Jump to content

Scanning for a book


Recommended Posts

Hi. I have an Epson V500 for scanning my 35mm film (color and B&W negatives, not slides). It is quite good, but the lack of “focus” always leaves me unsatisfied. Even if I apply the “unsharp mask” on “medium” mode and if I don’t see the image very big, it is clear that the scanner doesn’t have too much definition.

 

Dedicated 35mm scanners have better “focus”. The best seem to be some which are not made anymore, like Nikon’s, Minolta’s or Canon’s. I would not buy one of these machines online, used and from a faraway country. Plustek and Pacific Image are producing new dedicated scanners, I don’t know if there is another brand. They are not as good as Nikon’s, but still are better than Epson’s.

 

There are labs which offer the service of drum scanning. This is expensive and doesn’t allow you to control scanning settings, and they could not interpret the image the way you like it. This is especially decisive when you are looking for a moody scene, not a very bright one, and the lab starts working with automatic adjustments which “explode” the image to the maximum level. In my city, a lab with a Hasselblad scanner charges more than 10 dollars for image in its smallest dimension (like 8x12 inches at 300dpi).

 

So, imagine you are going to publish a book with your film photos, and obviously you want the scans to be as good as possible…

 

 

What scanner would you use?

 

If you had an Epson v500, would you buy a dedicated 35mm scanner like a Plustek or a Pacific Image?

 

Or would you pay a drum scanning service in a lab, even though you can’t control the settings?

 

(Note: At the moment, I don’t have the equipment to try "DSRL scanning". I only have a Nikon D80, and no macro lens. Also, I read that this method is more recommended for slides, not negatives, but I haven’t studied the subject too much really)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Nikon scanner (two, actually, 4000 and 8000), but have recently used a digital camera with a slide attachment with similar results. It is particularly easy to copy slides in this manner. B&W negatives are easy too, except handling film strips. Color negatives are difficult to convert to positives, since there are so many variations in exposure and different emulsions for consistent color balance.

 

A 24 MP digital camera has the same resolution as a Nikon scanner (4000x6000 pixels), and 10x as fast. The effective resolution of a flatbed scanner is about half the advertised value, due to overlap between cells. Flatbed scanners are also exceedingly slow when scanning film, and frame registration is not very precise.

 

Save the drum scans unless you need a double-spread for a magazine, Better yet, use the digital camera directly and forget the film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1013006503_2k17-010-008ces10bc-horz.jpg.3dccd394f6771a8a9b082c9ff336cc93.jpg Hello Fiodor. If you know your negatives are tack sharp, and you are getting "mushy" files, there is something grossly wrong with the V500. I have been using the V600 model, which did not have any drastic changes from the V500, for close to six years now. My photo is a 35mm negative (100Tmax) from my Fed-2/Jupiter-8 combo. Developer is Pyrocat MC and the negative will go to an 11x14 with ease. The small section of the full frame is at an equivalent 11x14 enlargement. Your Epson needs a look at. . it should do a similar scan. Good Luck, Edited by Bill Bowes
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image above is grossly over-sharpened. There are halos around the stays and rigging. TMax 100 is a very sharp film, but you won't match it with a V500 scanner, much less a Jupiter-8 lens more know for its "character" than quality. I've scanned hundreds of medium format (Hasselblad) negatives with a Coolscan 8000. A 16 MP digital back (4080x4080) is more than a match for anything I've produced with film. I feel safe in recommending a 24 MP camera (6000x4000) over a flatbed, Plustec or Pacific scanner.

 

The examples below are cropped from the original images and reproduced pixel = pixel (100%)

 

TOP: Leica M3 + Summicron 90/2 + Ektar 100, scanned with LS-8000 vs. BOTTOM: Leica M9 (18 MP) + Summicron 90/2 (same lens)

95285889_N1400923_16andL1001138Detail.thumb.jpg.860b9691ea30c2ed8d999bcdf699522a.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Ed.

They are different images, but very similar. Is the second one a digital photo of a slide?

Is it possible to see the whole, uncroppped images?

Do you have to do a lot of editing and “cleaning” to the photos of films?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Bill.

 

I think your scan looks good and the Epson v500 is a good scanner, but far from perfect. I wouldn’t say my scans are “mushy”. The lack of “focus” I mentioned is “subtle” in a way. And the difference between an Epson scan and a Nikon one is also “subtle”, but this subtlety pays off, makes a difference to the eye. And apart from the definition, there is also the quality of colors or tones. Have you scanned that same image with a Nikon or a drum scanner? Only there you could see the difference. Or better, have you made a print with an enlarger? I suppose my scans are similar to yours, as far as I can see, but when I did some prints with an enlarger was really like discovering the reality of the images, the difference is huge. A good scanner would be one that gets as close as possible to an analog copy.

 

Yeah, in the specific case of a photo book, there are limitations on the print quality, or the paper, of course it is not the same than looking at analog prints, not even close. But I think it is always better to start from scans as good or satisfying as possible. It would be interesting to know the experience of someone who has already published a photo book, especially with film scans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Reflecta (Pacific Images) scanner, and for its price I am certainly very content. I never used one of the Epson's, if I'd go that way I'd try to jump for the V800 or V850, but since I only shoot 35mm for now, the scanner I have works perfectly fine. I've printed scans from it to large sizes (30*45cm, one time 60*90cm) without major complaints. For a book, it should work. But scanning goes frame-by-frame, so it is a slow task.

Since some time, I have a CoolScan V on loan, and I've compared it to my Reflecta. The Nikon is better, but not by a vast amount, and certainly not for the 2nd hand prices that they currently command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask the lab with the Hasselblad scanner to give you the .fff file, it is kinda of a raw file (and it is 16 bit, and always at the Max dimention allowed by the scanner for a given frame format), no intervention by the operator. Then by the flexcolor software (free download from Hasselblad web site) you adjust it the way you like. The .fff file should cost even less then a .tif or .Jpg because is a straight scan, everyone can perform it because no intervention is required, it take few minutes to scan a frame. Ask the lab, then ask again;) because they are reluctant to give the .fff scan because the facto that no intervention from the operator is required (so they can not yustify the high price the apple for a scan;)).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are different images, but very similar. Is the second one a digital photo of a slide?

Is it possible to see the whole, uncroppped images?

Do you have to do a lot of editing and “cleaning” to the photos of films?

These are straight up, with only the default processing of Lightroom, which is very mild. The complete images are in my portfolio under Botanic Garden (2014).

 

Most of the slides I've copied with a digital camera are old family photos, so I can share them with relatives still living. This is one I took in Florida, 1977, "scanned" with a Sony A7ii (24 MP). The raw file is what I would call grain-sharp, so very little is detracted from the original.

 

The copy kit is in one rigid assembly. I don't need a tripod, even for long exposures. I use a "daylight" LED lamp for the source, which is surprisingly close to daylight and easy to achieve natural color.

 

Leica M2 + Summicron 50/2 (guessing), Velvia 50, copied with Sony A7ii+adapter+PX13 extension tube+Nikon 55/2.8 Micro lens, ISO 400, 2 sec @ f/5.6

_DSC5305.jpg.8b6a8457637c6f0753cab565c72390c7.jpg

Edited by Ed_Ingold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vent to vocational school together with print media designers (15 years ago when digital SLRs weren't out); they taught us 3 rules:

  • Think backwards through your production chain
  • Don't generate data junk; get 2 decent ppi for 1 lpi you 'll print small 1.4 ppi per lpi if you print big.

Assuming you are going for A4 size: 21cm broad at 60l/cm requires 2520 (1782) decent pixels. Or 10MP from a camera if you fill it's frame.

I don't know your Epson. I bought a Minolta film scanner back in the days and consider it painful to use.

First question: How do you currently work with your negatives? - The old school prepress approach would be hitting your darkroom and scanning prints on your flatbed.

2500 pixels are hard to get out of a 35mm film scan. - I think I read flatbeds go maybe up to 2000dpi? What film were you using? - Attempting to (wet) print 8x10"s from pushed HP5 wasn't that rewarding; grain was quite visible.

Looking up Pacific Image scanners' specs, I would not buy one; I'd rather go for a makeshift macro lens solution for your D80, which could deliver just enough megapixels. It shouldn't be overly expensive to adapt an old but hopefully decent MF enlarging lens on a DSLR.

If drumscanning is an option, I'd try to get into a dialogue with the operator / lab, send something with the negatives to convey what I want to see scanned out of them. Be it wet prints or tiny JPEGs with comments and maybe also a request to provide maximum achievable color depth i.e. 16 instead of 8 bit per channel, to get as many half tones as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo above was reduced from the raw file, straight from the camera with no additional processing. So far, I set the camera to Aperture priority, Auto White Balance, ISO 400 and f/5.6. AE and AWB may improve the appearance, but mostly the results are very close to the original. I have IT-8 slides and profiling software, but so far it hasn't been necessary. There's no dust reduction (ICE), but even with careful cleaning, sorting and handling, I can do 5 or more rolls an hour. It can take up to 2 hours each roll with a Nikon scanner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking up Pacific Image scanners' specs, I would not buy one;

 

Based on what spec specifically do you make this assessment? I'm seriously curious about it, since I have had a D80 and have a previous model of Pacific Images, and I am quite sure which of the two can achieve a higher resolution.

Their current models are tested to have around 3900 dpi resolution (similar to the last generation Coolscans), the one I have tested to achieve around 3200 dpi according to this site. So, I really wonder what in the spec sheet raises the idea that a D80 would be more suitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good rule to follow is to get the best scan you can achieve, considering your budget and the amount of time you are willing to spend. If you aim for 8x10" prints and later decide to go for 11x14" (or larger), you start from scratch.

 

A D80 has 10.2 MP, which is roughly on a par with the resolution of a Velvia slide, so you would get only about 60% of the detail in the image file. For best results, you would want a scanner/camera with 2 o 3 times the minimum resolution. Also, if you use a DX or smaller sensor, you will need extension tubes between the lens and the slide holder (a Nikon ES-1, for example).

 

Don't even consider a slide copier with a built-in 10 diopter lens. The quality is barely wallet-size. A Nikon AIS 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is extremely sharp, capable of producing pixel-sharp images on a 42 MP, A7Rii camera. The used price is as low as $100. By pixel-sharp I mean details only one pixel wide can be captured, like spider silk or stars. The maximum magnification is 0.5x, so you need a PX13 extension tube to achieve 1:1 magnification. You need the PX13 with a DX sensor too, in addition to a 15 mm extension between the lens and ES-1 slide holder. Nikon once made a set of "K" tubes, which are threaded 52 mm and can be stacked.

 

I am biased and probably out of date regarding Pacific scanners. When Nikon scanners were still available, they were considered useless junk. Considering they sold and still sell for 1/10 that of a Nikon scanner, ten years later, you can make your own judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone, great information.

 

Diego Buono, thanks for your info about the Hasselblads. I did a quick research… they call it the 3F. Here is a link if someone is interested: The 3F system | The revolutionary professional scanning system by Hasselblad - Know How Transfer It would be interesting to scan at least one photo to see really what can you get from this machine.

 

Jochen, I recently began to process my negs. I don’t shoot too much actually, and I don’t have an enlarger. I could try scanning with my Epson one of the B&W prints I made in a school lab to see how it looks.

 

Wouter, the Reflecta seems very good. I think there is a new Pacific model where you can scan the whole roll at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed, thank you for the image and all the info. I also searched on Flickr for “dslr scanning” and this technique seems like a very good option for digitizing film photos if you are interested in definition. It really gets a lot of detail, even more than dedicated scanners (and even drum ones?). In some photos I see like too much grain, but I don’t know if it is the grain or some pixelation added to the grain. A Nikon, or a Pacific, have a softer image, and that seems like a flaw, not a virtue, but is it really like this? I mean, an analog print looks sharp but pleasing, with no pixels. Have you printed some of your Nikon scans and “photo scans”? Which ones look better on paper?

 

I need a new digital camera. I should study this subject more, but do you think I could do it with a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and extension tubes? I also have a reversal ring!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James G. Dainis (and LesDMess),

 

I am doing a series with film, a work-in-progress. I don’t plan to print a book soon. I have never done that and I don’t know about the printing techniques. Surely this is interesting and something to consider later. Offset or digital? As far as I know, it depends on the number of books : for big quantities, offset is used, but I don’t know really. Why do you ask me?

 

I would like to have a better scanner (or scanning technique). I want to try something different from the Epson. This would allow me to have from the beginning better and “final” scans to show my work, and not doing the work two times. Who knows, maybe I end up deciding that the Epson is the best…

 

I could probably apply for a grant and include the costs of scanning (whether the buying of equipment or the payment of a lab scanning service). But I suppose it must be reasonable (I don’t know if I could include the buying of a digital camera for "scanning" film, even though the drum scanning of 200 photos would be more expensive). So I need to think what strategy would be the best, according to my short experience (I can’t be too pretentious).

 

Apart from this project, I shoot film usually, so a good home scanning system is something I need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiodor, unfortunatly (in the true sense of the word) I live in Italy otherwise I would be glad to scan some of your frame to show you how does it works and the quality you can obtain. Anyway, if you happen to be in Italy (nice place to visit, even if not to live in) bring with you some films and we can arrange a scanning session if you want.

You would consider to buy a used scanner (I bought mine second hand, together with a friend of mine), the price range for a 646 model (practically the same as the current X1, only slower) is 2.500-3.500 Euro and if you decide to sell it one day you probably sell it for the same price, they are quite wanted.

On yahoo there is a Group called "imaconusers" (Imacon was the brand name before the merge with Hasselblad), you can find all the information you need and some used scanner too.

Have a good luck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the scanner, but the combination of scanner and scanning software that matters. This was shot several years ago with a Hasselblad 501CM/Kodak Portra 160 film, scanned with an Epson V850 scanner using Silverfast 8 software. It works far better than previous scans on other machines and earlier Silverfast versions. I don't know if it meets your expectations, but have a look.

 

596582040_BigBottomBridge11-2-07H12a.jpg.7a385b59053434b675636d4a144074bd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiodor,

Your title mentions scanning for a book and in your first post you ask, "So, imagine you are going to publish a book with your film photos...", so I asked about what method was to be used to print these books. Basically you need to have in mind what size prints are going to be on the pages in the book and scan for a max resolution.

 

Good printing from the file would be 300PPI for digital and 150 lpi for a good half tone screen. Mr. jochen above alluded to the fact that when dealing with half tone prints, the ideal required original resolution can be represented by the formula: 2 X lpi = ppi @ 100% reproduction.

For an original 300 ppi/dpi - halftone screen 150 lpi.

 

Determine what size photos you want to be in the book. If the max size is 10x8 inches then you would want to scan to get a resolution of at least 3000 x 2400 ppi.

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Kahn, thank you for the image. When I began using the v500 I tried another software, I don’t know if it was the SIlverfast or the Vuescan, but I didn’t get good results, so I continued using the Epson software. Anyway, I think that its soft “focus” is less noticeable in medium format, and some MF photographers are very happy with the Epsons.

 

James G. Dainis, thank you for your explanation about printing and resolution, which complements what Jochen told me. The problem with the v500 is that even if you can get the resolution required, for some reason scans look soft. Surely if the image in the page is not big, probably you won’t notice a difference compared to a better scan, in terms of sharpness. But colors could not look as good as other scanners either. That depends also on personal taste, and the scans could be more compatible with certain styles of photos than with others. This is especially evident with minilab scanners like Noritsus or Frontiers, which have a distinguished look that goes very well with the work of some photographers.

 

LesDMess, thank you for sharing your great comparison tests. I see that you are in love with your Coolscan, I don’t blame you. But I wouldn’t buy a used one. If I want to try something different from the Epson, right now my best options seem to be buying a Plustek or a Reflecta (to get a bit more of real resolution), or trying to build a DSLR digitizing system, first with what I have, and then with a new camera and a macro lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you buy a Coolscan III for USD 150-200?

 

And a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 II, for the same prize, with no negative holder (only slide holder)?

 

(In my country, imported electronic products cost at least two times more than B&H, as a reference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoolScan III - no (it's really quite old, it requires a SCSI card in your PC); the Minolta could be more interesting. But despite the bias of some people against these products, I'd still look for a Reflecta if funds are tight. The 10M model mentioned above, or the 10T (which is more manual labour).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are the only old dedicated scanners available right now on an online shopping website from my country.

 

Probably if I see the scanner, and talk to the owner, and it not too expensive… that is the only way I could consider buying a used one. If it is too expensive, I am risking more. Yeah, probably that Nikon is too old and used. But it scans much better than my v500, that’s for sure…

 

Wouter, is the Reflecta 10M exactly the same than the Pacific Image Prime film XA? So why is it two times more expensive?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Image-PrimeFilm-XA-Automatic/dp/B00GABQCRS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503356717&sr=8-1&keywords=pacific+image

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reflecta-RPS-10M-film-scanner/dp/B00NFWS994/ref=sr_1_1s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1503356596&sr=1-1&keywords=reflecta+10m

 

If I dare to buy one of these or one Plustek (which I tend to like more), I won’t have a warranty either. Well, I will have it, but, if there is a problem, I would have to send the scanner by plane or boat to who knows where.

Edited by Fiodor
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...