Quality of negative scanners?

Robert, yeah..medium format film looks pretty cool. I've never done that before but it's something I may check out in the future. I don't think its a practical option for this trip, though, because I need something small that I can just throw around my neck and go hiking around with without being a burden.

If you want to control grain then I would recommend medium format.

 

Also, with Medium Format you can scan using a V500 and print quite nice

8x10's and 11x14's. A nikon 9000 scanner is around 2 grand and that is without the mandatory 300 dollar glass holder. Unless you are doing a lot of printing for exhibition at medium print sizes like 11x14 or 16x20 then save for your cash for a professional drum scan. The nikon is sharper than the v500. However, at what cost? think of your needs carefully. How often and at what print size will make enlargements? big, medium or small size?

 

I shoot medium format for maximum quality and have the option of large prints if needed. If I need a 30x40, I get a Drum Scan. IMHO I feel there is a big difference in massive print sizes between one of these scans and the Nikon. If the Nikon was a little more reasonably priced I would probably get one however even in this scenario I would still be sending out my best work to be drum scanned.

 

If you plan to stick with 35mm then a Film Scanner is just about mandatory even for 8x10's.

Stuart, from my experience with Nikon 5000 scanners, negative scans often show more grain or grain aliasing, that does slide film. Depends on film type, ISO etc.

 

If you plan to scan negatives, expect to need to run the GEM (grain reduction) feature of Ice. Be aware GEM adds time to a scan and sometimes leaves swirl artifacts in its wake.

There reason "consumer level scanners" are the topic of discussion on photo.net is that most all folks here are consumers who scan for fun; not as a way to make a living day in and day out. The scanner is consumed and considered a trendy tool thats typically not used long and upgraded based on emotion and not return on investment. In professional scanning for the public many times so called consumer grade scanners are used if they make economic sense. The typical publics input for scanning is not a clean room kept negative; but ones stored just average; or worse stuff thats a moldy mess stuck together in a shoebox that went under salt water in katrina. Crap like this can foul up a high end film scanner. Much of this stuff is so poor even a flatbed works well; plus the mold and dirt dont go into a delicate optical chain.<BR><BR>Here my excitement over film scanners has waned. We got our first high end scanner back in 1990 that ran under DOS with a GUI like window. Then we got B&W scanners that are 36" wide; and then color. We have been thru a dozen or two flatbeds and about 6 modern type 35mm scanners.<BR><BR>The general public doesnt shoot with tech pan; with a summicron at F8; with the camera on a granite block with a calbe release.:) There is alot of "stuff" that folks bring in for scanning that's just the common iso 800 35mm print film of soccer; sunsets etc. Sadly an old 2700 dpi film scanner is a vast overkill.<BR><BR>Here we have been scanning for the public now for 18 years. The bottom of the market went out years ago; some folks were sending the bulk/shoebox stuff to Iowa; then to Ireland; then to India. That cool internet deal with the lowest price of a few cents might be just sending it overseas. This has been done for almost a decade at some firms.<BR><BR>Either the film (ie the input) or the scanner can be the limit. All it takes is a tad of missfocus; a tad of movement and those best case resolution numbers are bunk. Nobody wants to think they stink; or their slides either. Thus the lay public often wants to Monday night quarterback a scan job. They may want many thousands of dpi; but their input is an old faded 126/Kodpak slide shot with a single element lens.

Stuart: there is one other link you may wish to check out. It's an article by Tim Vitale and it's available from I think is the Stanford University website:

 

http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

 

It explains a lot about what film grain really is and scanner design. I found it very enlightening...

 

Marco

By the way, Canon CMOS DSLRs are very miserly with batteries. I used one standard capacity battery for about 5GB worth of photos on a week and a half trip (with some chimping my shots on the LCD in the evening).

 

It's easy to buy a few extra large capacity batteries and such things as portable solar chargers are even available. Canisters of film took up much more room in my luggage.

 

"For those who think scanning is a "massive sinkhole", perhaps the Noritsu 1700SA will serve you better? It's specs claim 6305 X 4181 pixels and at 16bit, has a capacity 415 frames per hour."

 

Scanning speed is only one issue and not the major one in my experience. Touch up (dirt, grid, slide mounts, etc) and processing to restore the look of the original slide or to interpret the negative are. The raw output I have from an unprofiled LS-5000 is not something I'd consider a finished file but a good quality first step.

You're welcome Les,

 

Anyway, from the article it seems Kodak Portra 160NC (Neutral Color) might actually be Stuarts best choice. From all the common films listed in the articles, it has the best film speed at high resolution.

 

It even rivals Fuji Velvia 50 ISO film, yet has 2/3 of a stop speed gain even compared to regular 100 ISO film.

 

Stuart, if you would like to consider buying this professional film, just make sure you have it processed at a professional lab!

 

I had a normal lab screw up two test films of 160NC, probably because they processed it as 100ISO. The film was hence underdeveloped and the colors and grain were severally screwed up.

 

And one other remark:

If you want the quality of 100 ISO film and still be able to shoot at low light conditions, why not consider a fast, fixed focal length, prime lens as an addition to any other lenses you may want to carry?

 

From 100 to 400 ISO is just two stops, you can easily have the same gain if for example you buy a 1.7/50, 35 or 28 mm lens. Many inexpensive zoom lenses have at best 4.0 and sometimes even 5.6 as their biggest aperture. From 1.7 to 4.0 is a two and a halve stop gain. It will allow you to do much more in low light conditions, especially with short focal lengths as 35 or 28 mm.

 

And lastly, how "bad" is film grain actually??? I have here a beautiful book of the world famous Sebastiao Salgado with some very grainy B&W shots of Africa printed at sizes of up 8x10 or larger, probably mostly originally shot at 400 ISO TriX. They are stunning...

And one other remark: If you want the quality of 100 ISO film and still be able to shoot at low light conditions, why not consider a fast, fixed focal length, prime lens as an addition to any other lenses you may want to carry?

 

Indeed, that was my conclusion too. I also wanted a fixed zoom lens so that it would protrude less and be more rugged. I've purchased a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D...it just arrived in the mail today :) Thank you for your suggestion about the film -- I will definitely give it a shot! It looks like this may be a pretty good compromise all around.

 

Yeah, I suppose you could have some nice grainy shots...but I've never been touching up a shot and thought to myself, "gee...if only I had some more film grain." Of course, it's always possible to add grain, but you can never take it away.

"Of course, it's always possible to add grain, but you can never take it away."

 

You can actually. I've been a long time user of NeatImage. One of the best executed programs in this genre. Check their website and give the free trial a whirl.

Gotta say, I love film, and dont have a DSLR, but what you are looking for IS a dslr. Sorry, better face it. If slides for projection or prints for viewing are not your end goal, but rather a digital image is, its a no brainer.