Software
If you used a 'wet' darkroom in the past, then you'll eventually love the power of digital image editing. Going into a detailed discussion of software features and software recommendations would break my time limits for writing this post, so let me concentrate on what I think the core features will be with regard to processing scanned ilm images.
Contrast manipulation - the equivalent to using paper gradations in the past is to use gradation curves in an image editor. A gradation curve describes the before/after relationship of a contrast manipulation step in an image editor. Unlike with paper and wet processes, the gradation curve does not only manipulate contrast, but can limit contrast changes to a desired brightness range - very handy once you have understood the concept. Changes in contrast can quickly reveal deficiencies in an image file's data - you can produce banding or posterization if the file's data resolution is too coarse! This is where the scanner's tonal value data resolution comes into play - a correctly scanned 16-bit image file can produce much smoother tonal ranges than one produced in 8-bit resolution only!!
Localized Image Manipulations - this is the equivalent of dodging or burning. In an editor, you do this either by using 'temporary masks' or 'layers' in conjunction with e.g. gradation curves, and this concept allows you to go far beyond just dodging and burning, once you've mastered the software. This is because masks and layers can also be applied to sharpening, color manipulations or a lot of other manipulations.
Retouching - this is where the image editing magic really starts. You have gunk or dust particles on your film? No problem, you can edit them out and automatically reconstruct your film's grain structure where previously there used to be a big white blob (speaking of an inverted, scanned negative). That is, you don't just copy some neighboring part of the image into the place where you had gunk, but you automatically adjust the new spot's brightness, color hue and structure, so that the retouched spot effectively becomes invisible. Good image editors can even work across contrast borders and geometric patterns and help you save hours of work (when I decribed this to my octogenarian mother, a former professional photographer, her eyes lit up and she spoke about long working hours spent retouching her prints under a big magnifying glass, using minute squirrel hair brushes. She then continued that this alone would have been reason enough for her to use a computer if only she were 20 years younger).
So, what you need is a software that can process 16-bit TIFF files, that can do gradation curve manipulations, that can do those manipulations based on either masks or image layers, and that offers a choice of 'healing brush' type retouching functions.
Integrated editor / image management packages like Aperture or Lightroom might do the job. More control can be had using dedicated (but more expensive) editors like Photoshop CS5. A freeware editor alternative might be The Gimp.
Since I have a digital photography background, I use a Nikon Capture NX2 editor, which incidentally has a 'healing brush' retouching function that is IMO sensational - but II'm sure there are alternatives, too.
Last edited:
aad
Not so new now.
I think a decent flatbed will do OK as long as you stay away from slides-and you will have to learn Photoshop or something similar no matter what.
I went this way 5 years ago, and found a lot of advice-and a lot of it was hogwash, for my purposes. If you have the budget and patience, get pointers where you can, but trust your own eyes for your decisions, don't go down a path just because you read it was "the way".
I went this way 5 years ago, and found a lot of advice-and a lot of it was hogwash, for my purposes. If you have the budget and patience, get pointers where you can, but trust your own eyes for your decisions, don't go down a path just because you read it was "the way".
Frontman
Well-known
Sitting on my work table in front of me are an Epson Pro 750 flatbed scanner and a Canon Pro 9500 MK2 printer. I bought both of them new here in Japan, and the total price for the pair was about $1000.
There are better scanners than the Epson 750, but none are as cost efficient. I chose a flatbed scanner since I also shoot 4x5 film, and the Epson really shines when scanning larger formats. But I get good results even with 35mm film, and A4 (8x10) prints come out very well. I've even done some B4 prints, and the quality is acceptable.
I don't like to manipulate my images all that much, if such were the case I would simply shoot digital to begin with. I shoot film because I like prefer the appearance of film images, and developing film is something I enjoy. The only digital modifications I do to my images are cropping and occasional contrast adjustments, and for these I use Gimp software (available free).
The Canon Pro 9500 delivers excellent prints, and it is an excellent printer for black and white photography (due to the fact that it carries one gray and two black ink cartridges). It is no slouch with color prints either.
There are better scanners than the Epson 750, but none are as cost efficient. I chose a flatbed scanner since I also shoot 4x5 film, and the Epson really shines when scanning larger formats. But I get good results even with 35mm film, and A4 (8x10) prints come out very well. I've even done some B4 prints, and the quality is acceptable.
I don't like to manipulate my images all that much, if such were the case I would simply shoot digital to begin with. I shoot film because I like prefer the appearance of film images, and developing film is something I enjoy. The only digital modifications I do to my images are cropping and occasional contrast adjustments, and for these I use Gimp software (available free).
The Canon Pro 9500 delivers excellent prints, and it is an excellent printer for black and white photography (due to the fact that it carries one gray and two black ink cartridges). It is no slouch with color prints either.
rpilottx
Established
35mm for now
35mm for now
Well, I have used medium format in the past but presently pretty committed to 35 mm. I have some 120 slides but scanning them is not a priority so I am thinking dedicated film scanner.
Miles of TriX came from being a working photojournalist in the early 1970's. I still know my way around a wet darkroom (I have noticed that all the chemicals are pretty much the same) but have spent most of my professional life as a pilot in law enforcement/national security so I can use TriX or other. I plan on doing the film in the bathroom, then scanning and a limited amount of printing (only the good stuff).
And yes, I expect a lot of crawling before being able to walk or run. I retired a few years ago so I have the time and a desire to learn this type of process. As my wife says, it will keep me out of the bars.
Thanks for the input and keep it coming. Rich
35mm for now
Well, I have used medium format in the past but presently pretty committed to 35 mm. I have some 120 slides but scanning them is not a priority so I am thinking dedicated film scanner.
Miles of TriX came from being a working photojournalist in the early 1970's. I still know my way around a wet darkroom (I have noticed that all the chemicals are pretty much the same) but have spent most of my professional life as a pilot in law enforcement/national security so I can use TriX or other. I plan on doing the film in the bathroom, then scanning and a limited amount of printing (only the good stuff).
And yes, I expect a lot of crawling before being able to walk or run. I retired a few years ago so I have the time and a desire to learn this type of process. As my wife says, it will keep me out of the bars.
Thanks for the input and keep it coming. Rich
Arjay
Time Traveller
I want to fill in a little but important detail I forgot above:
Many scanners boast an 'ICE' function to automatically remove scratches and dust particles. They do this using a fourth 'color channel' for infrared besides red, green and blue.
For some reason that I can't explain, scratches detected via the infrared channel can be mathematically subtracted from the color image produced from scanning dye-based films (i. color negative and positive films as well as chromogenic BW films), but not from scans made of silver halide films. This is why retouching capabilities on one side and a painstakingly clean film development workflow on the other are extremely important when using films like Tri-X or Tmax.
BTW, there's a new thread here on RFF about a review of the Plustek 7600i-Ai film scanner that might be of interest to you.
Many scanners boast an 'ICE' function to automatically remove scratches and dust particles. They do this using a fourth 'color channel' for infrared besides red, green and blue.
For some reason that I can't explain, scratches detected via the infrared channel can be mathematically subtracted from the color image produced from scanning dye-based films (i. color negative and positive films as well as chromogenic BW films), but not from scans made of silver halide films. This is why retouching capabilities on one side and a painstakingly clean film development workflow on the other are extremely important when using films like Tri-X or Tmax.
BTW, there's a new thread here on RFF about a review of the Plustek 7600i-Ai film scanner that might be of interest to you.
tlitody
Well-known
Colour film grain is composed of dye clouds which transmit IR light. Dust, hair, drying marks(sediment) do not pass IR light and are therefore identifiable. B+W grain does not pass IR light and so looks like dust or sediment to the ICE software.
I think scratches deviate/scatter the IR light and therefore can be detected on colour film. B+W film grain also scatters the IR light.
So ICE doesn't work at all well on B+W as all the grain is detected as an imperfection. i.e. ICE is only for colour film.
Last edited:
Arjay
Time Traveller
Thanks for the explanation tlitody.
ICE does indeed work for one kind of BW films - for chromogenic films like Kodak BW 400 CN or Ilford XP2, because they are technically speaking color films with just one color layer. Or in other words, chromogenic films do not contain silver grain, their grain consists entirely of IR transmitting dye.
thegman
Veteran
For 35mm, I'd avoid flatbeds. I've got a Epson V700, for 120 it's superb, not so much for 35mm. For 35mm, maybe a Canon FS4000, or perhaps a Plustek, for BW film you don't need to worry too much about DMAX or about ICE (can't use it on BW film), so you really can use a pretty cheap scanner.
tlitody
Well-known
I guess if you have told the scan software that you are scanning silver grain film it might up the threshold for detection and look only for bigger imperfections but I don't have a current scanner to try it. The early Coolscan I had made a terrible job of B+W regardless of ICE or not. I guess the newer ones are better.
Arjay
Time Traveller
On my Coolscan V ED, you can switch on/off ICE and set some 'ICE intensity', but if you use any amount of ICE for silver halide films, the result will be a mess, with lost detail and screwed up tonality.
With ICE turned off, scans are very respectable, and a very good base for post-processing. Film grain will be reproduced rather pronouncedly, but that can be cured using the GEM function (practically w/o loss of detail).
Of course, ICE is a blessing for color and chromogenic BW films, and saves a lot of retouching work for these kinds of films.
Last edited: