bjolester
Well-known
I have a very nice Pentax 67ii system that I use in combination with 35mm film and a Pentax K-5iis dslr. Even though I love photographing with the large Pentax 67ii, I find film processing and scanning cumbersome and expensive. I shoot mostly Fuji Provia 100F and have to send my films to the ÚK for processing. I scan my medium format films on an Epson V750 flatbed, and besides being time consuming, the results from my V750 are not always satisfactory, especially with low light shots on slide film. Many times I wonder if I should just have photographed with the K-5iis instead...
I would appreciate some advice based on the images I include below. This image was shot with the Pentax 67ii and SMC 67 45mm f4 lens on Fuji Provia 100F scanned on an Epson V750 at 6400 ppi > reduce image size in photoshop with bicubic sharpen to 2400 ppi.
Do you think I would gain much by looking at a dedicated medium format scanner, like the Plustek 120, or by investing in a DSLR duping set-up?
Gloppedalsura 6x7 by bjolester, on Flickr
I would appreciate some advice based on the images I include below. This image was shot with the Pentax 67ii and SMC 67 45mm f4 lens on Fuji Provia 100F scanned on an Epson V750 at 6400 ppi > reduce image size in photoshop with bicubic sharpen to 2400 ppi.
Do you think I would gain much by looking at a dedicated medium format scanner, like the Plustek 120, or by investing in a DSLR duping set-up?
Gloppedalsura 6x7 by bjolester, on Flickr
Attachments
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't think it is scanner. It is scanner trying to deal with not ideal negatives.
And if you think what taking pictures of negatives with camera rig and reversing them in PP is not time consuming, play it again
.
And if you think what taking pictures of negatives with camera rig and reversing them in PP is not time consuming, play it again
.SaveKodak
Well-known
I currently use a D810 and a film toaster to scan some film. It yields good results, especially with chromes and B&W film. Recent software has made C41 conversions much better too. It is certainly higher resolving than an Epson. Probably not as high as a dedicated film scanner like a Plustek, assuming the plustek isn't banding which I'm not sure if they fully resolved. However the D810 scans are close enough with single capture that I'm not going back. Full disclosure, I own a film lab and also scan with 2 Fuji Frontier SP-3000s. I think it says a lot that I'm quite pleased with the DSLR scans. What I like about DSLR scanning is that the capture device gets better as time goes on, where as with the Fuji Frontiers I'm constantly maintaining geriatric machines. I need them however, because in a volume environment they are unmatched.
I should also say that the crops you're showing are quite extreme enlargements. I can't stress enough that you should judge your scan at your desired print size, not simply it's 100% view in PS or LR. It's still pixel peeping, and it's a waste of time. If you find yourself still wanting more, you can order a drum scan of particular frames going to exhibition. For day to day scanning while you're working on a project, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Personally I'd advise film shooters to buy an Epson or similar pigment printer, and scan for that print size. I have a P6000, and I'm quite pleased with my scans that will print easily to it's maximum roll format. I don't think about how the file would look printed at 60", if i'm not printing to 60".
I should also say that the crops you're showing are quite extreme enlargements. I can't stress enough that you should judge your scan at your desired print size, not simply it's 100% view in PS or LR. It's still pixel peeping, and it's a waste of time. If you find yourself still wanting more, you can order a drum scan of particular frames going to exhibition. For day to day scanning while you're working on a project, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Personally I'd advise film shooters to buy an Epson or similar pigment printer, and scan for that print size. I have a P6000, and I'm quite pleased with my scans that will print easily to it's maximum roll format. I don't think about how the file would look printed at 60", if i'm not printing to 60".
css9450
Veteran
Dan Daniel
Well-known
The simplest thing for you to do is try a camera scan of the same negatives. The V750 is capable of getting better scans than you have here- some of the scanning bands indicate flaws in your settings.
But using a camera is SLOW. You'll most likely want to do multiple shots and then stitch them together, and 80 mb stitch jobs aren't one-second affairs.
My basic workflow is to do scans with my V700. I see this as proof prints. Then if I want to do better with an image I will do a camera scan.
But using a camera is SLOW. You'll most likely want to do multiple shots and then stitch them together, and 80 mb stitch jobs aren't one-second affairs.
My basic workflow is to do scans with my V700. I see this as proof prints. Then if I want to do better with an image I will do a camera scan.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I’ve chosen a dedicated film scanner (Nikon 9000) over a flatbed or DSLR scanning for quality reasons; others have chosen DSLR scanning over dedicated film scanners and flatbeds for what appear to them are quality reasons, I assume. We all have our reasons, but either high quality film scanners or DSLR scanning will yield results which are better than any flatbed. That’s about the only thing everyone is likely to agree on. (Maybe not even that?)
Doing it well is time consuming, and possibly expensive, all things considered. Doing it really well requires some considerable skill, no matter how you do it. It’s never going to be a matter of just pushing a button, any button.
Is it worth it? I don’t know, I do it all the time, but it’s not for everyone.
Getting perfect scans requires a lot of familiarity with the intracicies of better scanning software, plus, tbh, a drum scanner. Just sucking it up and doing all your shooting with the Pentax K5 probably is more sensible. Doesn’t particularly appeal to me, but it’s more sensible.
Doing it well is time consuming, and possibly expensive, all things considered. Doing it really well requires some considerable skill, no matter how you do it. It’s never going to be a matter of just pushing a button, any button.
Is it worth it? I don’t know, I do it all the time, but it’s not for everyone.
Getting perfect scans requires a lot of familiarity with the intracicies of better scanning software, plus, tbh, a drum scanner. Just sucking it up and doing all your shooting with the Pentax K5 probably is more sensible. Doesn’t particularly appeal to me, but it’s more sensible.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
That’s not a bad idea.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Its Fuji Provia, not negatives.
What explains it. I rarely get good quality from any Fuij film.
Just heck a lot of contamination of developer and huge amount of poop to the sink from every Fuji film I developed.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No matter how you cut it, making photographs with film takes more effort and energy than making photographs with digital capture. And costs more per frame. So at some level, you just have to find a way to convince yourself that the effort is worth it, and accept the costs.
With respect to digitizing medium format film, I owned a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED for that purpose for several years. It produces FAR better results than any flatbed scanner I've tried, but is a large and cumbersome beast of a thing to set up and use. If I were planning to make 24" or 36" wide prints of my medium format photos, it is the least of what I'd want for that task ... but I never did and have no plans to in the future.
What I've found it that with at good copy setup using a FF or APS-C camera, I can get the same level of quality out of my 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 cm negatives or transparencies for up to a 13x19 inch print I make at home, or for the occasional larger canvas print that I send out for. To do that, it takes:
- A very good negative or transparency (sharp, exposed properly, processed well, etc).
- A good copy stand that can hold the camera and lens rock steady.
- Consistent color-temperature controlled lighting for the negative or transparency.
- An appropriately high resolution camera and lens setup. **
- Copy exposure that is right on the mark.
- Well worked out image processing to render the capture to a final photo well.
** I've done this work with 5, 7.5, 10, 16, and now 24 megapixel cameras over the years, as the cost and availability of such cameras has come along. I did it with Pentax equipment in the middle to late '00s and got very good results. I've used plenty of other cameras as well; nowadays, I have been using the Leica CL body and a set of Leica R lenses to do the job. The quality of what I get now is as good as I can imagine needing ... It's better than what I normally need, as a matter of fact. So I'm done hunting for equipment and can concentrate on just making my photos.
As I said up top, this is not an effortless process. If you want far less effort and very good results up to this size range, I'd just stick with digital capture and work on your technique with that until you get what you want.
But there is a magical lure to using medium format film that I've never gotten away from, so I keep a couple of nice cameras around for when I want to expend the effort.
Good luck!
G
mod2001
Old school modernist
There's definitely something wrong, if you want to see what you can achieve with an Epson V7xx and Fuji Provia 100F take a short look here.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?group_id=1144482@N25&view_all=1&text=6x7 Epson
I used this combo many years for my MF stuff (scanned at 3600dpi) and the prints up to A3 were wonderful. A good dedicated MF scanner will provide better results, but imho you should first invest more time in your current workflow (including exposure if this was the main reason) to get it right and then think if you really need another scanner or DSLR setup, and this depends simply on your final output, means print (size).
Juergen
https://www.flickr.com/search/?group_id=1144482@N25&view_all=1&text=6x7 Epson
I used this combo many years for my MF stuff (scanned at 3600dpi) and the prints up to A3 were wonderful. A good dedicated MF scanner will provide better results, but imho you should first invest more time in your current workflow (including exposure if this was the main reason) to get it right and then think if you really need another scanner or DSLR setup, and this depends simply on your final output, means print (size).
Juergen
mod2001
Old school modernist
-- stupid post
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Every combination of digital camera+in camera processing engine+RAW file processing software has its own, and different, color signature.
Every scanning software relies on algorithms which interpret color and tones differently. The notion that using either one of those approaches is just going to spit out exact digital copies of the film at hand is absurd on its face, all wishful thinking aside.
Whether you use a scanner or a DSLR to “scan” film, it’s the baked in digital processing algorithms which will be spitting out the result, and those algorithms can’t think, nor do they care what you want. If you want results which look exactly like Provia 100, the only way, not just the simplest way, but the only way, is to project it and be done with it.
Trying to match various film stocks with one size fits all workflow is time consuming at best, futile occasionally.
This isn’t to say that you cannot end up with a pleasing result, or sometimes even a result which is “better” in some artistic ways than the original slide, if you spend enough time futzing with the files, but it’s a long way around trying to get an image.
Scanned film, no matter how you do it, is almost a separate discipline from either film photography or digital photography, with its own arcane rules and pitfalls. It can be rewarding, but, like film photography and digital photography it has its own distinct learning curve. Maybe two learning curves is enough for most people.
Every scanning software relies on algorithms which interpret color and tones differently. The notion that using either one of those approaches is just going to spit out exact digital copies of the film at hand is absurd on its face, all wishful thinking aside.
Whether you use a scanner or a DSLR to “scan” film, it’s the baked in digital processing algorithms which will be spitting out the result, and those algorithms can’t think, nor do they care what you want. If you want results which look exactly like Provia 100, the only way, not just the simplest way, but the only way, is to project it and be done with it.
Trying to match various film stocks with one size fits all workflow is time consuming at best, futile occasionally.
This isn’t to say that you cannot end up with a pleasing result, or sometimes even a result which is “better” in some artistic ways than the original slide, if you spend enough time futzing with the files, but it’s a long way around trying to get an image.
Scanned film, no matter how you do it, is almost a separate discipline from either film photography or digital photography, with its own arcane rules and pitfalls. It can be rewarding, but, like film photography and digital photography it has its own distinct learning curve. Maybe two learning curves is enough for most people.
bjolester
Well-known
Thank you all for such interesting comments and advice! Highly appreciated!
mod2001
Old school modernist
Another thing, get a good light table with daylight settings (5400K) and a good loupe if you shoot often MF-slides. Its a lot fun too look at and it helps to identify possible errors in the first 2 steps (exposure and development).
Juergen
Juergen
charjohncarter
Veteran
I don't think it is scanner. It is scanner trying to deal with not ideal negatives.
And if you think what taking pictures of negatives with camera rig and reversing them in PP is not time consuming, play it again
Agree, I have done it and lots of post.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Which lab are you using in the UK?
Most I have used will do a scan, perhaps rather than speculate, see what results they produce from a scan to see if it is your scanner. I don't use slide film as a rule but I do develop my own C41 (rarely shoot it) and I've had more than acceptable results scanning via an Epson V800.
Incidentally, I'd love to shoot some film in Norway, it looks spectacular!
Most I have used will do a scan, perhaps rather than speculate, see what results they produce from a scan to see if it is your scanner. I don't use slide film as a rule but I do develop my own C41 (rarely shoot it) and I've had more than acceptable results scanning via an Epson V800.
Incidentally, I'd love to shoot some film in Norway, it looks spectacular!
bjolester
Well-known
It is interesting to learn about your experience with "scanning" film with the Nikon D810. I guess I would have to do stiching with my 16mp Pentax K-5 when duping medium format film to achieve similar results, but I need to research this option.
I am fortunate to own both versions of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, and I am very satisfied with scans of 35mm film. In fact, my 35mm scans are much nicer than medium format scans from the V750. So even though I enjoy shooting medium format film, the scans from the V750 are "dry" or "flat" in comparison to the output of the Minoltas. And it is not primarily about resolution, it is more about tonality and "overall look". When studying my medium format films on a Kaiser light table with a very good 4x Peak loupe I can see what I am not getting from the V750.
Hm... maybe I should just look for a Mamiya Cabin 6x7 slide projector instead of struggling with scanning?
bjolester
Well-known
I use the Darkroom lab for developing my films: https://www.the-darkroom.co.uk
I have in fact been planning to send some of my medium format negatives and slides to Tim Parkin in the UK to have them drum scanned. In this way I will be able to compare my V750 scanning with drum scans, probably very helpful.
bjolester
Well-known
I have been using the V750 regularly since 2013, and scanned maybe 1000 medium format negatives and slides these five years. Deep dense shadows in slides are never successfully captured with the V750. When trying to bring out the shadows, noise and banding is always a side effect. I know because I have A-B compared scans from dense 35mm slides scanned with the V750 and the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 version 1, and there is a huge difference between these two scanners’ performance. The Minolta is superb.
Prest_400
Multiformat
I happened to have a phase of pastel colored overexposed C41 film. Those results are rather easy with lab scanners and density correction but my V550 won't take overexposed (dense) color neg nicely.
I intend sometime in the future to upgrade my current m43 to an EM5II or such. That camera has a sensor shift HiRes mode that seems smart. Interestingly, I found a listing on ebay with the reason that its bit depth on that mode was insufficient for C41 (inversion) needs. Anyways, I intend to deviate towards B&W in darkroom this year, and not been thinking scanning at all.
I know the feeling, being a maximizing person. Feels that you throw a lot of what the format offers when you have subpar scanning. V550 is sufficient for 30x45 prints (6x9) but feels that the Neg has more holding there.