Scanning Film is a Chore

<p>I now agree that scanning negatives and/or slides with a film scanner is a chore. I use a Nikon Coolscan V. How do commerical labs compare in terms of their scans of slides or negatives. Any particular recommendations? Thanks.</p>

<p>Agreed, though I don't have as nice a scanner as your Nikon. I use North Coast Photographic Services for my film processing and scanning at time of processing. They have two levels of scans. Be sure and get the ENHANCED scans. These are large, clean, and beautiful. I have always been more than satisfied with the results. It sure is NICE having a CD of large, hi resolution scans sent back to me all ready to go rather than dealing with all the time and work of self scanning negatives. I feel pricing is very reasonable also considering what you receive.<br>

http://www.northcoastphoto.com/film_developing_scans.html</p>

 

<p>Sure,it can be a real pain but it beats having a CF card or hard drive die with all your original files.Try a current Nikon scanner it will speed things up a lot plus you still have the original if things go wrong.</p>

<p>Well yes it is a chore but a chore I enjoy just as much as using a wet darkroom. You would be surprised how much easier it gets with a little chore like work. Let me know if you are tempted to sell that Nikon V.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about whether to abandon film scanning entirely and just go it old school. Get film developed to a 4x6 set and go back for enlargements from film if needed. Cheaper than getting a high res CD. If I need scans for the web, they'll be low res and I can use the Epson flatbed, and I can still do scans for the B&W film where I don't need to think about color.</p>

<p>scanning your own film is a labor of love.......and well worth it.</p>

<p>Yes, it takes time. But I like it because it allows me to:<br>

Use my film cameras and lenses which are in great shape. I'm not a throw away guy.<br>

Relive the enjoyable time I spent in the darkroom. However, compared to darkroom work, scanning is much easier. <br>

Spend more time and care when I initially compose the shot to minimize the post processing I do after scanning. Usually, when scanning E6, aside from some minor cropping, I pull a little more detail from the shadows and I'm finished.<br>

However, as much as I enjoy scanning, I'd rather project my medium format slides.</p>

<p>If you really hate it, you can just shoot slides. And scan the ones that you really like to make prints. I prefer color negative film over positives, so I just bite the bullet and scan. You can batch scan if you use SilverFast. I think you can also batch scan with Vuescan and get raw scans, then use Vuescan to work on the raw scans to get prints. </p>

<p>I always hear this arguement that centers around people not being able to judge a negative's worth. That you either need a contact sheet made, or you should use slides and only scan the best. I can judge quite easily the worth of a negative just by looking at it. After doing it in scanning for 8 years now, and in the wet darkroom for 28 yrs before that....it's kinda second nature these days. You just gotta train your eye to see in negative.</p>

<p>And this is why there are famous photographers through history. Because they all did it the way they found right for them. Find what is right for you and then do it. Don't be someone you are not. Don't try to be Ansel Adams if that is not you. Find what makes you and your style look the best.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, scanning (though it can be a lot of work) can certainly be worthwhile - especially if you want full frame 35mm quality in digital but don't have the combination of money and volume that justifies the expense of full frame digital camera. A 35mm film SLR and lenses can be had for much less money these days (a couple weeks ago I got an XG-M with a 50/1.7 in excellent shape for $15 and I have an excellent 28-90/2.8 zoom for it that was $25, whereas Sony just made news by announcing the first under-$2000 24x36mm DSLR and their 28-85/2.8 is $800) and if you shoot good film and have it scanned by a good lab, but at a volume of a few rolls a month, you come out way ahead.</p>

<p>Still, scanning film can be a pretty big pain. I had enough trouble getting a particular shot right last week that I ended up just giving the film to the lab and paying a couple dollars extra for a few 8x10's, then gave away my remaining Fuji consumer grade print film. The stuff I had was so vivid that trying to get more natural color out of it was near impossible. From now on I'm going with E6 and Kodak print film.</p>

<p>But with Digital I can't get the Tri-X look nor can I find the switch on a digital camera that allows for me to change film types just film speeds. :-) Sure I can almost fake it with Post processing but it is just not the same... No I am not turning this into another Digital vs Film thing it is just that I like my Cameras to use film and that is for me.. I am not saying it is for anyone else... WWAAD What would Ansel Adams Do ... LOL please don't turn this into a hate thread. it is going well.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3403556141_9c242ddd88_o.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="592" /></p>

<p>I find scanning to be a chore, but the post processing is sheer artistic joy. So the chore of the scanning itself bring excitement for the next step in the process.</p>

<p>I agree that film scanning is a chore and personally I take no pleasure in it whatsoever. The point here is not whether one should enjoy having one's work in scanned form , but rather whether its necessary or worthwhile doing it yourself. Personally I outsource scanning to organisations who do it more efficiently -and probably better -than I do. I do not believe that having others perform parts of the chain devalues what I do or that it necessarily reduces its quality. I think scanning is pretty mechanical once you know how to do it, and I'd frankly prefer to fine tune the file in PS or Lightroom anyway rather than try to make print-ready scans, so it's close to the top of things to outsource. </p>

<p>To an extent its a numbers game with scan quality overtones. Do you ( the OP) actually want or need a scan sufficient to support a print from every shot you make? If so then you'll find it difficult to support any other route but doing it yourself without taking a quality risk or a high cost. If , at the other end of the spectrum you want to print only a small minority of your output then selling your film scanner and using a lab for scans , seems perfectly sensible to me. I shan't make lab suggestions since you probably don't want to use the places I go to in the UK, but we're not talking hard to find here, ranging from very cheap bulk scanning on Nikons to expensive drum scans. </p>

<p>I was intrigued by Thomas Sullivan's comment that he "can judge quite easily the worth of a negative just by looking at it." I can understand that with b&w but if he can do that with a colour neg then he's doing better than me. Personally I need to be able to see how the colours work as well as assessing exposure before deciding whether I'm going to get any use out of a shot. Irrespective, what makes this question complex and interesting is that there are so many options , none of which are right or wrong except in the context of how an individual feels he wants to work.</p>

<p>David....as you indicate, B&W negatives are dead easy to judge. Color negatives....I have no problem judging exposure.....but yes, I'm about 50/50 on reversing the colors in my head, but constantly getting better at it. The orange mask don't help one bit. The best method I've found so far is to put the negative up to my monitor with a pure white image on it....tends to blast thru the mask. Still ain't perfect. But to tell you the truth, color negatives are few and far between for me these days. As I indicated in another thread, digital color shot exposed to the right, and processed in Lightroom from a RAW file, and from a full frame DSLR is so close to color negative i just don't see any reason to shoot it these days. Except, perhaps, Extar 100 in my Mamiya 7. And there, there's only 10 frames anyhow.</p>

<p>Les,</p>

<p>While all the images in your example are exposed under manual control, it is clear that the film scanner is compensating for exposure whereas the digital images are exhibited as-is. Without this compensation, one would expect that the Ektar scans would appear much brighter than shown, closer to the digital examples.</p>

<p>for your reading pleasure</p>

<p><a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html</a></p>

<p>and just to dispel any comments concerning the author's qualifications</p>

<p><a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/index.html">http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/index.html</a></p>

<p>I purchased a Coolscan 9000 as a interim device until I could get my B&W darkroom up and running. The wife and myself have a lot of historical and family negatives to process. I have a lot of slides to work on as well so we thought we'd get the scanner.<br>

Needless to say this was a real heavy hit to our budget, particularly since it was not to replace the darkroom as I didn't think it would be nearly as good.</p>

<p>The scanner was a real surprise. Using the supplied film holders the scans are just adequate but when we got the rotating film holder with glass the results are really improved to the point I'm not I'm not in a rush to install my darkroom. 6x9 scans are incredible on this thing. (I really like real B&W prints done the old fashioned way best but....later)</p>

<p>It really takes a lot of time to scan film with this thing for sure, but while it is working I can do other things.</p>

<p>A chore it might be if I need to scan something to digital, but it is a price that I am more than happy to pay given the pleasure that I get from using my old manual focus Nikons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... scanning negatives and/or slides with a film scanner is a chore. I use a Nikon Coolscan V.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sell the V. Replace it with a 5000 and the whole film strip adapter. This will allow you to digitize an entire 36+ frame roll without manual intervention. It takes about an hour.</p>

<p>The whole strip adapter can be had from Nikon for about $300. If you're reasonably handy, the 6 frame adapter bundled with the 5000 can be converted to the same.</p>

<p>Pardon me saying this but if scanning is a considered a chore, isn't time to use a digital camera?</p>

<p>as I said previously in another post, Les....I don't doubt your results at all. I just said you should test it against a full frame camera. Clark did this, and his results were what I had anticipated full frame Raw could do.</p>

<p>I don't own a camera to run tests....someone else can do that. But I do take their credentials into concideration....and Clark's looked damn good to me. I own a camera to take pictures.</p>

<p>As far as results, i've taken pics with dozens of different films, and various size digital sensors. My eye, and it's pretty good at seeing differences, has told me that a full frame camera is extremely close to, if not better than, the best films in 35mm. I cannot say that about even my 20D in RAW, but my 5D I can.</p>

<p>Real world results, in the form of great pictures is what photography is all about...............not running tests. But what the eye can perceive. And that's all I'm gonna say on the subject.</p>

<p>As to the OP's comment. If I was him, I would shoot color in full frame digital, and shoot B&W in medium format film and scan it. You would then have the best quality vs convience going for you.</p>

<p>Dave, I operate a <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/">slide scanning service</a> out of my home office where I use 3 Nikon 5000 scanners with the optional SF-210 feeder. The feeders are a must have, for <a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/scanning.shtml">my business</a> .</p>

<p>Many of my competitors use the same set up. I run NikonScan at mostly the default settings and edit each tif file, post-scan in PS, to make enhancements.</p>

<p>I've created a page of <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/tips/index.html">slide scanning tips</a> .</p>

<p>You'll find a big range in scan pricing Dave. Some companies send the work out of the country for low labor costs and some don't do custom, individual enhancements. And some, simply seek the sector of the market who look for the lowest price and make their profit on the bulk of work they get.</p>

<p>I scan on an ad hoc basis, a few frames a week. Usually I have 4x6s made, sometimes just an index print. Always I store the film in <a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/160820-Dotline-Oversized-Image-Safe-Binder-12.5-in.-x-10.4-in-with-3-in.">this multi-terrabyte contraption</a> . I scan in order to put photos on the Internet. Don't ask me why but I simply would not be able to sleep nights if I did not add to the millions of photos posted every day on the Internet, to share with my virtual friends. Here's a picture of a duck. Now I can sleep.</p><div></div>

<p>"...You have made observations about your results. You have opined to that effect. Now all you have to do is publish your data for public review..."</p>

<p>actually no i don't. Clark has done that for me. That's the beauty of human intelligence....we don't have to do everything individually. We can rely on other's quantitative testing. If you don't accept his results, then you rebuttal him with your own full frame testing.</p>