Jump to content

Best way to get film to digital


Recommended Posts

I am new to film and I have a few desicions for getting film to digital. One is getting it done at Costc, second is getting the Lomography

DigitaLIZA flatbed adaption for scanning, and third is just scanning the 4 x 6 on a flatbed scanner. Which is the best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on the film size you are using...using a flatbed scanner and medium format film can produce satisfactory results, so can using a higher end 35mm film scanner (unfortunately I don't think any are currently being produced). For just web sharing, the Costco solution might be ok. The best, and most expensive, is to have a professional drum scan of critical works. Another, which I haven't tried, but which has been reported as sometimes successful, is for people to (digitally) photograph their 35mm slides on a slide table. When you refer to 4x6 are you talking negative size or scanning of 4x6 prints?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If super high quality is not a priority, just getting them scanned for preservation and web use, I highly suggest one of Epson's scanners, the V500 or V600. They can be had inexpensively used, or even from Epson's web site.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-13268">LINK</a></p>

<p>A V500 for $99 is a great deal, and will give better results than the DigitaLIZA.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the end, I am afraid there is no real substitute for getting a reasonable quality scanner if you need any kind of quality (<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1">link</a>). Not everybody needs the highest quality, of course. If all you are going to do is post images on the WWW, one of the cheaper scanners will work well enough.<br>

Something like the <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/scanners/film_negative_scanners/canoscan_9000f_mark_ii">Canoscan 9000F Mark II</a> (list price $200) is really pretty good and represents a kind of middle ground. <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6">link</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Start with Costco so you can get used to shooting without introducing the complications of scanning, and you can always start scanning if you want more control later.</p>

<p>If you get a flatbed scanner, make sure it's got a transparency unit. The least expensive current models don't. The Lomo film holder is pretty nice. It can be quicker to load than some of the ones that are included with scanners and lets you scan the sprocket holes. But it's not actually needed if the scanner comes with a film holder.</p>

<p>As you get more experience with scanning you might become unsatisfied with the amount of customization in the software that comes with the scanner. If that happens, have a look at Vuescan (which is also useful if you have a scanner that's not compatible with your current operating system). Which brings me to the last option. Sometimes if you troll Craigslist for a while and/or post a "want to buy" you can get a deal on a dedicated film scanner. I got a Minolta Dual III for $80 and a Dual IV for $75 that way. These do a better job on film than flatbeds do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>By the way, Jimmy Buzaid,</p>

<p>Walmart started this terrible, disgusting trend where they don't return your 35mm negatives. They throw them out and return only the prints and a CD of low-quality scans (if you pay that extra fee).</p>

<p>With them you have no opportunity to ever go back and make better scans of even optical prints.</p>

<p>I think Rite-Aid or some other chain has now jumped on this bandwagon.</p>

<p>So be very careful to make sure whoever you have develop your film returns your negatives to you. They will last generations and even your great grandchildren would be able to recover photos after those computer files have been long lost.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If your COSTCO/Walmart or local store has a Fuji Frontier or Noritsu scanning machine, go use it. Those machines are superior to any film scanner you could by, except drum scanners of course. And way, way, way superiors to a Epson flatbed scanner, or any flatbed for that matter.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If one really wants to discuss the "best way to get film to digital" then that's a high-end scan, either with a high end flatbed or a drum, and most importantly with a knowledgeable operator. Anything else is just not "the best way". I don't mean to insult anyone here but Costco is not the state of the art, in fact, far from it.</p>

<p>Lenny<br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costco, by far. Good quality and resolution. If you want even better, go with west coast imaging, referred above. Also see

ken rockwells site, where he posts full res scan samples from them. More expensive than Costco though.

Don't waste your time with anything else if you are shooting 35mm film. The cheap and flatbed scanners do not give good

sharp results with such small film. If you get into medium format film, sure, an Epsom is good. But a 200 dollar consumer

scanner will never match the 10000 plus dollar scanners labs have, at least in 35mm.

Later, if you really get into it, you can buy a dedicated film scanner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>While excellent used drum scanners can be gotten for $1500 or so, the top quality scanners cost much more than $10,000. I use an 8000 ppi Aztek Premier. It's based on a 3 micron engine and is twice as sharp as a Tango (which is based on a 6 micron engine and is the one that West Coast Imaging has). The only other scanner that has a 3 micron engine is an ICG 380. They are quite rare. That said, the real issue in the concept of a "best" scan is the operator. A scan is not something you throw on a device and let 'er rip. It is not automatic. Not unless you want Costco quality. A good scan operator talks to the client, looks their work up on their web site or looks at their prints and studies their aesthetic. Then they tune the scan so that the type of printing the photographer is looking for is possible.<br>

A lab is more often than not, running on a business model based on volume. I wouldn't ever send anything to Costco, and I wouldn't send my film to a lab, either. If you want "best" quality scans, you find a scanner operator who will listen to you, and understand what you are looking for. It's best if they are a photographer, or at least very experienced.<br>

There are many good operators out there, I am certainly not the only one. You could go the the Scan High-End list on yahoo groups and post a message. That's where many of the pros hang out...</p>

<p>Lenny<br><HR>

<I>Signature URL removed in keeping with Photo.net Guideline 1. No signatures on forum posts. You may not post a block of text or and/or an image and/or your website URL at the end of your posts saying who you are and/or containing a quote and/or other material unrelated to the subject under discussion. </I><P><HR>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe we change "best" to 'overall most reasonable workflow for most people'. Also, it matters a lot whether we're talking 35mm or something larger. Given the question, I'll assume 35mm.</p>

<p>IMOPO. (1) Find a place that will do a decent job processing the film and return to you both the film (in reasonably good condition) and minilab scans of the film. The minilab scans are only good for (a) making the proof prints that you may or may not have ordered with the film processing, and/or (b) proofing the film on your computer (or e-mailing or posting proofs). (2) For the better frames--the ones you want to do something with, but where maximum quality is not essential--get a decent dedicated film scanner and learn to scan yourself. This means <strong>not</strong> a flatbed (Epson etc.), but anything from a Minolta Scan Dual III (USB connection, say one on eBay today for $70) to a current Plustek to a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED ($1200+ used). (3) For the very few most critical frames, get professional drum scans.</p>

<p>If the film is medium format, you'll have to either replace that dedicated film scanner with a flatbed (older Epsons like the 2450 and 3200 are widely available for under $100 in working condition and with their film holders, and the high end is a new Epson V750 for $900) or a dedicated film scanner ($$$ for one that will handle medium format).</p>

<p>If the film is large format, getting minilab scans for proofs is not an option--I'm not aware of a minilab that handles large format film. At home scans mean either a flatbed, or something really old and exotic, or spending $$$ for an Imacon / Hasselblad.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>OK, let's go with "OMR" - Overall Most Reasonable... its a good idea. If we are talking about that, then I would add a couple of things.<br>

1) I don't like the minilab idea. The scans are junk, IMO. Scans that cost .65 are no good, either. It's better to look at your slide on a light box; or if its a neg, take a picture with your iPhone (or equivalent) to see what you are looking at.<br>

2) Personally, I would never scan anything smaller than 4x5 on a flatbed. It just wouldn't suffice for me. I think film scanners, especially the Nikon with a wet mount holder, do an medium job for small film. I don't think the Imacon would get you any more than the Nikon. Their claims are based upon theoretical values rather than real ones.<br>

If I had a Nikon, I would still have a small drum scan budget for those images that call for a little extra resolution, or where you want to pull out every bit of saturation, or smooth color transition. Drum scanners are much more sensitive in that respect than their CCD cousins. <br>

3) If I was going to pay $1200 for a Nikon, I might just pay $1500 for a used drum scanner. There's plenty of them that come along. Pay someone who knows how to use it another $100 to show you the ropes and off you go...<br>

4) If you are shooting 35mm and are not a fast shooter, as in street shooting or other quick shooting aesthetic, consider going up.. A Mamiya 7 II (6x7 format, lighter than many 35's) will deliver you a neg that is 4 times the size of 35mm. A 4x5 will give you a neg that is 13 times the size. The print quality from either is stunning. As an educator, there is nothing like a large format camera to teach you how to see. Of course, its not for everyone. However, if increasing quality is the goal, then getting a larger negative can make a huge difference.<br>

I have been an artist all my life and I think of myself as a professional. It's hard for me to think like an amateur, and OMR would include a lot of serious amateurs. My comments are clearly set in that bias. I consider the scan part of the capture step. Most of us have not scrimped on the camera or the lenses, as a group we are generally tool junkies. Because the result will include the weakest link in the chain, we can't scrimp on the scan step either.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think so. It's true I have a scanning and printing business. However, I have been on forums for many years and respect that no one wants information that is based on self interest. I do my best to try and be helpful, on occasion get help myself. If someone wants to work with me they will find me. But it doesn't work if I am an ass.</p>

<p>I've been a photographer for over 50 years and I happen to have considerable expertise in this area. I am also someone who is very interested in print quality. I study prints, have printed using darkroom paper, platinum, gravure, carbon, cyanotype, gum and a few others. I own some old albumens and a couple of gravures. One could say its a passion of mine. I now print on wide format printers and have designed my own ink sets, mixed my own inks. I am currently using Cone's K7for b&w which I am very happy with.</p>

<p>I appreciate that everyone starts at the beginning and not everyone can print (or scan) at the highest level. I also know that not everyone shares my interest in printing quality. Some genres of photography don't require it at all. We all have places where good enough is good enough and other places that are important where no compromise is tolerated.</p>

<p>That said, I don't mind if someone wants to get their scanning (or printing) done at Costco. But I get intractable when someone tries to tell me that a shetland pony is a Lamborghini (or these days, a Tesla). They may both get you to a destination but one will be faster and much more comfortable, have a better sound system. There is a difference, they are not the same.</p>

<p>There is also a difference in what Costco can do and what Frederick Evans did, or Steichen, Strand, Caponigro and many others. The expressive print has a long history, with many exceptional contributors. Just like anything excellent, it takes some doing, one has to master one's processes. You're not going to get there with a Costco scan. Doesn't mean you can't have a nice portrait of a friend, or whatever. But it isn't the highest quality available.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Watson....</p>

<p>No, I don't think Mr. Eiger is shilling or exaggerating. Although I've never been a paid customer, I've seen his work and what I saw was first class.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons....</p>

<p>For a comparison of a non-drum commercial scan done in a Noritsu and a homemade scan done with a NIkon 5000, please see:</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1001759">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1001759</a></p>

<p>The commercial scan was done by one of the big name and well respected photofinishers. They have been mentioned many times to put out high quality work by many people here on Photonet. Still, look at the difference. It's obvious in the thumbnails, side by side. If you want to see more detail, tap on the thumbnail and it will enlarge slightly on the screen.</p>

<p>Obviously, the commercial scan looks pretty sorry. Having seen Mr. Eiger's work, I would guess if I were to have him scan the same slide, you would be able to read clearly the script above the chrome strip on the front fender. The text reads: "1949 4 door Dodge Coronet." The 1949 4 door is in white paint. The Dodge Coronet is a raised chrome-plated piece. I can read the script on the slide with a 60X microscope, but not quite with the Nikon scan at 4000 ppi. It's true Mr. Eiger can double that at 8000 ppi , but all pixels are not created equal. My opinion is even if he scanned at 4000 ppi, one could still discern the script. Doubling that should make it easy to read.</p>

<p>The two scans are a pixel for pixel very small portion of the area covered by the film piece in the slide holder.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lenny, IMO your suggestions are appropriate for the fanatic and/or the upper-end professional, but not really for the average enthusiast. You could <em>give</em> me a drum scanner and deliver it to my front door, and when you got here, my wife would look at you, the drum scanner, and me and try to figure out which was craziest. And most people just won't spend $2500 for a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED or a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Unless somebody expressly indicates a higher budget and/or very high-end needs, it's probably most helpful to limit suggestions to stuff that's widely available for under $500 (or at least under $1000), will fit on the average desk, and is reasonably easy to use and will allow you to teach yourself with modest experimentation.</p>

<p>Sure, minilab scans are low quality. Agreed. But they're useful for proofing, <em>especially</em> for negative film--certainly easier and better than shooting them with an iPhone or the like (on a lightbox? held up to a light fixture?). At many places they only add $3 or $4 to the cost of getting the roll developed. Then with a good negative (or in many cases positive, although Dmax can be an issue) and decent technique, a scan of 35mm from a $100-on-eBay Minolta Scan Dual III or a scan of medium format film from a $100-on-eBay Epson 3200 can produce a very nice 8x10-inch print and in many cases an acceptable 11x14. If you want a substantially larger print and are fairly quality-conscious, that's when you send it to a pro lab, whether that be for a $10 scan on a Nikon 9000 or a $25+ drum scan. (By the way, the advantage of using medium format with this workflow is that you'll always have less graininess, and the drum scan will also get you a real resolution advantage.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The OP was quite clear with his question. To refresh your memory:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am new to film and I have a few desicions for getting film to digital. One is getting it done at Costc, second is getting the Lomography DigitaLIZA flatbed adaption for scanning, and third is just scanning the 4 x 6 on a flatbed scanner. Which is the best?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There were 3 options given. The question is which option is best?</p>

<p>Some posters are like politicians. They answer the question they wish they were asked instead of answering the actual question asked.</p>

<p>I would like to get more information from the OP. Does Costco have different quality options for their scans? What are you going to do with the image files, evaluate them, share them on the Internet, print them?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave, it's true. I am a seasoned professional. My work has been in galleries and museums. I have an MFA in Photography, I taught college for many years. I printed for Avedon. An upper end professional, to use your terms. (Hmmm, is that an "uppie"?) Fanatic? Maybe, but I prefer serious artist, at least maybe somebody could call me that after I'm dead for a few years. I'll roll over.</p>

<p>I am fairly active on the Large Format forum. I'm used to dealing with people who are experienced and serious themselves. Most of them are enthusiasts and plenty of them that know more than me on any given topic. Just because someone has another job that pays the bills doesn't mean that they are missing the insight, depth or technical abilities of a terrific photographer. There's endless examples. </p>

<p>What I think is that they often want the straight info. When they find someone that knows what they are talking about, whether its someone who knows about Pyro, or who understands film curves at a serious level, or who can print really well or a hundred other topics, they want to know what they know, to get a leg up on their techniques. </p>

<p>There is no reason not to proof on anything that makes sense to you. I have no opinions about it at all. Further, if you want to print 8x10, you can use just about anything to shoot and/or scan with. If you like to print contrasty you can go even larger. Use whatever makes you happy and is convenient.</p>

<p>Some people want more. Everyone gets to choose. There is no value judgement in it at all. It's just whatever anyone wants to do. Some people like to make 10-foot prints. I've printed a number of 20-foot ones. One guy had me make an 8,000 ppi scan of an 8x10 - that was 25 Gigs. 5,120 Megapixels. Another wanted me to composite 60 8x10 scans into a single image, without any visible seams whatsoever and make a 9 foot tall print on uncoated paper. I've done a lot of 11x14's as well, and most of my clients just have me scan, they want to do the PhotoShop corrections and printing. People do all sorts of things in the pursuit of their dreams. I'm happy to help when I can.</p>

<p>FWIW, a good drum scan is more than $25. They are usually around $100-150 altho' labs often charge 5 to 10 times more than a seasoned scanner operator. I saw one the other day for $1250 - even I think that's way over the top. So yes, they are for "upper-end professionals" or for enthusiasts who have an image or two they want to go all the way with. It is not for me to tell anyone that you should be somewhere else in their aesthetic process. For some people a $50,000 digital back is appropriate. (I'd take a $2500 scanner any day.) Others will buy the latest Leica. Everyone has their limit somewhere and does their best to balance their budgets in a way that makes sense to them. I don't think you can generalize about what enthusiasts want.... there's just too many different variations.</p>

<p>It's really late, and if I have upset anyone I'll apologize tomorrow...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its stuff like this that chases people away from film.

 

Film photography can be a lot of fun, but not the way some of you guys make it out to be.

 

For many decades and billions of people, most photographs never got beyond 4x6 inch prints. And 4x6 used to be called

"Jumbo"!

 

Even a cheap Epson flatbed can scan 35mm beautifully enough for 8x12's.

 

I have had Costco develop, scan and print a roll of 35mm for $8 and turn right around and put their scans into the kiosk

and get 8x12 prints for $2 each all in an hour and thirty minutes.

 

Let people have their fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...