Scanning Film is a Chore

[larrydressler]

<p>If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck well then it must be a duck. glad you feel better now. :)</p>

[jbm]

<p>Yep, scanning film is a massive pain in the posterior, even when it's going well. I still like the quality of the images shot on 400 or lower ISO film better than anything that comes out of my dSLR, with the caveat that digital blows film away for certain situations (studio, anything where you want to change your setup based on instant results). The Nikon scanners are, for the money, really magnificant machines. The film loader with the 5000ed makes scanning an entire roll pretty simple.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I still shoot 35mm 1/2 frame and for myself I had hoped that scanning would just give me an idea what negs I want to enlarge in the darkroom. Sort of a quick review. Contact prints of half frame negs are really small and hard to read don't ya know. I figured a flatbed scanner would be good enough to do job but like the OP I've found the process so labor intensive that I just gave up. I still use film because I really like mechanical, non battery dependant cameras and that limits you to older film cameras. I am amazed at the advancement in digital in the last decade and think they are the bee's knees for many applications.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I find the effort in scanning to be less than the effort in raw processing, since I can just pick the film et voila.</p>

<p>Some scans are more time involved (i.e medium format black and white with glass holder where spotting has to be done manually). Yet the results they provide are not achievable with a DSLR.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thomas,</p>

<p>"actually no i don't. Clark has done that for me."</p>

<p>That is incorrect, even if Clark had posted accurate/valid information (which is not the case), there is no substitute for experience where you hold the prints in your hand and determine which one looks better.</p>

<p>Clark's vision in the the Canon 5D 12.x megapixels DSLR provides superior apparent quality than 6x7 film grain film. Thomas, do you agree with Clark?</p>

[acmelabs]

<p>I enjoy scanning film: <br>

1) I scan high resolution, fine grained, MF (6x7) B&W on a Nikon 9000 (APX 25, Rollei ATP and Panatomic-X) and I find the results are wonderful. I still get to choose my developer and fine tune the whole process until I get what I want.<br>

2) I scan my father's 40 year archive of E6 and K-14 35mm transparencies in batches on a Nikon 5000ED/SF-210 to share with our family. This is rewarding in a different but no less satisfying way.<br>

-materialsguy</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Thomas - I would caution you against continuing this. You are dealing with two people who have a reputation for dragging unrelated threads into the mud of a digital versus film debate. Two people who cannot let any positive comment about digital go unchallenged. They are convinced beyond reason that they are right and that only their tests or experiences are valid. Clark may be a planetary imaging specialist for NASA with a beautiful and accomplished portfolio, and testing procedures they can't even understand much less duplicate. But that means squat against shots of crayons and toy soldiers for them. Any discussion on your part will prove a complete waste of time.</p>

<p>In short: do not feed the trolls.</p>

<p>Dave - for film you are having developed you could try a lab which offers "premium" 4000 dpi scans. Standard scans offered with most services will probably leave you wanting. But even premium scans are usually cheaper if done along with developing. Quality will vary by lab and you just have to find one you're happy with. For existing shots I would try a small business or individual like Harrington. My guess is that you'll get more attention to detail this way.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thomas,<br>

here is a test performed with toy soldiers that may help for the comparison on dynamic range. <br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/2/424020444_n2LsD#424020444_n2LsD-O-LB</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Not sure what Daniel refers to about negating positive comments about digital.</p>

<p>Digital camera are an absolute wonder of technology and a pleasure to use. (My opinion)</p>

<p> </p>

[john_liberty]

<p>There's only one way to get through it. Alternate between scanning and surfing the web on your computer. If you have a game or race or something you can go back to it's even better. Only watching the microwave is slower than scanning if you just sit there and wait on it to finish.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>I use a Nikon Coolscan as well - and you are right it takes time. But it is a labor of love, and if you have enough computer power you can be working on pictures at the same time other pictures are scanning so there's lots to do. I've become the family photo historian, and now have over 60K of family pictures from three generations, back to the late 1800's digitized. We are able to easily share all the family pictures back and forth across the multiple continents we live on, and that makes it well worth while.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Yep. I have a separate dedicated computer on the scanner.</p>

<p>Never tried the microwave yet to pass the time.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Microwave? Is that something new? Remember I use film. :-)</p>

[mikal_grass]

<p>I recently shot several rolls of Fuji Neopan 1600 35 mm film on my Mamiy 7II using the panorama adapter. Now I want to scan the negatives on my Nikon coolscan 9000 scanner, but I don't have a proper film holder.<br /> Is there anyone out there who sells modified 35 mm film holders so I can scan more than one negative at a time, or do I have to buy the Nikon rotating holder? Does the rotating holder permit me to scan more than one negative at a time? I am not mechanically inclined so I would prefer not to make masks or fiddle with film holders.<br /> I looked in the archives and found one guy who modified a 35 mm holder. I wrote him an email but have not yet heard back from him.<br /> <br /> Thank you very much.<br /> Mikal W. Grass</p>

[max cooper]

<p>Good Lord. Photographers will argue about anything.</p>

<p>Four nine months now I have been posting a film scan every day on my blog. The scanning itself is mostly done now, and let me tell you, it was definitely a chore. It is neither the meditative, hands-on experience of the darkroom, nor the predictable, pragmatic experience of a RAW workflow. For me, it's the worst of both worlds.</p>

<p>As for the results: I did hang a show this summer that was about 65% film images. 11x14 inkjet prints, on Crane Museuo Rag, behind glass, in gallery light. Several very experienced photogs had trouble picking out the four digital images. That tells me the quality results are pretty much on par, at least at those sizes. Whether that is good or bad depends on your perspective. </p>

<p>I continue to shoot film for two reasons: Film cameras, and dynamic range. But I no longer believe in the "look" everyone talks about, unless we're talking about medium/large format black and white. And even then, I bet a Hassy with a digital back would be fierce competition.</p>

<p>Here's my Scan-A-Day project: <a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2008/11/sad-project.html">http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2008/11/sad-project.html</a></p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>I had a scanner and sold it. I have a complete and near mint Leitz Valloy II darkroom set up. It will be sold too.Why? Nik Silver Efx. Digital cameras and software have come a long way and are constantly improving. There is no right or wrong, just personal preference.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I was quoting the joke "Only watching the microwave is slower than scanning if you just sit there and wait on it to finish."</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>Thomas Sullivan very good points!<br>

Im not sure why people try to compare digital to film, or why people try to make digital "look" like film? Why not use digital for its own unique characteristics ?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Film and digital are both complimentary tools. Neither one can do everything the other one can.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I have found scanning at home superior to having a lab do the work for me. I have tried professional labs, 1 hour labs and Cost Co. For large files you must go to a professional lab and pay a hefty price. For small files I have found CostCo to be pretty good. I have never had a scan from a lab or from my own scanner that did not require a tune up in photoshop. Scanning frustrations drove me into the digital world 3 yrs ago kicking and screaming but I have found it liberating. I have 40 years of negatives and will always need a scanner but I have found the Epson V500 to be fine for what I need. It's simple to use and I can scan 35mm and medium format with it. This scanner should not be used if you are thinking about large prints or large volume.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I have a couple of old SCSI Scanners (Canon FS2710 & Minolta ScanDual) and a couple of old computers (Apple G3 and G4). So I scan on both at the same time! In the old days of commercial darkroom printing we would have 2, 3 or even 4 enlargers going with different jobs. You wrote stuff down and worked fast. Once you get it down it's not so bad, and all those old Computers are pretty cheap now.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Like I said, both digital and film supplement each other. And you can't make one from the other (neither in convenience not in results).<br /> Thinking that a filter applied to a digital capture can emulate the results of film is incorrect. Adding grain texture to a digital capture is not the same to an analog capture of the original subject.<br /> Below the same composition was taken with a Canon 40D + 60mm macro and also with TMAX 67, Provia 67, Velvia50 67 and Velvia 100 67. The film was scanned with a Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p>100% crops (not resampled) are here:<br /> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Resolution-and-Diffraction/6302153_PLzKe#634475238_ANd2E-O-LB</p>

<p>You can try to upsample the 10MP DSLR and add grain texture using Silver EFX to match the film scans but it is IMPOSSIBLE. (If anyone wants to take a stab at it please do so and post the results).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>In the same fashion, I cannot pretend using a capture with color film to emulate the results of a capture with B&W. It is also impossible. Anyone using Silver EFX feel free to try using the 100% Velvia scans to emulate the 100% TMAX scans. [link provided above for 100% scans]</p>

<p>I point this out to clarify that it is not a film vs digital. All captures -of any type- are bound by the data they gather in their original take.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Also as you may notice, the resolution (in lines per pph) of the different scans of Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia and TMAX is different. TMAX being the highest because TMAX outresolves the Coolscan 9000 by a much larger margin than Velvia does, and provides a wider frequency for the scan sampling to be maximized.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have tried professional scanning, then bought a Nikon 5000 and added a Nikon 9000 more recently. I should have just got the 9000 to start with but I shoot a lot more 35mm film than MF film. For 35mm the 9000 is a lot faster and easier than the 5000. Professional scanning gets much more expensive than buying a scanner very quickly. Scans done by processing machines are very poor quality but cheap. Good quality scans are expensive and you can quickly pay for a scanner. Even the Nikon 9000 is only $2100 - if you wish to scan MF you will need one of the glass film holders (either the rotating or non-rotating) which adds about $300. The 9000 can scan 5 (35mm) transparancies or 12 negatives. I find scanning is faster and easier than enlarging and printing. <br>

I tried the Epson scanners (V700) but found the quality very poor for 35mm and reasonable for MF (especially 6x8). Even with MF it takes a lot of effort to get a good scan from the Epson - the Nikon is much easier for good consistant results. Drum scans are better than the Nikon but the difference is small and I have to pay $50 - $70 for a top quality MF scan in Canada!</p>