Scanning 35mm Negs - Need Help

[michael j hoffman]

Here is my situation. I am an avid photographer with extensive experience of both film and digital capture. I have

used several very good film cameras, and also have spent the last five plus years using the Canon EOS 10D DSLR.

I am ready to "upgrade" for the purposes of better resolution and dynamic range as compared to my 10D.

 

I get 12 X 18 inch inkjet prints that are to my liking from the 10D. Back in the film-only days I used to get 9 X 13.5

inch chemically processed prints (both color and b/w) that were to my liking from 35mm negs. I have extensive

knowledge of both chemical and direct digital capture processes. I know nothing about scanning film or the hybrid

workflow.

 

I want better resolution and dynamic range. I am not impressed with any of the current DSLR offerings out there.

The entry level Rebel XSi may have the image quality I would want, but the build of the product is cheap and the user

interface is not good enough compared to my 10D. The 50D seems to be needlessly bulked up on megapixels

which have, by some well-regarded accounts like the one at dpreview.com, been included to the detriment of image

quality, especially at higher ISOs.

 

Also, I miss using my old film gear. I have a Leica MP that I absolutely enjoy using. I don't want to set up a wet

darkroom in the house. I would have my negatives processed commercially. I would like to begin using a hybrid

workflow that will take me from film capture to a 12 X 18 inch inkjet print, by way of scanning 35mm negs. What is

your advice/suggestion? What input resolution setting will I need to use when scanning film? And, finally, will it

prove more economical to have my scanning commercially done (film scanned to CD) at the time of processing, or to

buy my own film scanner and do it myself, assuming a shooting rate of 50 to 75 images per week yielding 2 to 3

enlargements from those images?

 

Thanks!

 

Michael J Hoffman

[tim gray]

I'd look into the Nikon Coolscans. I got a V and am very happy with it. You could get the 5000 if you wanted to spend

the extra money.

 

Is this color or B&W? If B&W, develop yourself. You will be happier. Scan the keepers at home. It's not hard to

develop B&W film at home.

 

If color, when you get the film developed at the lab, I would recommend paying the extra couple bucks to get low res

scans made. These are suitable for web posting and also give you a reference for which shots you want to scan at

home at higher resolution.

 

I do have to say though, you might want to look at a 5D (or 5DII). You can get a lot of quality out of those cameras.

The Leica M8 too, but that's pretty expensive. This is coming from someone who shoots pretty much only 35mm film.

[vilk_inc]

well, i guess you didn't get that MP to settle for the mediocrity of commercial film processing and scanning now ;)

 

my vote for Super Coolscan 5000 ED and a two-reel dev tank

[anov]

Then buy the 40D, 10MP, plenty of pixel for 12x8 print, cheaper than the 50D and still can be had new.

[michael j hoffman]

I will be shooting mostly color negative film.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[randall_pukalo]

I have a fantastic 12x18 print on Fuji Crystal Archive papaer hanging on my wall from scanned 35mm iso100 slide film, and an equally good 11x14 from iso 400 negative film. So getting those print sizes is no problem from 35mm. The 12x18 was scanned at 2000x3000 resolution and printed at Costco, believe it or not. So, only 6MP, but I could have scanned it at 5400x7900 if I had wanted on my Minolta 5400 scanner. I was testing optimal scan sizes for 12x18 landscapes, and this looked great, so there I stopped. I could easily get an excellent 16x24 out of that slide if needed.

 

Anyways, I would suggest you take the low cost route at first, before buying a $1000-$2000 film scanner. Shoot your film, and have the lab scan it at the time of processing. I suggest getting a Costco membership. $50 bucks buys you access to pro-lab quality prints and processing. They develop and print 36 exp neg film w/4x6 prints in ah hour for about $6 bucks. Add a high resolution/hi quality 2000x3000 scan CD for another $3. They do reprints from negatives on Fuji Crystal archive for:

4x6 = 13 cents

5x7 = 29 cents

8x10 or 8x12 for $1.49

11x14 or 12x18 for $2.49

16x20 and 20x30 are send out only, not sure the price.

 

So shoot some film, and see what you like. If you really get into it, by all means get a Nikon Coolscan film scanner (Minolta 5400 was tops, but is no longer made). OR, send out slect frames to high end pro landscape labs for drum scanning and printing LARGE. www.slideprinter.com or West Coast Imaging,. etc.

 

Also, by all means get at least 1 Cibachrome traditional enlargement print while you still can.

 

Watch out, Film can be addictive!

[randall_pukalo]

As for what scanning resolution to use, experiment yourself, but I have found that the old rule of needing 300dpi is no longer valid. The advanced upscaling programs used by minilabs have made that obsolete. 2000x3000 looks impeccable at 12x18. The old rules would require at least 3600x5400. You can easily do this with a Nikon or Minolta scanner, but I have found it is not worth the extra time - I cant see any difference, even in very detailed landscape type prints.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I use a Nikon scanner, the CS 9000, because I also shoot medium format. It's an excellent scanner, but you can save some money and opt for the CS 5000 (or the discontinued V) if you only shoot 35mm. FOr neg scans, I make a linear scan (gamma = 1) with NikonScan. That ensures that I get maximum detail from the negs. I then invert and color correct using the Photoshop plug-in ColorNeg. More info is in the following thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ

[mendel_leisk]

I'd say persevere with the dslr route. I'm still scanning but would *not* shoot more film, unless all means of pure digital capture evaporated.

[daniele_chiesa]

I recently got a Coolscan 5000 in order to archive all the slides of my dad and mine. Guess what, besides resurrecting my old yashica, i ogt an OM-1 with a couple of lenses ans a spotmatic with a few lenses too. I already shot a few rolls and scanned them and i'm very happy: i also use a 10D and the scanned slides have far more detail. Of course i still use the 10D a lot, it's so convenient and not bad in itself; OTOH, sometimes i still look on the back of the film cameras after the exposure :)

BTW, i still think once i scan all the old stuff, i might sell the scanner and get a used 5D though.

The only problem is, now i wonder how scanned MF and LF would look like!

[john_chambers]

HI Michael,

 

My suggestion would be for you to buy one of the dedicated 35mm film scanners priced at or near $200. I myself had been using a Minolta Dual Scan III until it died recently and I'm also now in the market for a new scanner. My Minolta had a resolution of 2820 dpi and I figured that it gave me the same or similar resolution as a 10 mega pixel DSLR. That had been far exceeded by the new scanners. If you would like, I can send you a full resolution scan that you can check out and even make prints of so you can see if it's something you want to get into. Just email me privately if you want to take me up on that offer.

 

One thing about scanning that you should know is that it can be tedious. You will spend a significant amount of time cloning out little scratches and dust specs. I always laugh at digital shooters who obsess over hot pixels.

 

Good luck!

 

John

[rdm]

<p>i do not want to start a new thread, but do any of you know a good inexpensive scanner i can get to scan both 120 and 135 format film? my 120 film i shoot is mostly 6x6 but i do have 6x9 too??</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>When speaking of scanners, good and inexpensive rarely match. More often than not, you get what you pay for. Try a look at this website:<br>

<a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html">http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html</a><br>

At the end I settled for the Nikon Coolscan V</p>

[robert lee]

<p>" I would like to begin using a hybrid workflow that will take me from film capture to a 12 X 18 inch inkjet print, by way of scanning 35mm negs."<br>

This is what I've been doing routinely.  I typically shoot about four 36 exposure cassettes a week.  I've found that the only practical workflow involves the Nikon CS5000 with a whole roll feeder, either the SA-30 or by modifying the included SA-21 strip film feeder.  In either case, the key is that this allows unattended operation.  Scanning 36 exposures still takes 45 minutes, the difference though is that you can walk away for the duration.<br>

You'll find that many users swear by Vuescan or Silverfast.  However, I've always found the included Nikonscan to work perfectly well.  Just insert the film strip and trust the autoexposure and autofocus to do its job.<br>

Always scan to the highest tonal and spatial resolution settings - 16bit TIFF at 4000dpi.  This gives 21MP per frame; it is the digitized archive of the physical negative.  Crop and otherwise Photoshop the select good ones for print.</p>

[rdm]

<p>HEY Luca. was that responce for me? because the Nikon Coolscan V doesnt look like it can do 120 film</p>

[don_e]

<p>"do any of you know a good inexpensive scanner i can get to scan both 120 and 135 format film?"</p>

<p>Depends what you mean by "inexpensive". Epson V700 flatbed around 500$. For a multi-format dedicated film scanner, Nikon 9000 around 2000$. Used Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO...depends. Maybe 1500$</p>

<p><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /> </span> </span></p>

<p> </p>

[rdm]

<p>Oh ok i see.. well maby i should rephrase. What can i or should i get for under 1000 dollars that will scan 120 film, and 135.</p>

[don_e]

<p>New?  Epson V750-M, unless there's something new I haven't heard about at that price or lower.</p>

<p> </p>

[tales of a flaneur]

<p>I picked up a used Nikon Coolscan 8000 and have been extremely impressed with its ability to scan old Kodachromes, damaged cheap slide films, B&W of any kind in 120 and 135 size. The Firewire interface is a bit wonky, but I did pick it up for £630.<br>

The 120 film holder is really quite crap at keeping the film flat, though.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Dan, I guess that for your needs either you go for a flatbed like the Epson or you look for something used, like a Coolscan 8000. I now have the Coolscan V and I am very satisfied, but I can handle only 35 mm. If you find a good used one, you can always set up a dedicated computer with yesteryear software. </p>

[wentbackward]

<p>I've been using the Canon 8800F with Silverfast. It does pretty well but the 120 film holder is a little flimsy. Basically I scan all my film to fairly low res jpg, mark the date on my negative packet and archive. I can easily find my negatives when I need to. I then rescan anything I want to print. I print up to A4 at home, but can print over twice that size at 300 dpi so could I guess I could go larger, however for the odd occasion when I do, I'll just find the negative and take the whole thing for professional treatment from scan to finishing. If I want to print direct from the negative so again a nice scanner (although I do keep looking at them wantonly) would be a waste. For me the 8800f was the best balance of cost vs time vs quality. I only shoot 120 and less often 35mm. Typically I'll only have to scan a handful of films after a shoot anyway. I find the workflow about as time consuming as shooting digital RAW, as archiving, tagging and any post on keepers are about 90% of the effort, ok scanning is slightly cumbersome but whilst one lot is scanning I can process the previous scan and can do all that on a low end macbook, albeit with 4GB of RAM.</p>

<p>I would love a better scanner, but I think I'd get more value from spending that time and money setting up a facility to develop my own film. I get a lot of inconsistencies, kinks and scratches etc that would all improve the scans from this cheapo scanner.</p>