Advice for film that scans WELL?

Man, I am going to sound like a complete newb and an idiot here all

at the same time even though I've been into this for over a year,

but I'm so fed up and tempted to go all digital that I need some

serious help before that happends!<BR>

My wife and I really enjoy shooting with our manual focus Minolta

gear (X-700, X500 w/ motor drive 1, etc), but I just can't seem to

get good scans on a regular basis. Anyone able to help me out here?

<BR>I mean, I think our Panasonic DMC-FZ10 gets better results most

of the time, and I should be getting better with film than a 4mp

digicam! Right - I hope?<BR><BR>

So far films used include Fuji Reala 100, Kodak Gold 100, Fuji 200,

Kodak 200, and Polaroid HD 200, Fuji 400, Kodak 400, and Fuji 800

plus a few "off brand 100" films. I'm using a Minolta Dimage Scan

Dual III, and out of all these films, I get the best results w/

either Reala or Gold 100. A few shots have scanned pretty nice, but

never as good as I see photos on here, and the grain seems pretty

bad, and colors are off quite a bit - I have to tweak a lot in

photoshop. Am I doing something wrong, or are there other films I

should try that scan better? I was thinking maybe Kodak 160 or

400UC? I read somewhere that they are designed for scanning is that

true, or just marketing hype?<BR>

I'd really appreciate some recommendations, because I'd rather not

go all digital at the moment, but I can't seem to make film work as

good as it should...<BR>

Jed

Most film scanners have settings for certain specific emulsions. I haven't used it for a while, but I'm pretty sure my Minolta Dimage Scan Speed had a small number. I'd start by looking at which films have already been setup in the scanner software.

 

Your list of emulsions isn't terribly detailed, but I have a hunch that you've mostly been trying to scan negs. I would expect you to have a whole lot more success, at least immediately, if you stick with slide films like Velvia, Sensia, and Astia.

 

I shoot almost exclusively digital and Sensia. My scans look a lot like my digitals, except with greater detail and much larger file sizes.

 

Van

I agree with G. Straight from my scanner, slides have better (more saturated) color and tighter grain, than neg. As you may already know, negs handle high contrast lighting better than slides. Just another tradeoff in photography.

Another vote for Sensia.

Thanks. You're right, I've only shot neg film...it's just a lot cheaper both to buy and to have developed. I think it'd be around $10 to $12 to get an E6 roll done here. That sound about right? Well, I suppose I should try it at least, just to see if I can get better than my digicam from film.<BR>

It's just such a pity, because these old film slrs are so well made and feel good in the hand.<BR><BR>

On another note - wonder if it would be cheaper if I got into processing my own E6? I have my own B&W darkroom setup, but I suppose that's pretty different.<BR>

Jed

Regarding your own E-6 processing. Different story, different movie. E-6 doesn't exactly avail itself to one-shot processing. If you are shooting in volume and thus processing in volume - you MAY save yourself some money. But, not likely. Either via DIY or picking up some second-hand equipment (such as a newspaper or some such organisation dumping this gear - not a commercial lab), you might be able to set yourself up in business. Even the cheapest "dip and dunk" kit is like to cost something to either buy or make. Then, there's the chemisty and Kodak doesn't make it easy for the occasionaly user. But ... check it out. Its just another option and may provide you with more control than you may get from a process lab, etc.

Enjoying the tips here. I'll definatly try some slide film in the next week. Just curious about this film, because Adorama has it on sale for $2.29 a roll - which seems really cheap. Any advice on it?<BR>

Konica - Minolta Chrome R-100 Professional Color Reversal Film 135-36.<BR>

I'll definatly try some Fuji and Kodak, though. Is there a huge difference in the "pro" slide film and consumer slide film, or should I just get whatever I can get my hands on here (Anchorage Alaska).<BR>

Jed

Jedidiah,

I think it's probably got more to do with technique than the film you are using. When I scan I set up the scanner rougthly, what I'm interested in is that I'm catching all the colours and available light range and no more. Often what is then loaded into photoshop looks like mush. The first thing I do is go into levels and play with the red/green/blue channels to get the colour balance I want. Then I set the contrast in the RGB combined channel. After that it's of to hue/saturation which gives you 6 colour channels to set hue saturation and brightness of each. Then I do any touch up that is required (healing tool/ dust scratches etc) followed by any doging and burning that might lift the photo. Finally it into the unsharp mask to sharpen the image.

I go through that routine for every picture I scan. Also if that's over the top of your head there should be plenty of step by step scanning guides out there on the net.

 

Films that I've found scan well? Fuji Superior though the pro portriat films scan even sweeter. Fuji sensia scans well but the pro film Provia just blows me away. C41 B&W films scan well but traditional B&W films can be very troublesome to scan.

 

Good film does help but I suspect that more than anything it is work on your technique that will really push your scans forward.

Jedidiah, I am scanning old color negatives that were taken over the last 40 years and I get excellent results - most are better than my 5 megapixel digicam. Scanning negatives is not as easy as scanning slides, but with experience it is possible.

 

I am not familiar with the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III scanner, but maybe you should try different scanning software. You can download Vuescan software and try it out for free. If you get better results, the software is not very expensive.

 

I am scanning with a Nikon 9000ED scanner using Nikonscan software and it works grest for color negatives. I have only scanned a few color slides, but I like the results better from color negatives.

 

Good luck.

Can't agree more with any reply so far, best results from trannies, first scan not the final scan before tweaking etc. Just two points, if you want to continue with negs I have found using Kodak Royal Supra 400 gives excellent results for colour rendition, low grain and quite importantly when scanning - durability.

 

Second point is tweak your scanning technique, try this url for some top tips http://www.scantips.com/ There are far more out there than this one site. Like Gareth suggests, get yourself into a scanning routine that works for. I do almost exactly the same as Gareth, but not in the exactly the same order, except the unsharp mask it should always be the last job.

The problem isn't with the film it's with the scanner operator. Try using Vuescan's advanced workflow and lock the film base color by scanning in the leader. Then if you really want to see what's on the film, shoot a greycard or white paper with flash for one shot on the roll, right click on this to set the color balance and then scan the whole roll. I suggest setting the white and black point clipping to 0% or less than .1% to give you as much data to work with as possible. Be sure to scan at the maximum resolution your scanner allows.

Then in photoshop use the healing brush on dust and resize to suit your purpose. Go into curves and try the auto corrections, setting their white and black point clipping to .1% or less. If auto corrections don't give good colors, try clicking in the grey eyedropper and then clicking on something in the scene that should be neutral. Click until you like the color balance. If you do this you should be able to get the most out of your scans.

 

I also use manual Minolta gear with film like Reala, Kodak UC 400, NPZ, Sensia and Provia and think they are more than good enough. I doubt the FZ10 gives better results in low light with its small sensor. Film is likely more grainy in bright light, but grain also gives the impression of detail and isn't necessarily bad. If you don't like grain, stay away from the higher ISO consumer films (Kodak Max 400) etc as they are quite grainy.

I have had good luck with Kodak films in my Coolscan. If the negs look good and print well, could it be the scanner,or the work flow. Could you post an example of the problem? I am more than happy with my results. Check out my folder these are around 100kb jpegs. I learned everything here in the digital darkroom try posting and example there.

Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100 (EB 3) is a very good all purpose slide film and scans perfectly on my Nikon Coolscan IV.

"the grain seems pretty bad, and colors are off quite a bit"

 

Have you thought of a possibility that your films were not properly processed? Perhaps your films were under exposed?

These are the two main reasons for grainy and poor color negative films.

Chromes may not be easier to scan in fact especially dark slides often

seen from Velvia. It is cheaper to shoot negatives for scanning.

E6 does not have to be expensive. Take it to Wal-Mart and they'll send it to Fuji; it costs less than $5. You can also buy prepaid mailers to send it directly for Fuji for about $4.

Oh, and avoid Konica Chrome R-100. It's not a bad film per se, but there are MUCH better alternatives for about the same price... specifically Kodak EliteChrome and Fuji Sensia.

I haven't tried all the possible films yet in my Coolscan IV, but so far, the easiest scans have probably been with Fuji Sensia and Ektachrome, the worst with Fuji color print films, Kodak Elite Chrome and Velvia 50. Kodak print films aren't too bad, and although it isn't the easiest, I've gotten used to Velvia 100F.

Provia 100F, Sensia 100 and E100G/GX -- all scan well.

FOA, scanner work with color, so always and always Slide will be easier to scan than Neg. If I were to use Neg, I would stick with Fuji reala, or Ilford XP-2 super ( for B&W ). For slide, any of the 100F series of the Fuji film scan quite well. The RAP in particular.

I found Portra 400 UC a great film, fine grain and really easy to scan. I have a coolscan 5000ed and that film is my favourite to scan. I also get very good results with Portra 400 NC or VC and Supra 400. Also NPH400 scan quite well tome. (few example of scans of those film <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3204956">here (supra400)</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3129935">here (portra400)</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3215487">here (nph400)</a>)

I'm definatly agreeing with everything that everybody has suggested so far. I'm certainly no pro, and no one know that better than me!<BR><BR>

I downloaded Vuescan and will rescan some of my negs with the tweaks you mentioned in Photoshop (I do some already, but some new ones too), and see if I can get better results. If either of those don't work, then I will post some crops of my scans.<BR><BR>

I think my biggest disapointment is the large grain in faces or on skin - it looks blotchy to me, even with most ISO 100 films. Compared to a digital, my scans just seem like the grain is too pronounced. I'm basing this off of prints I get back from the store - the prints from my film camera look gorgeous, and I prefer the look of them over digital prints. I just can't seem to reproduce those lab prints on my computer monitor!<BR>

Jed

If I was in u I would certainly give a try to NeatImage to remove film grain of raw scans.

With the exception of Reala, all of the films you've been using thus far are quite grainy (even Gold 100). I think if you try some of the E6 slide films we've mentioned, you'll find that grain will definitely not be a problem.

Just a few wee things,

Cost. By far the cheapest film to use is negative. I shoot mainly negative, either B&W which I print myself the old way or colour which I scan. I can buy a roll of Superia for 99 pence here in the UK. I get it processed for 2.99 a roll. I don't get prints. I look at the negs on a light box and select what I want to scan.

Well exposed slide film like Provia is very easy to scan. But if the exposure is a little out it gets troublesome. To ensure good exposure I often need to bracket slide film. Provia costs me 3 pounds a roll with processing 3.99 a roll. And once you have factored in bracketing it's expensive. There is no need to bracket neg film, it is very flexible. I always slightly over-expose colour neg film. I rate 200asa as 160asa, 400asa as 320asa. Colour neg film will happily take a 1 stop over-exposure, it however does not like to be one stop under.

I don't understand why folks have trouble scanning neg film, particulary with good qulaity film scanners like the minoltas and Nikons. I use mainly superior and sometimes NPC and NPH.

Always scan at your scanners max resolution and at 12 or 16 bit. Do not sharpen. Leave sharpening as your last task before re-sizing or printing.

Bear in mind that films often have a colour cast. Fuji slide films I find have a blue colour cast. Fuji print films have a red colour cast.

I have no problem getting practically grain free 10x8 inch prints from superia 400 or NPH neg film.

The result you can achieve with a good scanner and inkjet combo should blow any mini-lab prints right out of the water.

 

Oh XP2 is a great film I use it quite often. However if you only intend to scan it there is little or no point. Just use colour neg and de-saturate, you get the same result. The reason I like XP2 is because it saves me processing when I'm in a hurry, it has more lattitude than any traditional B&W film and it prints beautifully on RC or fibre B&W paper.

No, you don't sound like a new-be. You are more intelligent than most in that you realize that a properly exposed frame of 35mm far surpasses a 4MP camera and gives quality equal or better than one of the multi-thousand dollar digital SLRs. I would recommend that you check out: http://www.creeking.net/films.htm This is the site of a magazine that originates primarily on film and who appear to be experts at figuring out the best film for the job and then scan their slides and negatives into the computer for proofing and publishing. The list is (surprisingly) very very up to date. They are so up to date that they include specs from Fuji's new and improved line of film that hasn't even been released yet! Also, there are several helpful links at the bottom of the page. The one thing that came to mind when you said your scanner was having difficulty with negative film was that it might be due to grain aliasing; there is a very helpful link that talks about this phenomenon somewhere at the bottom of that page. Grain aliasing is the inability with scanners to properly render grain due to problems with the whole scanning process on the cheaper (under $10,000) scanners. It has led a lot of people in the still photo and MP field to think of film as much lower resolution than it actually is because during scans, the light can reflect off of grain in a way that makes the grain appear larger. If the article on aliasing doesn't help you fix your problem scanner, then perhaps you need to get another scanner.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski