Tired of scanning....

[bobby_novatron]

I almost think that the second image (the lab scan) looks a little too sharpened / grainy. The image just seems a little overly "coarse", but perhaps that is due to the inherent grain of the HP5+.

The benefit of the second scan is you can post-process later on and add more smoothing or reduce fine grain, etc. as your taste desires. With the first image there isn't a lot of room to work with.

That being said, I think with some experimentation and parameter changes it would be possible to get a "sharper" and more detailed scan from the Canon 9000. From what I've read the Canon is a very good machine.

Personally I own an Epson v700 and although it's not nearly as good as a pro / lab scanner, it does a really good job with most negatives. For my purposes it has paid for itself many times over.

 

[MiniMoke]

Do you have any idea what scanner the lab used?

Fuji Frontier SP3000

 

[Huss]

That was HP5+

Then definitely it is grain. I know you have now given the answer, but before you did I said #2 in a heart beat. I stand by that. Any 'issues' you may have with the scan maybe more with the way HP5+ scans, and it's look.

I would be very happy to use that lab if I was on the European continent.

Now try them using Fuji Acros. A very fine grain B&W film, and let's see if there are any perceived artifacts. I don't think there will be.

 

[MiniMoke]

I've fiddled with my scan some more, but it's definitely impossible to approach the resolution of the lab scan.

I can get a bit closer than the example above, but it stays softer.

Now who looks at pictures at 100% magnification....? Apart from RFF members 😀

You're right Huss, the lab scan is the better option, and a lot less work, as I said when I started this thread. Not to speak of color negative scans.

Just more expensive..... 😱.

I think I'll stand with my first decision to send my film out to the lab to get it scanned. Saves a lot of valuable time, and who said photography was a cheap hobby?

 

[Prest_400]

The slight fuzziness on #1 let me spot it as a Flatbed scan.

At the end I got a V550. Knowing that the flatbeds are quite limited in capability for 35mm it will mainly be for Medium Format. 6x9 at 2400ppi looks quite good!
I have scanned a bunch of negs already, taking about 2h per roll. (Perhaps it's the old Vista laptop it is tethered to now). I just let the batches scan while I'm doing other stuff around.

For Medium format it's faily good and lets me have more control over the output and costs... The small lab scans don't do much justice to such negatives. Just need to get hold of colour control and such. I did follow Colton's tutorial for neg scanning and Portra scans quite well.

However, for 35mm I think I might lab scan the odd roll.

 

[joeswe]

BW slides in a direct print with Harman or Imago direct positive paper with may enlarger. Probably I will try the new Galaxy paper solution next year as well.

Jan,
I would be very interested to know more about your personal workflow. How do you match the high gamma of a typical BW slide to the contrast of direct positive paper?
I am still looking for an easier (and more economical) workflow to quality print from b&w slides (easier than making a film internegative and contact printing from it, that is).

 

[ultra8]

Do you have any idea what scanner the lab used?

We use Fuji SP3000 and Noritsu HS1800 scanner in the lab. All sharpening options are off. The customer can shoose the contrast options during the order. What you see here is the pure grain from the HP5.

 

[mdarnton]

I just upped the quality on my camera scans. I replaced my Nikon D300 (12Mp with fuzzing filter on the sensor) with a D7200 (24Mp, no fuzzy on the sensor, too), the 55/3.5 micro-Nikkor and tube with a 63mm/2.8 El-Nikkor with a Bellows 5 and slide/film copying attachment. Copies are sharp, and now I'm seeing real grain instead of grain aliasing. Also, since the neg is directly mounted to the camera I don't have to worry about vibration now. The 63mm lens turns out to be an excellent performer, best at f11, which surprised me.

The biggest part of the cost, the D7200 was going to happen anyway, so I don't count that part of the cost. The rest set me back $175.