A big film scanner thread

[excalibur2]

But the labs choose to output the scans to a certain file size, e.g. FilmDev's medium scans all have a short side of 2048 pixels. This leads to the bizarre situation where a medium scan of a 35mm and 6x9 medium format negative would be the same size. A 6x45 medium scan would be smaller than a medium scan of a 35mm image.



I'm not sure how you read that from my comment of "I suspect the Noritsu or Frontier would outperform my Plustek by some margin with like-for-like settings."?

Well some confusion here? as there is a difference between scanned detail results from a neg and "the look of a scanned result from a neg"
And I'm open to be corrected in my understanding of scanners is wrong ..all scanners have a true dpi depending on the optics etc so the detail you get from the neg depends on the scanner from V550 to a £100,000 scanner.
So it doesn't matter if you have low or high scan, the detail in the neg stays the same as the lab scanner optics are designed to produce one result for detail no matter if the scan was 6,400 dpi i.e. you can't change the optics of the scanner from it's true dpi to produce better detail by increasing the scan.

 

[Retune]

But the labs choose to output the scans to a certain file size, e.g. FilmDev's medium scans all have a short side of 2048 pixels. This leads to the bizarre situation where a medium scan of a 35mm and 6x9 medium format negative would be the same size.

Might that just not be a consequence of the scanner design? Are the sizes the same at the highest resolution? With a flatbed, you'll get a larger file from scanning a larger area. But if you use (say) a dSLR to copy a 35mm and a 6x9 neg at full resolution, you'll get the same number of pixels with each - you just rack the camera a bit further away from the neg and re-focus (or zoom out). How do the optics in a minilab film scanner work? It would probably be sensible to optimise these scanners for 35mm, because that's what they will be doing most of the time. Maybe the 120 scans are just 'zoomed out' (by whatever means), with the same maximum resolution?

 

[FishyFish]

Well some confusion here? as there is a difference between scanned detail results from a neg and "the look of a scanned result from a neg"
And I'm open to be corrected in my understanding of scanners is wrong ..all scanners have a true dpi depending on the optics etc so the detail you get from the neg depends on the scanner from V550 to a £100,000 scanner.
So it doesn't matter if you have low or high scan, the detail in the neg stays the same as the lab scanner optics are designed to produce one result for detail no matter if the scan was 6,400 dpi i.e. you can't change the optics of the scanner from it's true dpi to produce better detail by increasing the scan.

Just to clarify, this isn't about the resolution of the scanner used by the lab so much, it's about the files that they output and send to the customer. Lab scanners like the Noritsu are capable of very high quality results - much higher than home scanning solutions such as my V550 or Plustek 8100 - but if the lab chooses to output the scans at a specific dimension then a lot of this will be lost as the image is made smaller. I suspect that this is done for business reasons as outputing true resolution files would take more time and the file sizes would be huge in comparison.

Might that just not be a consequence of the scanner design? Are the sizes the same at the highest resolution? With a flatbed, you'll get a larger file from scanning a larger area. But if you use (say) a dSLR to copy a 35mm and a 6x9 neg at full resolution, you'll get the same number of pixels with each - you just rack the camera a bit further away from the neg and re-focus (or zoom out). How do the optics in a minilab film scanner work? It would probably be sensible to optimise these scanners for 35mm, because that's what they will be doing most of the time. Maybe the 120 scans are just 'zoomed out' (by whatever means), with the same maximum resolution?

Here's an example of the size differences for different formats based on Filmdev medium scans. As you can see, the medium format scans are taking a very noticeable drop in resolution compared with 35mm - anything up to 6x9 will result in a smaller output image than 35mm. When you consider the significant increase in resolution offered by medium format film, it's something of a disappointment when most of that is lost.



By comparison, this is the sort of difference I would see if I scanned at home using the same DPI for each file and then saving it without any re-sizing (these are all V550 scans):

 

[FishyFish]

I've got some Fimdev large scans, so if I get the time I'll do a comparison against the same neg scanned on my Plustek at my usual dpi setting of 3600.

Here's a comparison of a larger Filmdev scan and a 3600dpi scan made on my Plustek 8100 and converted to positive using Grain2Pixel. The Filmdev scan is an unedited, full quality JPG from the original TIFF. The Plustek scan has had some sharpening added (My Filmdev scans are pre-sharpened by them) but is otherwise unedited. The Filmdev image is larger - 6674x4492 agains the Plustek 4992x3372.

I'm not sure what other processing is applied to the Noritsu scans by Filmdev. My Plustek scan seems to have more shadow detail, but the green lettering on the lens barrel is less well defined than the Noritsu scan.

Again, I'm sure that the Noritsu can easily outperform my Plustek, so this comparison is based purely on the received files.

Filmdev Large scan:

Plustek vs Filmdev large by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Plustek scan:

Plustek vs Filmdev large-2 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

And here are a couple of 100% crops.

Filmdev Large scan:


Plustek 8100 3600dpi scan:

 

[excalibur2]

Here's a comparison of a larger Filmdev scan and a 3600dpi scan made on my Plustek 8100 and converted to positive using Grain2Pixel. The Filmdev scan is an unedited, full quality JPG from the original TIFF. The Plustek scan has had some sharpening added (My Filmdev scans are pre-sharpened by them) but is otherwise unedited. The Filmdev image is larger - 6674x4492 agains the Plustek 4992x3372.

I'm not sure what other processing is applied to the Noritsu scans by Filmdev. My Plustek scan seems to have more shadow detail, but the green lettering on the lens barrel is less well defined than the Noritsu scan.

Again, I'm sure that the Noritsu can easily outperform my Plustek, so this comparison is based purely on the received files.

Filmdev Large scan:

Plustek vs Filmdev large by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Plustek scan:

Plustek vs Filmdev large-2 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

And here are a couple of 100% crops.

Filmdev Large scan:
View attachment 290660

Plustek 8100 3600dpi scan:
View attachment 290661

Where's that lab guy when you need him As I'm confused by all your results e.g. why a Noritsu scan from Filmdev is worse than a Plustek, which would suggest the Plustek is superior....have you compared results from other labs?

 

[trypdal]

Grain2Pixel really seems to do a fine job with colour negative inversions. Great to have so many options. If I had a newer version of Adobe Photoshop I'd try it for sure.

 

[FishyFish]

Where's that lab guy when you need him As I'm confused by all your results e.g. why a Noritsu scan from Filmdev is worse than a Plustek, which would suggest the Plustek is superior....have you compared results from other labs?

I don't think the raw Noritsu scans will be worse than a Plustek - I expect they will be superior. It's just that the resulting files are then seemingly down-sized to specific pixel dimensions which will lose some of the detail. e.g. a resulting file sent to a customer of a 35mm image and a 6x9 medium format image would be exatly the same size - 2048 pixels on the short side - so that means most of the extra detail resolved by a 6x9 camera will be lost when the image is re-sized. I've never used a Noritsu or Frontier, but I'm assuming that this re-sizing is done by the software via some sort of output resolution setting chosen by the operator.

 

[Retune]

This spec sheet for the Noritsu suggests a maximum resolution of 4824x3533 for 645 on the Noritsu, which is exactly the same size as the FilmDev large sample:

https://www.serranorey.com/brochures/Flyer_HS-1800-Scanner-Flyer.pdf

The long axis of the 645 scan isn't much longer than the short axis of the 35mm scan, for whatever reason. Is the orientation of the negative in the carrier different for 120?

Edit: But this site gives two sets of specifications for 120, ,without explanation:

HS-1800

PTS

www.ptscsg.com

The largest in the second set (with relatively low throughput) is much closer to the 35mm pixel dimensions. Maybe it depends on which configuration (negative carriers, etc.) you buy?

 

[excalibur2]

h'mm as to why you think:- "the resulting files are then seemingly down-sized to specific pixel dimensions" unless it's because a Tiff file of 6X9 would be so large and maybe the downloading site has a limit on the size of a file?

 

[FishyFish]

This spec sheet for the Noritsu suggests a maximum resolution of 4824x3533 for 645 on the Noritsu, which is exactly the same size as the FilmDev large sample:

https://www.serranorey.com/brochures/Flyer_HS-1800-Scanner-Flyer.pdf

The long axis of the 645 scan isn't much longer than the short axis of the 35mm scan, for whatever reason. Is the orientation of the negative in the carrier different for 120?

Edit: But this site gives two sets of specifications for 120, ,without explanation:

HS-1800

PTS

www.ptscsg.com

The largest in the second set (with relatively low throughput) is much closer to the 35mm pixel dimensions. Maybe it depends on which configuration (negative carriers, etc.) you buy?

I have some large Noritsu scans of 6x6 medium format and those are 4832x4760 (not sure why they aren't exactly square?).

Conversely, my V550 6x6 scans at 2400 dpi come out at approx 7200 pixels per side. Maybe I'll try another comparison scan to see how they compare in terms of detail with the Noritsu. I would expect that the V550 would show noticeable reduction in detail, even with a bigger image size, but who knows?

I guess we need someone who's familiar with using a Noritsu to get a definitive answer on why labs output images at certain sizes.

 

[FishyFish]

h'mm as to why you think:- "the resulting files are then seemingly down-sized to specific pixel dimensions" unless it's because a Tiff file of 6X9 would be so large and maybe the downloading site has a limit on the size of a file?

Larger files will definitely take longer to process and upload, so there could be an element of that to it.

 

[ChrisR]

Plustek have a technical support Email address and phone number.
I took my Nikon Coolscan to Fixation last year and also had my Epson flatbed fixed by an Epson approved technician somewhere in Suffolk I think, I can check if anyone’s interested.

Plustek as a company are pretty hopeless. I couldn't find that email address, so I filled in their technical support form, describing the problem (for second and subsequent scans of the same frame, the registration is out, resulting in a horrible multiple exposure effect). One of the things they asked for was an example image, which I provided. I suspect it was this that prompted their first response:

"Thank you for your enquiry. We are sorry but there is no support of third party software nor outdated drivers. Only supported software is SilverFast 8. Therefore we recommend to use SilverFast 8 for testing. Don\'t install any additional driver or patch because both is already included within latest version of SilverFast 8."

So I had asked about a hardware problem and I got a reply telling me I'd used the wrong software (I used Vuescan)! They did provide a link to a different form for further queries, so this time I explicitly asked to be pointed to someone who could service or repair the 7500i. There response this time:

"In case of a hardware failure you may send in the device on own risk & expense to our European service center which is located in Germany. Blanket cost of check/repair to that scanner model is GBP 180.00 + tax (16%) + shipping from Germany back to the UK.

"As soon as your scanner has arrived at our RMA we will send you an official cost estimation note to that scanner with detailed payment information. We do only accept advance payment via SEPA (no credit card, no Paypal)."

I presume SEPA is credit card, but I don't know.

In theory that could just about be worth it in comparison with buying a new 8200i (the equivalent new model), which sells for somewhere north of £300 these days (I paid £190 for mine in 2011). But, it seems a lot when the scanner still does its basic job quite well. I guess I can get by in most cases with single pass scans. It would mean the infra-red dust removal capability wouldn't work, but then I'm mostly scanning black and white these days.

I also tried Fixation, but they've replied just now to tell me they can't repair Plustek scanners, and that they would normally point me towards the manufacturer!

Aaarrrggghhh!

(There's a 7600i on the well known auction site at £49.99 with 1 bid, but who knows what that would go fo with a bidding war! Not sure what extra you get with a 7600i. Oddly, the slide holder suffers from exactly the same problem as mine, one bit of plastic missing...)

 

[dcbrookes]

It is precisely this problem of servicing which made me decide to sell my Minolta Dimage 5400 - any fault would have left me with an expensive brick. I now use a mirrorless camera and macro lens on a home made stand (currently Fuji X-T3 and Fuji 60mm macro). I am happy with the results (which for 35mm are much sharper than the Epson V700 I used to have). The Fuji macro only focuses to half size but this still gives me a 16Mp file which will print to 16" x 20". If I need anything bigger I have an adapted Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8. I briefly tried a Plustek 8100 but found it too slow and no better than my camera and light pad method.

 

[excalibur2]

H'mm so how much did the Fuji X-T3 and Fuji 60mm macro cost....IMO it would be more helpful if a post, was for people who might want to try a digi camera instead of a scanner would be :-
All you need is a ########## digi camera and it only cost ####### to equal (or get sharper results) compared to a scan from a V700 or Plustek or whatever..
erm anyone used a Nex 3 and compared it with a V700 scan
But if you are going to copy a neg with a digi camera you might as well have taken the shot with a digi camera in the first place....................

 

[Deleted member 21335]

This is a thread I have been following. I have a V700 myself and admittedly I haven't spent a long time trying to get the best results from it however it's very time consuming and I don't see how a flatbed can get results comparible to a scanner costing a few thousand pounts which has the sole purpose of scanning negatives as well as having a well trained operator behind it.

But then I see a lot of people taking control of the full workflow including developing (something I really enjoy) and scanning and printing (B&W) and I would really like to be able to do the full thing in one place at home but I find the scanning soul destroying.

Perhaps I should get the scanner out of it's box where it has been stored for at least a year now.

 

[excalibur2]

I have a V700 myself and admittedly I haven't spent a long time trying to get the best results from it however it's very time consuming and I don't see how a flatbed can get results comparible to a scanner costing a few thousand pounts which has the sole purpose of scanning negatives as well as having a well trained operator behind it.

But I have proved to myself that a scan from a V700 (or for me V750) is as good (or nearly as good) as a scan from a Fuji frontier for 35mm. But as mentioned before there are two things two consider.
1, a scanner's ability to get detail off a neg which can include detail in shadows.
2, the quality of the scan which is different from getting detail off a neg.
Number 2 is where you increase the scan to get more pixels per square cm so the quality is better (esp for crops) and where a good operator is useful, in getting the colours right, no spots etc.

A scanned shot from Filmdev, low scan, Vista and using Fuji frontier

A crop from Filmdev low scan Fuji frontier jpg


A crop from V750 that was scanned at 3200dpi using Epson software and reduced to nearly the same pixel dimensions as the Filmdev low scan. I did the same test years ago with Asda low scan and they were using a Fuji frontier


Well ignore the break up of pixels or quality of shot and just concentrate on seeing the detail and to me they look similar. I couldn't increase the crop from filmdev because of pixel breakup but of course I could with the V750 one as I scanned higher.

 

[ChrisR]

Brian, you're comparing a Filmdev Frontier low res scan with a V750 high res scan, I don't see how that comparison even makes sense!

 

[ChrisR]

H'mm so how much did the Fuji X-T3 and Fuji 60mm macro cost....IMO it would be more helpful if a post, was for people who might want to try a digi camera instead of a scanner would be :-
All you need is a ########## digi camera and it only cost ####### to equal (or get sharper results) compared to a scan from a V700 or Plustek or whatever..
erm anyone used a Nex 3 and compared it with a V700 scan
But if you are going to copy a neg with a digi camera you might as well have taken the shot with a digi camera in the first place....................

I think most of the people going down this route already have a DSLR and macro lens for other reasons. For them, that part of the kit is not an added expense, whereas buying a scanner (or in my case, replacing a scanner) would be. The (potential) extra bits like a copy stand, light table, negative holders etc would be the extra cost for those interested in DSLR scanning.

The DSLR/macro lens route clearly has some real benefits, but it also brings other problems into the workflow. Key among them would be good quality conversions from the negative to a positive image. @FishyFish has shown that can be achieved, with pretty decent results (though he is starting from a scanned image rather than a DSLR shot... dunno if that makes a difference).

I feel quite doubtful that a workflow that involved setting up the camera/lens, focusing, moving each negative into precisely the right position (*), loading the resulting shots into LR (or wherever), doing whatever preliminary processing is required as negative images, moving each shot into PS (which I don't have), converting each shot individually, then finally sending it back to LR (or whatever)... is going to work for me!

I think we should celebrate that we now have multiple ways of getting our film images into digital form, rather than arguing about which is superior in an absolutist sort of way.

* This does seem to be a case where tethered shooting would be an advantage, compared to squinting down a viewfinder pointing vertically downwards to the table...

 

[FishyFish]

The DSLR/macro lens route clearly has some real benefits, but it also brings other problems into the workflow. Key among them would be good quality conversions from the negative to a positive image. @FishyFish has shown that can be achieved, with pretty decent results (though he is starting from a scanned image rather than a DSLR shot... dunno if that makes a difference).

It shouldn't - all the Grain2Pixel plug-in does is convert a negative image to a positive, correcting for the film mask. I suppose if you set your digital camera's white balance to something odd, or if the negatives were backlit with something other than white light it could make a difference, but I presume no-one would do that anyway.

 

[excalibur2]

Brian, you're comparing a Filmdev Frontier low res scan with a V750 high res scan, I don't see how that comparison even makes sense!

Well Chris my point is:- the detail obtained from a neg by a scanner stays the same no matter what size the scan....well I'm assuming the start is about 1800pxs (low scan from Filmdev) from the long side of a 35mm neg.....but I haven't scanned a neg from something silly like 100dpi to see if this holds true.
Well I'll believe this until some one says "I'm talking a load of crap with proof"

 

[excalibur2]

I think most of the people going down this route already have a DSLR and macro lens for other reasons. For them, that part of the kit is not an added expense, whereas buying a scanner (or in my case, replacing a scanner) would be. The (potential) extra bits like a copy stand, light table, negative holders etc would be the extra cost for those interested in DSLR scanning.

The DSLR/macro lens route clearly has some real benefits, but it also brings other problems into the workflow. Key among them would be good quality conversions from the negative to a positive image. @FishyFish has shown that can be achieved, with pretty decent results (though he is starting from a scanned image rather than a DSLR shot... dunno if that makes a difference).

I feel quite doubtful that a workflow that involved setting up the camera/lens, focusing, moving each negative into precisely the right position (*), loading the resulting shots into LR (or wherever), doing whatever preliminary processing is required as negative images, moving each shot into PS (which I don't have), converting each shot individually, then finally sending it back to LR (or whatever)... is going to work for me!

I think we should celebrate that we now have multiple ways of getting our film images into digital form, rather than arguing about which is superior in an absolutist sort of way.

* This does seem to be a case where tethered shooting would be an advantage, compared to squinting down a viewfinder pointing vertically downwards to the table...

Ah you overlooked my point about does a digi camera copy looked like a scanned neg...at least a scanner tries to show all what's on the film e.g. grain, imperfections or whatever.
If it was such a great idea using a digi camera you'd think labs by now would have set this up, if you could somehow move each neg frame at a time and take a shot say @1/125 sec it would be very quick to do a roll of film so more profit, but then would you need the digi camera connected to a computer screen to see a decent picture for adjusting colours etc. Anyway the labs must have thought of it.

 

[FishyFish]

Ah you overlooked my point about does a digi camera copy looked like a scanned neg...at least a scanner tries to show all what's on the film e.g. grain, imperfections or whatever.
If it was such a great idea using a digi camera you'd think labs by now would have set this up, if you could somehow move each neg frame at a time and take a shot say @1/125 sec it would be very quick to do a roll of film so more profit, but then would you need the digi camera connected to a computer screen to see a decent picture for adjusting colours etc. Anyway the labs must have thought of it.

Using a digital camera aims to achieve the same result as a scanner. Using a macro lens will allow the image to resolve everything on the original negative, including grain and defects. The resulting image is then converted using Photoshop or whatever.

It's a labour intensive business though, even using one of the devices that have been launched to help keep the film flat / provide illumination etc. There's no way that it could beat a dedicated lab scanner for speed - have you seen how fast they run a roll?

e.g.

View: https://youtu.be/HSywQBK9JuU?t=65

 

[excalibur2]

The Fuji frontier is so slow in comparison to the Noritsu. At Asda (using a frontier) the fastest time the girl did my negs from dev to packing my negs in a folder with an index and CD was 17 mins....mind you I didn't watch her and she could have done something else in between..

 

[dcbrookes]

But if you are going to copy a neg with a digi camera you might as well have taken the shot with a digi camera in the first place....................

Not if the neg was taken 40 years ago!

 

[excalibur2]

Not if the neg was taken 40 years ago!

True and depends how many old negs you have, as scanning is very boring and it's not my favourite hobby. But if you could somehow enjoy scanning, I could show shots scanned with an old Epson scanner that I bought for £5 (might have been £2 as it was years ago) at the bootie and would produce good A4 prints.
No digi camera could compete with that for costs.
Anybody wondering how I got a nice flatbed scanner with film holders etc so cheap....well I argued with the guy it might not work and it didn't have an Epson power supply (I had a spare).

 

[Deleted member 21335]

The Fuji frontier is so slow in comparison to the Noritsu. At Asda (using a frontier) the fastest time the girl did my negs from dev to packing my negs in a folder with an index and CD was 17 mins....mind you I didn't watch her and she could have done something else in between..

Just for clarity, you regard that as slow? If it took me 17 minutes to scan a film, I'd be made up! Unfortunately I always found it much, much more time consuming than I liked.

Brian, you're comparing a Filmdev Frontier low res scan with a V750 high res scan, I don't see how that comparison even makes sense!

I thought that, and there seems to be some processing (background blur?) applied to the Frontier scan?

I read a good article yesterday about scanning with the Frontier and how aside from a drum scan or Flextight, it was probably going to be the highest quality scan you're going to get with an experienced operator behind it.
Also, I may have missed it but when we discuss scan sizes and costs from the labs, I don't see much discussion around the time the bigger scans take. No doubt a bigger scan takes longer (as it does on a flatbad) to resolve the extra detail, hence why bigger scans from labs cost more money. It's a good little article if you haven't read it (I shall link below) but one of the lines in it reads....

" First and foremost the scanner requires a experienced operator that exactly knows how to handle the machine. Second, the resolution of the Fuji Frontier is limited to the size of the CCD sensor that will be shifted by two small actuators. Depending on the amount of shifts we get different final resolutions. As far as I know only a hand full of labs in the world is able to achieve the XXL resolution from this scanner. In terms of numbers this means the highest resolution you will get from a 6x6 negative is 4096x4096px or for a 6x9 negative up to 4096x6144px. "

The magic Fuji Frontier SP-3000 — Sebastian Schlueter

A not really objective verdict On March 18th the article What’s With All the Poor Negative Film Reviews? by Brad Nichol´s was published on petaxpixel.com and I not only fully support his point of view, I would also like to use it as a starting point for an very personal tribute to a sing

www.sebastian-schlueter.com

 

[excalibur2]

ust for clarity, you regard that as slow? If it took me 17 minutes to scan a film, I'd be made up! Unfortunately I always found it much, much more time consuming than I liked.

Well it depends on what type of photographer you are and what subjects you take and don't mind the cost. If you can take 24 winning shots from a roll of film then let a lab do them and high scan for quality, but if like me (and maybe others) you might not get a winning shot from quite a few\many rolls of film. So for me I always get a lab low scan (as proofs) then you don't have to spend time scanning at home all the negs at higher scan for quality but just one or two and this way it doesn't take long to get the results you want even after using Photoshop...but then why bother at all for home scanning if you don't mind the costs just get the negs done at high scan from the best labs

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Well it depends on what type of photographer you are and what subjects you take and don't mind the cost. If you can take 24 winning shots from a roll of film then let a lab do them and high scan for quality, but if like me (and maybe others) you might not get a winning shot from quite a few\many rolls of film. So for me I always get a lab low scan (as proofs) then you don't have to spend time scanning at home all the negs at higher scan for quality but just one or two and this way it doesn't take long to get the results you want even after using Photoshop...but then why bother at all for home scanning if you don't mind the costs just get the negs done at high scan from the best labs

Make no mistake, Brian. I have many, many rolls (probably hundreds) with nothing worthy of public consumption on there. I do understand your approach and that's what works for you but personally I shoot film to spend less time in front of a computer (although sadly that's about to change, I fear). When my box of negatives came back from the lab at the beginning of this year, I was shocked how much film I had shot. I daren't add up the cost but being a thread about scanners, the discussion was around quality vs time (amongst other things) and the bit you quoted in your post you didn't answer and that was that you regard 17 minutes per roll as a slow workflow for a roll of film? You have to consider the cost vs time taken and how much you value that employees skill as a scan operator. The high end labs have very experienced people who take pride in their work and spend time tweaking and colour correcting and, if you have it, scan to your personal preferences with regards to temperature, sharpening, etc. This service takes longer and costs money and, I'm assuming they also want to make a profit for their business.

There are many different ways to digitise your film and methods that suit different budgets, expectations, time constraints and outputs. Whether that's a home scanning method which can be very time consuming but cheap and satisfying (yes, I would like full control over my workflow sometiemes) or outsourcing to different labs with different services at different price points so all your time is your own. However I am finding the timescale a little frustrating right now as I am at around 3 weeks from posting film to receiving my scans....most of which will be unsatisfying I am sure and not fit for public consumption.

 

[excalibur2]

Make no mistake, Brian. I have many, many rolls (probably hundreds) with nothing worthy of public consumption on there. I do understand your approach and that's what works for you but personally I shoot film to spend less time in front of a computer (although sadly that's about to change, I fear). When my box of negatives came back from the lab at the beginning of this year, I was shocked how much film I had shot. I daren't add up the cost but being a thread about scanners, the discussion was around quality vs time (amongst other things) and the bit you quoted in your post you didn't answer and that was that you regard 17 minutes per roll as a slow workflow for a roll of film? You have to consider the cost vs time taken and how much you value that employees skill as a scan operator. The high end labs have very experienced people who take pride in their work and spend time tweaking and colour correcting and, if you have it, scan to your personal preferences with regards to temperature, sharpening, etc. This service takes longer and costs money and, I'm assuming they also want to make a profit for their business.

There are many different ways to digitise your film and methods that suit different budgets, expectations, time constraints and outputs. Whether that's a home scanning method which can be very time consuming but cheap and satisfying (yes, I would like full control over my workflow sometiemes) or outsourcing to different labs with different services at different price points so all your time is your own. However I am finding the timescale a little frustrating right now as I am at around 3 weeks from posting film to receiving my scans....most of which will be unsatisfying I am sure and not fit for public consumption.

Well Gareth I don't want to come over as teaching grandma to suck eggs...but you have a very good scanner (V700) and it can take 24 frames 35mm at a time, you don't even have to worry about cleaning dust off at first, just scan at preview and all your shots come up on the screen as thumbnails (if selected)..then you can see if any shots are worth further scanning, if you have a few then clean those negs and scanner glass and use a blower.
And select preview again and then just tick the frames you want done at say 3200 dpi and it doesn't take long, of course the longest time would be cropping your shot (if necessary) and getting the colours, contrast etc on how you like them in Photoshop, Lightroom or whatever but it gets easier with more experience, but quite a few times you don't have use Photoshop etc as you might like the scanned results from the scanner.

 

[trypdal]

So many interesting points being made by everyone. The point that some of us went back to film photography to spend less time in front of a computer particularly resonates with me.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should try large format. It seems to me like LF would be able to provide the -for the lack of a better term- 'purest' film photography experience, ie the longest amount of time spent behind a camera, scouting a location, composing, and therefore thinking about the actual photograph; and the shortest amount of time spent doing post-processing (as I understand it, rarely do large format photographers return home after a session with more than 2-4 exposed sheets to process and scan).

But then of course it would all depend on the style/rhythm of photography desired, which in many cases would be affected by the large format inherent limitations.

 

[excalibur2]

So many interesting points being made by everyone. The point that some of us went back to film photography to spend less time in front of a computer particularly resonates with me.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should try large format. It seems to me like LF would be able to provide the -for the lack of a better term- 'purest' film photography experience, ie the longest amount of time spent behind a camera, scouting a location, composing, and therefore thinking about the actual photograph; and the shortest amount of time spent doing post-processing (as I understand it, rarely do large format photographers return home after a session with more than 2-4 exposed sheets to process and scan).

But then of course it would all depend on the style/rhythm of photography desired, which in many cases would be severely hampered by the large format inherent limitations.

What ever turns you on and if it's not for you, you can always say been there done it

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What ever turns you on and if it's not for you, you can always say been there done it

The last time I used a sheet film camera (a Linhoff 5x4) in anger was in 1971. I remember looking at the finished print and realising I could have achieved just as suitable a result with my 6x6. As you say, though, if it turns you on, go for it.

 

[excalibur2]

The last time I used a sheet film camera (a Linhoff 5x4) in anger was in 1971. I remember looking at the finished print and realising I could have achieved just as suitable a result with my 6x6. As you say, though, if it turns you on, go for it.

Well I have no experience of LF but there are some superb lenses for MF and maybe you used an inferior lens for LF...just guessing..

 

[Alan White]

As as newbie to this type of question, sorry it does fit with the thread.
New to scanning not Photography.

Is the Canon 9000f Mkii reasonable for negative scans.
I have one and when I tried the scan was terrible.

 

[Peter B]

As as newbie to this type of question, sorry it does fit with the thread.
New to scanning not Photography.

Is the Canon 9000f Mkii reasonable for negative scans.
I have one and when I tried the scan was terrible.

Looks like the test report on filmscannerinfo suggests it's down to the software used, and you might not have the best software with it? It's a pretty comprehensive report, so worth taking a few minutes to read it all.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Well I have no experience of LF but there are some superb lenses for MF and maybe you used an inferior lens for LF...just guessing..

There was nothing technically wrong with the image. I just realised that I could have obtained the same result with my Rollieflex much more easily.

 

[dcbrookes]

There was nothing technically wrong with the image. I just realised that I could have obtained the same result with my Rollieflex much more easily.

You could not have achieved the same results with a Rollei if you needed the movements a view camera can give you. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s I used a Sinar P monorail 5" x 4" camera for architectural work: at the same time I had a Yashicamat and the capabilities of the two were very different (I tried studio portraiture with the Sinar once - now that was a job for the TLR!). Incidentally I have scanned all my 5" x 4" and 6 x 6 negatives from those day with an Epson V700 and the results were very satisfactory - it was when scanning 35mm film that I found the V700 was not really up to scratch (and I tried all the different adjustments and permutations available).

The first dedicated film scanner I had was a Canon 2700 - poor D Max and terrible bundled software. My second dedicated film scanner was a Minolta Dimage 5400 - very good results but glacially slow with the Minolta software; better with Vuescan but still slow. I sold this because of concerns about its long-term viability and later tried a Plustek 8100, again using Vuescan. I found the Plustek, as well as being slow, over-emphasised film grain (possible because of the light source - the older among you will remember the debates about condenser v diffuser enlargers). I also possess several iterations of Silverfast, but I would rather have my fingernails removed without anaesthetic that use it.

So now I have reverted to using a camera and macro lens, as I mentioned in a previous post: I have used Olympus, Sony and Fuji cameras and lenses and the results have all been excellent. My copy stand consists of an offcut of kitchen worktop with a collection of Arca Swiss rails and brackets bolted to it placed over an A4 LED panel.. Ironically I use Plustek negative and slide carriers to keep the film and slides flat and aligned.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You could not have achieved the same results with a Rollei if you needed the movements a view camera can give you.

So the conclusions you might have drawn are that I didn't need to use movements and that the print size was such that the difference between 5x4 and 6x6 was irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Does anyone have any experience with the Flextight?

My scan email has just been received from Silverpan with my Ektachrome scans but I won't get to see them until I get home from work. A few firsts for me. First time using this lab, scans from the Flaxtight and first roll of Ektachrome. Exciting times.

 

[FishyFish]

Does anyone have any experience with the Flextight?

My scan email has just been received from Silverpan with my Ektachrome scans but I won't get to see them until I get home from work. A few firsts for me. First time using this lab, scans from the Flaxtight and first roll of Ektachrome. Exciting times.

Other than drooling at the thought of owning one, no.

I'll be very interested in your results though.