Slide film scanned less punch than the actual slide?

This more related to film photography than digital darkroom "editing". Feel free to move though :)

 

I put aside some time to scan some film, in the past I had some that was done with a Nikon CS4000 and now the same done with an Epson V700, both printed A3 with the Epson R2880. Nikon was a bit better detail but both usable. Maybe larger sizes the Nikon would be more advantage. Both printed images were still a bit like a film image - yes I know film is film right. When we look at the actual slide it is backlighted, slick, smooth, sharp, contrast.

 

I have done the same to b/w film see that it has more atmosphere and medium format b/w particularly nice.

 

Like your thoughts, Cheers.

In my experience, scans of transparencies almost always lacked the vibrance of the originals (especially Kodachrome). You might try boosting contrast slightly to compensate.

This more related to film photography than digital darkroom "editing". Feel free to move though :)

 

I put aside some time to scan some film, in the past I had some that was done with a Nikon CS4000 and now the same done with an Epson V700, both printed A3 with the Epson R2880. Nikon was a bit better detail but both usable. Maybe larger sizes the Nikon would be more advantage. Both printed images were still a bit like a film image - yes I know film is film right. When we look at the actual slide it is backlighted, slick, smooth, sharp, contrast.

 

I have done the same to b/w film see that it has more atmosphere and medium format b/w particularly nice.

 

Like your thoughts, Cheers.

 

How do they look on a computer screen? It might be a printing problem rather than a scanning problem. Could be the printer, paper, ink, etc. Or it could be that a print is just not going to look the same as a transparency (slide).

I have some experience in scanning slides. In my opinion, the original scans can come out dull looking depending on the scanner post processing settings. For example, if the slide has a small bright region (like a reflection) and everything else is lower midrange brightness, the resulting digital file could attempt to preserve that bright spot without blowing it. In this case, everything else in the image may be pushed to the left of the histogram and look dull. Curves/level adjustment can correct for that. I would rather have a dull looking original scan that preserves all the information for me to play with, rather than having the software make automated decision of what to reject or keep. I have always needed to do such adjustments in my scans to get the scanned image resemble the original slide.

 

In my opinion, you will almost never get the vibrant colors of a slide film in a print made on paper. The slide shows the image through transmitted light, whereas the print relies on reflected light from the paper white and the dyes/pigments. The original slide has a greater dynamic range than a print which allows it to display more saturated colors. Also,the darker areas in the original slide can seem brighter than they look in a print (or even the scanned image when viewed on the monitor may look brighter than a print) due to difference in dynamic range. Therefore, it is always advisable to look at the histogram and make adjustments before printing. Also, small proof prints help before committing to a larger print.

In my opinion, you will almost never get the vibrant colors of a slide film in a print made on paper. The slide shows the image through transmitted light, whereas the print relies on reflected light from the paper white and the dyes/pigments. The original slide has a greater dynamic range than a print which allows it to display more saturated colors. Also,the darker areas in the original slide can seem brighter than they look in a print (or even the scanned image when viewed on the monitor may look brighter than a print) due to difference in dynamic range. Therefore, it is always advisable to look at the histogram and make adjustments before printing. Also, small proof prints help before committing to a larger print.

 

Maybe it is this. I quite like b/w film and other film occasionally like C41 for that quite a bit different look. But when I look at a gorgeous well exposed slide I want that on the print. Most people shoot b/w film and then maybe C41 and E6 might be last on the list. I have always just read reviews on magazine, online, this is the first time I have actually scanned something both with the Nikon Coolscan and the Epson and printed both out just to see how well i holds up. I have used the same printer, same paper with my dSLR and I do get a slicker smoother image. I will try the same with a medium format slide (Velvia 50 and Kodak E100G) when I get them, they are currently in Chicago with USPS and then will back reach New Zealand soon :) lol. I am tracking it every day ....

 

I could just grab a piece of film when I head overseas since it is so expensive here in NZ. Or when I send my film overseas to be processed in the USA, ask them to do a Hasselblad Imacon scan with it, pay that and then print it out of my Epson and see how well it holds up. This would eliminate the scanning component.

I would think that if you're not able to get a decent A3 print from a medium format slide, then something isn't right. And again, I wonder if you see the same problems with the scanned images when they're magnified on your computer.

 

Also remember that one reason the slide itself may look so much better is that your print is several times larger. Grain or dye clouds that would be invisible on an unmagnified slide could show on a larger print.

I would think that if you're not able to get a decent A3 print from a medium format slide, then something isn't right. And again, I wonder if you see the same problems with the scanned images when they're magnified on your computer.

 

Also remember that one reason the slide itself may look so much better is that your print is several times larger. Grain or dye clouds that would be invisible on an unmagnified slide could show on a larger print.

 

The A3 print is certainly decent. I've never need a cibachrome. Got into film photography after digital and have only used lab's Fuji Archive Crystal services. Maybe it is my expectation.

 

Contrast range of a backlit slide viewed in darkness - about 2,500:1

Contrast range of a monitor in room lighting - about 500:1

Contrast range of a paper print - <100:1

 

Any surprise that a print doesn't have the same "punch" as a slide?