Film Scanner Quality

Recently I have been thinking about purchasing a film scanner. The question I have is how will the quality

of a scanned 645 negative compare to that of my Canon 1DMKIII? The scanners that I am thinking about

are the Epson V750, Nikon 8000, or Nikon 9000. I do a lot of photojournalism work, some adverting

work, and some magazine work. The scanner will not be used for any photojournalism because I don't

have enough time to develop and scan. I would be using it mainly for advertising and artist promo shoot

type stuff in addition to just messing around with it.

 

So how does the quality of a scanned negative compare to that of a digital capture? I have looked for an

answer but I seem to have just found people not wanting to comment on the issue.

A dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 or the Imacons are good, but for critical work it pays to have your negatives professionally drum scanned.

 

The Nikon 9000 has been out of stock at the major camera stores for months.

 

Only a high end MF digital back in the 30 MP's plus range will give you anywhere near the quality of properly shot drum scanned MF negative.

Though I am no expert photographer, in preparation for investing more time in the hobby, I did a lot of research on just this question, much on the web and two conversations with professional art photographers, and from what I learned, the matter is not quite as clear cut ast Mitch says. There are a number of pros who think that a high-quality full-frame sensor can match or exceed the resolution of even a high quality MF scan. (A number of tests to this effect appear on the web, but unfortunately I can't remember exactly where at the moment.) Not sure what this means for a 10mp APS sensor, such as on your Canon, but I'd wager that many experts would say that any inferiority of the Canon would not be noticeable except at extreme magnification. Then there is the cost of a drum scan to get the best out of the negative or slide (and dust if you do it yourself). In short, though I can't speak from personal experience, I'm confident that many experienced photographers who have tried both would choose the images from your Canon over a MF scan, at least for resolution. (Can't speak to other differences, such as the look of certain film-types that can't be replicated in digital.) That said, from all I've read, all would agree that large format (4x5, e.g.) produces clearly better resolution than even the best full-frame sensor, even when the scans are done affordably on modest flat beds. But of course 4x5 may be fine for an amateur such as me who has half a Saturday to take one good shot, but probably not for a commercial photographer.

For good or ill, some of the question is subjective. "Quality" can be just a measure of resolution, or it can be something in the eye of the beholder. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that "baby medium format" is challenged or bested by most of the current DSLRs. In absolute resolution, the 10MP cameras may be close and the current top-end models may be better. In "look" or "quality", well, ...

Well, I'll generally agree with Marshall's 2 opening statements, but I'll diverge from his following opinions. Conventional wisdom around here seems to be that at around 6-8 Mpixels, modern digital SLRs exceed scanned 35mm film, yet I've proven to myself again and again that for what I shoot, and given my scanning and post-processing experience, that just t'ain't so. 10MP images besting well-scanned 645? Not in my opinion - not even close.

 

But notice all of the qualifiers. The pieces of this complex puzzle which always get glossed over are the individual ones. What kinds of subjects do you shoot? What is your scanning experience, and how accomplished are you at post-processing film scans (a VERY different task in many ways from that of PPing digitally sourced images)? How important is the time factor to you, and are you willing to put in the extra time required to get everything out of your film scans that you can? And then there's the learning curve.

 

The bottom line is that most reasonably hi-res digital images SMOKE poorly scanned film, and frankly, most scans I see are less than optimal, and/or the PPing is badly botched.

 

I've never shot with a 1DMkIII, but as a guess I'd have to say that for many subjects, well-scanned, properly processed 645 negatives SHOULD be subjectively better. The question is, will yours be? How much time are you willing to spend building the necessary experience to optimize your scanned images? How much time can you devote to individual shots?

 

If you're doing commercial work, my bet is that you'd be far better served with an all digital workflow, and that the money and time you're considering investing in scanning equipment and software would be better invested in something like the 1DsMkIII, particularly since you're already invested in the EOS system with your 1D.

 

Scott

I have a the Nikon D3, Konica 5400II, which is a very nice 35mm scanner and recently I

bought an epson perfection V500 Photo scanner. To give you a simple answer, the V500 is

the cheapest and fastest piece of scanning kit I have, and it makes very good medium format

scans. The problem with dedicated film scanners is their speed or I should say lack of speed.

If you intend scanning a large collection of film, I would stick with the v750, you will get

great medium format scans that will surprise you.

Lobalobo- I have thought about going the LF way from time to time and think that for

some of my subjects that LF is more than fitting. I have yet to invest in LF though becasue

of the time it takes to get images processed and the entire length of setting up a shot. I

do think that a flatbed scan of a LF negative can look amazing.

 

Scott- You have asked a bunch of good questions. I am a commercial photographer that

still has to do photojournalism(i do love it) because I don't have enough clients yet to do

commercial full time. I shoot for a wide variety of clients and they have drastically

different demands out of me and my images. One day I might be shooting a CD cover and

the next I might be shooting stills on a video set, or doing product shots, and the next

shooting for a car magazine. I have very very little scanning experience. I have only post-

processed film scans a few times when I had some alternative process stuff that I did for a

client. The time factor is something that is important because I stay pretty busy but if the

image quality is going to be their I am ok with a larger time commitment. I think that you

are probably right that keeping my all digital workflow could be best.

 

The only reason I thought about doing this is because their is another guy that wants to go

in on a scanner and I told him I would think about it. When I compare printed images

from my Canon to my Mamiya I like the tonality and detail of the Mamiya much more than

the Canon. I think that compared to my 35mm film cameras that my 1D is juat as good

and better at high ISO images. The scanner would fill the gap where optimal image quality

and detail were wanted...

Well, Nick, if U don't have a backlog of film material to scan, I'd certainly not recommend going for a scanner. Personally I need to work with scanners because of a large past archive. For convenience and quality I'd recommend a top of line Imacon, one with an integrated diffuser. I don't own one (yet) but work with some off and on in service labs. Can't beat the results, except of course with certain drum scanners. My Nikon 5000 ED is noisy and quite slow. Resulting scans from film, except a few like the AGFA Ultra 50, are often too grainy, while those from most slide films are quite acceptable.

 

I went digital only about a year ago, no regrets.

It's that tonality thing that you mention that is the crux of much of this. As a measure of resolution, many people do argue that the 6-8MP cameras equal 35. Personally, I wasn't comfortable switching 'til 10MP or so, and 12 gives me as much as I need for most things I do. But the smooth way film handles highlights is even more evident at larger formats. 645, it's there, but the gains aren't that huge, at least not to me in my workflow (I've dealt with a bunch of scanned film, including some well-scanned MF, but don't own the equipment to make really good MF scans myself.) In any event, 645 vs. 12MP digital I'm willing to stay digital. Now, if I had a flextight and a Hasselblad I might have to think twice...

I'm very familiar with output from a D200 and canon D5, and some with the professional

Canons. They are good, but nothing I've seen from them beats the color and clarity of MF well

scanned. Its not so much a resolution/sharpness, its just the tonal "shoulder" of film is

different, and to my eye, better than any digital. However, I luv digital too and spend at least

half my photographic life using one quite contentedly.

Regarding the "tonal shoulder", even as a hack amateur, I often can tell the difference between film and digital and I like the look of film much better, even when the digital image is not overexposed. (Wonder what others think about whether there is a difference even absent overexposure.) But the Fuji S5 has a tonal shoulder similar to film and lots of folks who love film also love the S5 (and this includes some landscape photographers). That said, the resolution of an S5 won't come close to matching the 645 film format. I'm hoping that Fuji's next top-of-the-line DSLR increases resolution just a little (not a lot, though, because if it goes to full frame, e.g., I would not be able to afford it). Then again, this won't help the original poster, as the Fuji takes Nikon lenses, not Canon.

"So how does the quality of a scanned negative compare to that of a digital capture?

 

Forget the comparison- before high quality digital capture printing MF negatives was the norm, so isn't it by definition good enough for professional use?

 

If you've got unlimited money for film and processing and time for scanning and post-processing I don't see why you can't use film if you want to.