bw film shots: from F100 to my PC/the web

[deantaylor]

<p><br />I recently purchased a Nikon F100 and I'd like to process the negatives myself--ultimately, create prints and/or upload imaged to the web.<br>

<br />My tentative plan is, e.g., to shoot a roll of bw and scan it to my PC for processing (would photoshop work for film--or, like most trends, is it geared for digital photos?).<br>

<br />At any rate, please recommend a budget scanner--say, in the $200 range--for 35mm bw film. Are there scanners designed primarily for bw, or are they all set up for both bw and color?<br>

<br />I may have misread a web article, but I seem to recall having seen mentioned that bw slides are the medium of choice--for quality of image--true? Once I develop the slides I can scan them, edit them, upload them to the web, etc. Is this feasible?<br>

<br />Any information and/or links to information is gratefully received.<br>

<br />Dean</p>

[mtk]

<p>Hi Dean,<br>

Loads of scanner information here. Simply use the search engine. Flatbed scanners are the cheapest. Slides certainly can be scanned and treated like any other photo. Yes films like Velvia may scan "better" because of the apparently lack of grain, but other than availability on the intertnet, slide films are very difficult to find at a retail store and developing is getting difficult to find...sending out to the corner drugstore or Wally World are options If you plan on processing yourself...IMHO home processing of slides is not practical. Do yourself a favor especially if you are just starting out, stick with BW. Shoot products like Tri X or HP5. Plenty of specific info on how to develop on here or the net. You are going to get responses saying that fbed scanners are junk and don't bother. I have a low end HP flatbed in the 125 dollar range. The results are acceptable to me for my 35mm stuff but it's slow and the software sucks. The Epson V series are decent, but maybe more than your budget. Dedicated 35mm film scanners give the "best" results, but they are not made anymore and are expensive on the used market.<br>

This sounds to me like you have great intentions to utilize a great film camera (one of the best IMHO)...But, you may want to simply purchase one of the films of your choice and sending it out to be scanned and developed might be a great way to start until you get your feet wet.<br>

FWIW I am an avid film and digital guy so I applaud your choice to try this....<br>

Have Fun!<br>

Mark</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>It's probably a choice that's going to come down to what deal you can find. Your budget is well within flatbed territory. They're not ideal, but I they're adequate for proofing, posting to the web and small prints. Some may disagree with me on this point, however. What I'd suggest is using a flatbed scanner to scan all of your photos and then decide which negatives you'd like to print and get those specific negatives professionally scanned to hi-res files and then do your photoshop voodoo before print.</p>

<p>Anyway, as the poster above said, the Epson V series is top rate for flatbeds. I happen to use a Canon Canoscan 8800f and it works fine for my purposes. All of the scans on my flickr stream are with this model, so you can check those out if you'd like by clicking on this picture. (Though ignore the first few color medium format scans, those were examples of exhausted C41 chemistry and not demonstrative of the scanner's capability).</p>

<p>This is with the same combo (F100 + Canoscan)<br>

<a title="What? by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6487267429_ded7018fa9_z.jpg" alt="What?" width="640" height="423" /></a></p>

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>Dean-<br>

I've been developing my own B+W and scanning to digital for a few years now. All scanners scan B+W and color equally well, just stay away from the cheap optical scanners. Google "Ion Film Scanner" to get an idea of what they look like. Check out Epson Perfection Photo scanners. The V330 ($89) has better specs than my recently deceased Epson and I found it very adequate for the web. After that you are paying money for increased resolution and larger scanning areas for more negatives or larger formats. Less than $200 can get you a very nice machine. Might be worth it for you depending on your needs. Get ready for a steep learning curve. Good scanning is much more than pushing a button.<br>

An image processing program is essential for working with scanned negatives. Photoshop is very great and very expensive. GIMP is free and a good way to learn post-processing basics. Brace yourself for learning curve #2.<br>

I'm not sure that slides are the medium of choice for scanning. I really like Tri-X in Rodinal. Supposedly this is a poor choice for scanning, but that's the way I do it and I like the results. Have fun and develop your own preferences. There are infinite ways to skin this particular cat.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I use a V 700 and I believe I got my money's worth.</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>Mark, Ryan, Matthew and Larry:</p>

<p>Thank you, one and all, for sharing both your expertise and enthusiasm for this artform--the creative capturing of light.<br>

Amazon has a Canoscan for under $200 (as well as over 200 positive reviews). Next, check out the Epsons before the purchase.<br>

Ryan, your suggestion helped to articulate what I was hoping to get across: "[use] a flatbed scanner to scan all of your photos and then decide which negatives you'd like to print and get those specific negatives professionally scanned to hi-res files and then do your photoshop voodoo before print."<br>

I'm sensing that everything up to the print procedure is not a daunting task, i.e., process b & w film in the bathroom, with a safelight, the few chemicals called for, and scan to my PC, etc. True? Creating a print, while not out of the question on a budget at home, is considerably more difficult. Again: true? <br>

I have a whole slew of questions I'm keen on exploring--e.g., which two or three lenses I am going to turn to again and again for b & w with this F100--but I'll sign off for now...</p>

<p>Dean</p>

 

<h1 ></h1>

<p> </p>

[ryan_long]

<p>You need a daylight tank to process your film. Film is not safe from a safelight. </p>

<p>However, if you wanted to, you could try and print at home as well. Used enlargers regularly go for cheap or free on craigslist. If you're just printing contact sheets or 5x7s it can be pretty economical to do at home. Once you get printing 16x20 or so you're probably going to start getting a little more pricey just to buy trays and such for that size. Again, the used market is your friend.</p>

<p>Making big digital prints is another story and the economy of doing so is in part relative to how many big prints you want to make and what is "expensive" to you!</p>

<p>But, if you're just going to process at home (which is the most sensible way for BW, really), then all you need is a daylight tank, reels, a dark bag, a graduated cylinder (600ml is what I use) and chemicals. I actually bought the Arista kit from freestyle.biz when I started out and it had everything I needed for developing and printing save for an enlarger. I'd supplement the kit with the Arista Premium reels however, as they are much easier to load. </p>

 

[jean_yves_mead]

B&W film can be processed in the kitchen sink under normal light, so long as you have a changing bag handy for loading film into a daylight tank - you'll be working by feel but it takes very little practice to get this down pat.

 

Whichever scanner you choose, make sure it can indeed scan transparencies. Not all can.

[zane1664879013]

<p>The <a href="http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1184973913.1324741436@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdfadffhkefkhjcfngcfkmdhjidfmh.0&cookies=no&oid=-13268">Epson Clearance Store</a> is worth checking before you buy retail.</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>I have an Epson Perfection 4490 which I like very much. I see one is available at the Epson clearance store for $109, well within your budget. I bought mine off eBay. It can be used as regular flat bed scanner but has both 35mm and 120 negative holders, as well as one for 35mm slides.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Few things:</p>

<p>B&W <em>slides</em> are rare. There's only one lab I'm aware of that does it, see www.dr5.com, and they use a process that starts with regular B&W film. If you want to shoot B&W and have it be easy, just use negatives. Start with something simple. B&H will sell you a 3-pack of Ilford HP5 for $10.50, or get some Arista Premium 400 (which is actually Kodak Tri-X, rebranded) from Freestyle, and try developing in HC-110 to start (liquids are simple because you don't have to dissolve a whole batch worth of powder at a time).</p>

<p>You only need a darkroom and safelight if you want to use an enlarger and make optical prints onto photo paper. Safelights are <em>not</em> safe for undeveloped film, and a home darkroom that's dark enough for film handling is very difficult to achieve, so just use a changing bag and a regular film developing tank. You'll also need a thermometer and graduated cylinders for measuring, and containers to keep the chemicals in. You can get those all from freestylephoto.biz.</p>

<p>Scanners - a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit, like an Epson V500, is probably best if you want to buy new and not spend a lot. Otherwise, trolling Craigslist and Ebay for a good deal on a used film scanner is going to net you the best deal. I've owned Minolta Scan Dual III, Dual IV and Elite 5400 scanners, and from those, for B&W I'd choose the Dual IV because it's reasonably quick, gives a nicely sharp and detailed image, and it's main con is that it doesn't have ICE but ICE doesn't work on B&W film anyway. For older models you'd also likely need Vuescan (preferably Vuescan Pro) software because the older software doesn't run on the newer OSes.</p>

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>Lots of good flatbeds out there, new used and refurbished. The only reason why I recommended Epson is that they seem to do a better job releasing new drivers for older scanners. I've passed on many used scanners since I couldn't get a driver for my 64bit OS. If you go the used route and a driver is not available, you could pick one up from betterscanning.com. Supposedly the software is well worth the $ even for a new scanner but I can't speak from experience.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Don't underestimate the stock Epsonscan software.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>You can shoot black and white C-41 film and have it developed at any place that does C-41 color film. Most labs will also give you scans of the processed film. C-41 black and white is a good bridge until you get set up to develop and scan your own traditional black and white film. </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>Dedicated 35mm film scanners give the "best" results, but they are not made anymore and are expensive on the used market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pulstek and Pacific Image both make 35mm film scanners in your price range or close to it and are currently available <strong>new</strong>. The Pulstek do a very good job and I cannot speak for the Pacific Image but from the specs of the low cost ones you would be better off with a flat bed. The Pulstek 7400 is currently available at B&H for $219, a really good buy.</p>

 

[deantaylor]

<p>again, much obliged for the insights and tech savvy!<br>

scanners...<br>

I'm learning about drum scanners, flat-bed and sheetfed...at least three scanners have<br>

emerged:<br>

Plustek OpticFilm 7400 Film Scanner http://is.gd/nKGeG1 (around $240)<br>

Canon CanoScan 9000F Color Image Scanner http://is.gd/LqadpV (around $185)<br>

Epson Perfection V600 Photo Color Scanner http://is.gd/pUZMdb ($170 or so)<br>

I can manage the Plustek cost--IF it delivers a better image (Jean-Yves mentioned the importance of scanning transparencies as well). Is the Plustek a drum scanner?</p>

<p>Much obliged for the processing info, too. <br>

Is there a link to a tutorial that explains the procedure--from having shot a roll of Ilford to processing/scanning same? <br>

Dean<br>

To those that celebrate--have a great holiday!</p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>A drum scanner will cost you about 10 grand used.. no Plustek is a dedicated scanner... And mixed reviews on durability and even Tek support... I am holding off there ..... Canon seems to not like updating drivers where I get tweaks for my Epson a few times a year.. </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>I inherited a Pulstek 7200. I do not know how much usage it had before I got it. It gets light usage from me but works fine. It does a very good job. I can get a high quality 16 x20 from its scan. If I were looking for gallery quality I would get drum scans made and use the Pulstek for proofs.</p>

<p>The difference between scanners is in the fine detail without any filters or other enhancements. The other aspect is called Dmax or density max. The higher the Dmax the better the separation between tones.</p>

<p>Most magazines reviewing scanners do not have a lab equipped to fully test the optical abilities of the machines. They have sharp tech people that can separate the junk and manufacturer over rated from the good. Special instruments are needed to detect the differences that many say are over ratings. I have seen at least one review that Pulstek was actually 3600 dpi optically because the evaluator could not see a difference above 3600 but a test instrument would.</p>

<p>The flatbeds will give you good 8x10's, the Pulstek good 11x14's or higher depending on your photography skills. Scanners pick up flaws that were masked with optical printing such as just detectable variances development, small particles deposited in the emulsion during processing that would not be apparent until large enlargements were made and minute focusing errors or camera shake.</p>

<p>Choose according to your current and future quality requirements. Scanning over the manufacturers stated optical limit is software interpolation. Print scaling works better.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>My V700 does a nice job and I like the Epson software, It gets things right without a lot of fuss. My Plustek 7600i can resolve more detail than the V700 but prefer using Vuescan than the supplied Silverfast. Am shocked at the price. I paid maybe $275 and the price is over $400 now. It is a well made machine. have had it for a year now, use it a lot and have had no problems.</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>hello--<br>

to recap: all things being equal is it a safe bet that I gain superior results with a dedicated scanner--v. the flatbed? If so I will go to the Plustek and--as Charles noted--use it for proofs, turning to a lab for particular shots...<br>

thank you photo.net community!</p>

<p>Dean</p>

 

[damon_fernandes]

<p>Use Lightroom. Any scanner will do for bw.</p>