From film to digital

[thorkild]

<p>I have been working digital for some time now but would like to take the old Leica M3 out now and then - especially black and white. Really a basic question: as I don't want and have the darkroom equipment any more: how can I transform my 35 mm negatives into digital for processing in PhotoShop. Without loss of quality. Is this possible?</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>The short answer: how much time and money do you have? ;-)</p>

<p>For maximum quality, you'd need a drum scanner or a scanner almost as good (i.e. at least 90% as good). Many desktop scanners giver quicker results but not quite as good as a drum scanner. Drum scanners are quite expensive AFAIK. So are some desktop ones.</p>

<p>For b&w film you may as well use either XP2 or T-Max CN, only because they're easy to develop in any C-41 lab. Otherwise, Spur Orthopan (which has higher resolving power than most 35mm lenses) would be worth a look. That, however, requires manual development.</p>

<p>Others will give you better, more detailed answers.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Personally, having done this a lot over a few years, I don't think there is much point working with real silver-based B&W films if all you're going to do with them is scan them and then work digitally. You may as well just use digital from the get go. You will get better results. Real silver-based B&W films don't really scan that well (unless perhaps you only use very low ISO film which ends up totally grain-free). I'm sure there are many people who might argue differently, but I'm going by my own experience.</p>

<p>If what you're really after is to use the film camera, I would consider loading it with Ilford XP2. It's a wonderful, smooth-looking ISO 400 film that you can get developed and scanned almost anywhere, and it scans very well. I've used a lot of it over the years. I don't have much experience with the Kodak equivalent, but I'm sure it's somewhere along the same lines.</p>

<p> </p>

[xxloverxx]

<p>Without loss of quality is impossible, from what I know. Every time you transfer it (is it called making an intermediate copy or something?), you lose a bit of quality.</p>

<p>I think the way a scanner works is by essentially taking a digital photo of the negative. So the scanner's lens and sensor will degrade quality.<br>

Then you save it as a digital file (sensor-analog to digital conversion). More quality loss.</p>

<p>Edit and export from image editing program — more quality loss, especially with JPEG</p>

<p>So, to sum it up: Impossible.</p>

[anthony_ilardi]

<p>A Nikon ED5000 Coolscan or equivalent will produce first rate scans and certainly up to a 12x18 print you will be hard pressed to see differences from a drum scan. Assuming you intend to make prints, you will also need a good printer, preferably one that prints BW well, such as the Epson 3800 or its successors, and you will need to learn Photoshop techniques for getting the best print -- not all that different from processing digital, but still there are differences. If you do not have it already, you wil need noise reduction software, such as Nosie Ninja, and will have to apply sharpening a bit differently from the the way you do it now. I use both digital (Canon 5D) and film in my Leicas, BW and color negatives. I also have old Kodachromes Ektachromes and even some Agfachromes, and I have scanned them all, and made prints. With patience and proper technique, all the films scan well.<br>

XP2 is a fine film, but it has a different look from TMAx or Tri-X; generally, I prefer the silver-based BW films. Keep one thing in mind: the Nikon scanners (and several others) have Digital ICE, which does not work on silver-based BW; you will have to learn to spot (easy enough in Photoshop, even if a bit time consuming). Digital ICE works with XP-2, and, for some, that is enough to tip the balance. I say give it a try and make your own decision. </p>

[ishi_p]

<p>I use a DSLR. How big do you want to print. </p><div></div>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>The market for scanners is not what it was, but you need a 35mm scanner. Years ago I bought a Nikon Coolscan V ED. Great and reasonably priced. Now only the Nikon 5000 is left. Great scanner but expensive. You may be able to find the V used. A lot of people are using Epson Perfection flatbed scanners like the V700 line, but they don't seem to do as good a job as the film scanners, at least if posts on this forum are to be believed.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, buy the Nikon Coolscan 5000 which will do a fine job. Otherwise there isn't a clear choice as there used to be.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this subject!</p>

<p>Now then: I think that the quality of scanning becomes optimum when the grain is relatively coarse compared to the scanner's resolution. So from that viewpoint Tri-X, maybe in D-76 or XTOL diluted 1:1 may give a better result than, say, FP-4 in Microdol (just to mention a fine-grain combination). And Tri-X pushed to 800 in Microphen might scan better yet. Over development--excessive density--is to be avoided.</p>

<p>Take it with a grain of salt. No, don't--table salt along with Sulfite in developer acts as a fine-grain agent!</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"So, to sum it up: Impossible."<br>

That's a rather silly statement. I have excellent, sharp, grainless prints to at least 11x14 on my wall from t-max 100 and plus-x. Generally I just send the best negs to be scanned at a service on a Nikon 5000/9000, but the results from a neighbor's Nikon V are also excellent. <br>

 

<p >"I think the way a scanner works is by essentially taking a digital photo of the negative. So the scanner's lens and sensor will degrade quality.<br />Then you save it as a digital file (sensor-analog to digital conversion). More quality loss."</p>

<p >This statement sounds logical, but it's not true. I wonder if the poster has worked with high-quality scans. I have compared Nikon 5000 scans with condenser-enlarged darkroom prints, and actually the quality is better. Scanners don't suffer from lens corner aberrations. One can make the most egregious errors in exposure and still have a printable photo from film--you can't overexpose a digital camera by 2 full stops like you can with Tri-x. </p>

<br />

</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>A good dedicated scanner will do it for you. I have used a Konica / Minolta dedicated scanner for years. It was yielded professoral level results. In my last exhibition I had scanned shots from film blown up to A2 size. The only problem is that ICE (removal of dust and scratches) does not work on black and white film in dedicated scanners. I've solved the problem by shooting color film and converting to black and white in Photoshop. </p>

<p>I cannot say whether the tradition darkroom or the digital darkroom yield better results, as I've never had a traditional darkroom. I do appriciate that the freedom and compactness of the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>Get the Nikon dedicated scanner and have fun.</p>

[hans_de_haan1]

<p>just get the ricoh gr digital 1 or 3 and be done:-)!</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Nikon Coolscan 9000/5000/V. For cheaper go with the Epson V750/V700/V600/V500, but it won't be as sharp. I'd not bother with anything cheaper. If you want more expensive, get a Flextight or a drum scanner or something else esoteric. </p>

<p>I scan traditional B&W all the time. I like it a lot more than C-41 B&W and digital. Some don't find it worth the hassle. That's fine, but don't let them discourage you. When I first got my Coolscan V, I scanned a negative and had it printed at 24x18. It looks great. I've learned a lot since then and could do a much better print, but that's besides the point.</p>

<p>If you are careful with your processing and handling, the lack of ICE for dust busting is not an issue at all. </p>

<p>If you have a huge aversion to grain, then why are you shooting 35mm film in this day and age? You'd be much happier shooting digital, MF, or LF. Not that grain is particularly bad scanning, even with something like Tri-X. If you aren't going to lose sleep over a bit of grain, then scanning traditional B&W film is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.</p>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>I use the Nikon COOLSCAN IV all the time with fine results and have settled on the Kodak BW400CN as my standard film. This - as Ilford XP2 - is developed in color negative chemistry, so your local minilab can handle it in an hour. (Try Japan Photo across from the central station :-)<br /><br />I found that the ICE handles dust and stuff nicely, but you will lose detail, if you turn it all the way up - just like digital noise reduction in cameras does it.<br /><br />Good luck,<br /><br />Soeren</p>

<div></div>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>...and this is the corner of the soda vending machine in the middle of the frame - definitely no problem with loss of details through scanning here - even with ICE at its medium setting. The lens was a Voigtlaender 28/3.5 - probably set to 5.6.</p><div></div>