mod2001
Old school modernist
How do you edit negatives without scanning? Anyway, I revisit my photos after a while and quit often I find shots which didn't get my attention in the first place, so I want to have the complete roll on the computer.
Juergen
brbo
Well-known
6000x4000px doesn't make it the highest resolution 35mm scanner. That's 4000dpi, which it easily does (when the focus is properly calibrated).
ptpdprinter
Veteran
A loupe? The preview scan?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I edit on a light table with a loupe. There is no problem editing and making decisions by looking at a negative image once you get over the assumption that you cannot do it. You will always get more information looking at the original, the actual film, than a second generation such as a scan.
Only scanning a handful of negatives after editing not only saves much time but also allows you to do the very best you can with what you do scan.
I began doing similar many decades ago processing E-6 at home. It took too much time manually cutting individual frames and heat sealing them in cardboard mounts. So instead of mounting 36 transparencies which I would later save like 6 and throw like 30 away, I would decide before. Then I would only mount like 6 and throw like 30 unmounted away, still in strips.
Editing requires you develop decisive confidence. Without that, you will eventually find yourself overwhelmed with too many options.
mod2001
Old school modernist
Probaly, I can't edit via loupe, and with a preview scan you have the same annoying handling with film holders or strips. Thats the part I want to avoid, plus not to wait hours like with the RPS10M until the whole roll is scanned.
Juergen
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I do not have the necessary instrumentation to measure actual resolution in a scan file. Do you know anyone who does and what they actually got? I strongly suspect those numbers are the manufacturers computations based on theoretical positioning of the scan head but ignoring all optical, electronic noise, and focus factors. That is a world of difference.
I do know that old Noritsu and Frontier scans don't come close to the resolution I get from my Minolta MultiPro with the negative sandwiched between two pieces of optical glass in the carrier.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Many are so sure they cannot edit a negative with a loupe that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is similar to those who are sure they cannot compose with a view camera because the image is inverted.
brbo
Well-known
I have (or had) Noritsu LS-600, Minolta 5400, Howtek 4500, Microtek 120tf, Nikon 8000, Epson 700, Epson 4990... and have measured resolutions on most of them with my USAF 1951 resolution chart film. I can't run the resolution chart in Noritsu as it needs sprocket holes on the film and my chart doesn't have them, so I can't give you exact resolution numbers on Noritsu. But, I've done enough true 4000dpi (and higher) scans on other scanners and compared them to Noritsu files. I frankly can't see what you are talking about.
Not the best example (and flickr compression doesn't help), but after cleaning my computer this was all I found:
Noritsu LS-600
Howtek 4500
Minolta 5400
Minolta 5400 has the best resolution, Howtek the worst (drum scanners don't do so well on grainy negative film), but I can't see Noritsu not matching any other 4000dpi scanner...
Bob Michaels
nobody special
brbo: thanks. Your test results and conclusions are informative. They are quite different from my personal experiences. But, my experiences were from the 2000-2002 era. Possibly the hardware has improved since that time or maybe it is as simple as my results coming from a typical mini lab operator vs. someone who sought to get the best of out of the hardware.
I am a real believer in the "different strokes for different folks". I will stay happy editing first and scanning select frames on my MultiPro with the glass carrier. Others will be happy working with their Noritsu. So good that we all can be satisfied.
I am a real believer in the "different strokes for different folks". I will stay happy editing first and scanning select frames on my MultiPro with the glass carrier. Others will be happy working with their Noritsu. So good that we all can be satisfied.
rolfe
Well-known
Well, I would have to say your Noritsu was misfocused or otherwise out of alignment because mine delivers spectacular results that are very close to my Imacon. I have to say that mine was focused and aligned by an expert before he sold it to me and I do have the hard to find focusing tools to keep it in perfect order. I suspect some of these machines have not been so well attended to.
Rolfe
Takkun
Ian M.
Regarding editing before scanning:
I've studied under two professors with two very different schools of thought.
One, in journalism school, was a proponent of shooting as much of a subject as possible, and print/scan only three or four, if that, per roll. She could spot picks from a contact sheet in under a minute flat (and would chastise you for wasting time printing anything else). That decision making skill was valuable moving to digital.
The other, from whom I studied LF and architecture photography, stressed the importance of note-taking and scanning, or at least contact printing, everything, for one's own record keeping. You never know if an image will round out a collection, caught something you missed, or just be a record of a particular film/dev/technique combination; doesn't mean you need to fully process each image.
With the Minolta and its six-frame holders, I took the former approach more often, since the device required more attention. With the Coolscan and roll film attachment, scanning an entire roll at a time at full resolution isn't a problem, and is less time in front of the screen. I get a digital contact sheet at the end of it, and can down-res or delete what I won't intend to print without any added effort.
Considering my subject matter often includes street snaps I don't know if they turned out as keepers, personal snapshots and memories, and streetscapes that might be of later historic interest, it's worth it to get everything digitized before decision making. The executive process is still important, just shifted to a later point, with the added benefit of everything digitized and at hand.
One example: about a year ago, I worked on a historic survey in a very rapidly changing neighborhood here in Seattle. We needed pre-development images for comparisons, and luckily I had a whole hard drive of snapshots from a decade ago, scanned during processing and ready to go. None of them were 'keepers,' per se, anything I'd want to print or even spend time on, but it was great to have them ready during a deadline.
But I realize that's a unique situation and an idiosyncratic workflow. I like to think I'm fairly disciplined while editing and shooting, so I have a higher percent of what I think are keepers. That's why I value a batch-capable scanner, so I spend more time actually editing than feeding the machine. I do see the downsides, however, having known the type of people who don't dare delete any digital image they've ever shot.
But back to the discussion at hand.
First, the economics are a bit clearer now that I've looked around at what's available used. It's amazing how cheap the Coolscans are going even compared to when I got mine.
Second, regarding image quality: Nominally, the Minolta 5400 is higher resolution, but I definitely get better quality images from the LS4000 because of film flatness thanks to the roller transport. I don't think I ever scanned at full resolution with the Minolta and had far more problems with dust, alignment, and film curvature. I'd be curious to watch the mentioned Pakon and Noritsu models in action.
I've studied under two professors with two very different schools of thought.
One, in journalism school, was a proponent of shooting as much of a subject as possible, and print/scan only three or four, if that, per roll. She could spot picks from a contact sheet in under a minute flat (and would chastise you for wasting time printing anything else). That decision making skill was valuable moving to digital.
The other, from whom I studied LF and architecture photography, stressed the importance of note-taking and scanning, or at least contact printing, everything, for one's own record keeping. You never know if an image will round out a collection, caught something you missed, or just be a record of a particular film/dev/technique combination; doesn't mean you need to fully process each image.
With the Minolta and its six-frame holders, I took the former approach more often, since the device required more attention. With the Coolscan and roll film attachment, scanning an entire roll at a time at full resolution isn't a problem, and is less time in front of the screen. I get a digital contact sheet at the end of it, and can down-res or delete what I won't intend to print without any added effort.
Considering my subject matter often includes street snaps I don't know if they turned out as keepers, personal snapshots and memories, and streetscapes that might be of later historic interest, it's worth it to get everything digitized before decision making. The executive process is still important, just shifted to a later point, with the added benefit of everything digitized and at hand.
One example: about a year ago, I worked on a historic survey in a very rapidly changing neighborhood here in Seattle. We needed pre-development images for comparisons, and luckily I had a whole hard drive of snapshots from a decade ago, scanned during processing and ready to go. None of them were 'keepers,' per se, anything I'd want to print or even spend time on, but it was great to have them ready during a deadline.
But I realize that's a unique situation and an idiosyncratic workflow. I like to think I'm fairly disciplined while editing and shooting, so I have a higher percent of what I think are keepers. That's why I value a batch-capable scanner, so I spend more time actually editing than feeding the machine. I do see the downsides, however, having known the type of people who don't dare delete any digital image they've ever shot.
But back to the discussion at hand.
First, the economics are a bit clearer now that I've looked around at what's available used. It's amazing how cheap the Coolscans are going even compared to when I got mine.
Second, regarding image quality: Nominally, the Minolta 5400 is higher resolution, but I definitely get better quality images from the LS4000 because of film flatness thanks to the roller transport. I don't think I ever scanned at full resolution with the Minolta and had far more problems with dust, alignment, and film curvature. I'd be curious to watch the mentioned Pakon and Noritsu models in action.
mod2001
Old school modernist
In this case, I'm not many. Believe me I tried.
No problem here
love it, in some way I find it even easier to compose. But I also know people who never get used to it, same with MF's and the mirrored image like the Hasselblad (this took me while to get it too).Juergen
mod2001
Old school modernist
Same here, just instead of a contact sheet like in early times, I use the scans as base in my decision process. Miss the good old times with a contact sheet though.
Exactly my point
Not to forget it's always nice to have a kind of backup for the negatives. I had a few years ago a quite important roll with photos of my kids, for whatever reason the film show after a while strange white blurbs and no chance to get rid of it. Luckily I had high resolution scans of the whole roll.Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tzXKij8xF0&t=1161s The scan process itself is from 07:00 to 10:50.
Juergen
SURF
Member
Thanks a lot! I never saw the scanner with such a terrible distortion like this Noritsu LS-600. It destroys the zen like picture (as seen on a Howtek 4500 scan).
Old thread, I know, but I just saw these pics.
brbo
Well-known
The film transport in Noritsu scanners IS prone to distorting the image (stretching or compressing part of the image). I'd never notice it without comparing it directly to another scan, though...
SURF
Member
Sometimes I notice it, sometimes I prefer not to care. But this is what makes scanners to differ. Great scanners make relaxed pictures (if the shooting lens was great too). Noritsu scanners is a big no-no to me now. Not that I ever used them. M5400 is a better scanner in that field. Sag of the film is not that destructive.