Do you scan?

[bobbuck19]

<p>I've only been shooting medium format about a year and a half, I love it, get a big kick out of looking at my slides through a loupe. Have had a few rolls scanned with processing (was a little disappointed) and have thought about getting a scanner, but hate the idea of spending time scanning and post processing. I shoot digital also and with medium format sometimes miss being able to share on the web or e-mail without a lot of hassle or being able to get a print if I want, but for now my medium format slides are for me. My question is do you scan? all or only some of your shots? and why or why not?</p>

[dan_walther]

<p>My personal philosophy is that why combine the pain of both systems. Like you I shoot both film and digital. With digital I review on the computer, share via computer slideshows, and email photos and get prints from them occasionally. From film I project as slides and leave them that way. If I want something both ways I will take a slide photo AND a digital shot. Simple. I know that doesn't work for everybody but to me I don't want to spend my life on this stuff, just have fun!</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Nowadays I shoot digital for serious work or play, but I love old film cameras, and shoot medium and smaller film formats. Although my personal archive is mostly of old Kodachrome and other color slides, these days, I shoot mostly C/N and B&W films.</p>

<p>Every piece of film I shoot, I scan. For me, it's not a chore, but a treat to be able to work with so many variants and techniques on the images. Ansel Adams would have loved digital, indeed he sort of foresaw it toward the end.</p>

<p>IMO, "Purity of essence" is a concept from <em>Dr. Strangelove</em>, not a formula for working with photography.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I only scan the images I'm going to print otherwise I use lab scans and tweak them in Photoshop to make them usable for the web. Scanning is a major chore and time suck for me but if I'm going to go through the time and expense of making a print, I need the best scan possible.</p>

<p>Mostly I shoot digital these days and would shoot only digital if not for an affection (or is that an affliction) for fine mechanical cameras. I have to admit you can still make a truly fine print from a scanned medium format neg. Even if the camera is over fifty years old.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I both print and scan. I scan only when I am just posting pictures on the web. Having said that my scanner is rather cheap but with a bit of PS I can get an acceptable positive to upload. I prefer to print then scan on a flatbed scanner but even that isn't perfect and needs a little PS to fine tune it. For physical display in an exhibition or what have you I always print in the darkroom.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Like other respondents I shoot digital these days but all my colour work was on medium format slides for over a decade, so I have lot of slides.</p>

<p>Scanning is tedious and boring, to me at least. But there isn't much you can do with a slide outside of viewing it yourself that doesn't require scanning, and most scans require adjustments in Photoshop (less tedious and boring, but still not exactly a source of joy).</p>

<p>For me, I don't scan unless I have a clear purpose for that scan. So paying someone to scan whole rolls is not something I'd want to do as I can either get cheap and not so good or unaffordably expensive and wasteful in the context that 50% of my slides were tossed and another 30% in reserve storage which I scarcely ever need to see. Believe me, once you've taken 30 000 or more slides, the last thing you need is any sort of scan on every one and you'll stop treating every single frame as gold-dust. </p>

<p>I have a flatbed scanner at home because the volume of scans I need for the web, promotional work, for the odd self published book and a very rare small print justifies what is quite a small investment. I have little doubt that what I get is better than the "whole roll scans" carried out under most dev. and scan packages. But not good enough for prints over 12" sq IMO</p>

<p>On the other hand I used to have a Nikon film scanner too. It was worse than marginal on a usage basis for me, not least because most of my stock agencies wouldn't accept the scans. I sold it when I found a good and affordable source for Imacon scans from a small specialist, who not only made good scans but cleaned them in Photoshop (not Ice) and colour corrected to the original. So by going this route I got slightly better scans, which my stock agencies would accept, were good enough for the biggest prints I get asked for these days, and cut down my computer time as well as releasing a £2000 approx investment. </p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

I scan. Only selected negs.<br>Scanning itself is time consuming, and boring. Terribly so.<br>But the postprocessing in image editing software is so much nicer (and easier) than working on the prefect print in a wet darkroom.<br>To avoid frustration, a good scanner is needed. No reason to add to the tedium of scanning by having not so good scans as the end result. Imacon scanners are great. The Nikon machines are only marginally less. Maybe the new Plustek (? i forget the make) due to hit the market will be good too.<br>Best would be an affordable way to have someone else do the work for you.

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>I shoot both digital and MF film. I don't scan my film photographs at all anymore (both colour negative and B&W,), but wet print only. I have the advantage I suppose of having a good relationship with an excellent lab who specialise in old fashioned wet printing.<br /> Apart from the results, which obviously suit me, I find a particular satisfaction in making photographs that have had no contact with computers. I like the fact that the whole process has been analogue without any reduction to 1's and 0's.<br /> If I didn't have access to a lab like that I undoubtedly would scan and print Lambda or something.<br /> The only bore is of course that I can't send them on the web without scanning a finished, small print.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Andrew, the OP takes slides. Getting prints made from those with no scan involved is at the very best difficult and in most people's local area quite impossible. </p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>@ David Henderson<br>

Yes David I saw that, but didn't consider the conversation to be restricted to slides only,more a discussion about the merits of scanning and the problems one encounters if one doesn't. Also I think I referred to access to labs in my answer.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>I have an Epson v500 photo scanner.<br>

I do scan all negatives for preview. I scan selected slides for web.</p>

<p>For quality print, I pay for scans on a good scanner.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Robert, I scan my b&w on an old Epson 2450 flatbed. Which I keep talking about upgrading, but never do. The few rolls of color that I shoot, I most often have scanned when I get developed. I am a low volume shooter, so I'm not overwhelmed with several rolls of film to have scanned with a looking deadline. If the negative looks good then I scan it. If not, I move to the next one. I use vuescan and make use of the preview feature. If it looks really awful in preview, then I skip it. Scanning is just part of the deal with using film today, just part of the process. I don't even think about it anymore because if you want to post on the internet like I do, you must scan your film. I don't use digital other than my cell phone because, like Louis Meluso, Q.G., and dozens of others on this website, I love using fine, old cameras. And, for the type of hobbyist photography that I engage in, the instant gratification of a digital camera is not only unnecessary but really unenjoyable.</p>

[jon_porter]

<p>I shoot 120 and 35mm and proof each roll on an Epson 700 flatbed. I then print an 8x10 contact sheet of the scan and store it with all my other contact sheets from the last 40 years. But nowadays I mainly review proofs via the digital file, since I can enlarge frames quite a bit on the monitor. I still have a darkroom for developing film, but I no longer make photo prints. Now I scan the negative I want to print and make an inkjet print on an Epson 3880.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>No scanning ever. Since I only make pictures out of light sensitive materials scanning and indeed any digital techniques have no practical use.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I scan and shoot slide. While MF is a format I use little and mainly for enjoyment I do like it. I do not think there are any

labs that print from slide without digital scanning (at least I have not found any in Canada). I only scan selected photos

carefully but I do find MF scanning is a lot of effort. I tried the pro scanning route but found that is Canada to get the

quality and resolution I wanted was very expensive time you were finished about $10 per scan for high resolution. So I

initially bought an Epson scanner (I already had a Nikon one but only for 35mm). I found the process quite painful on the

Epson to get the quality I wanted- it was not bad for 645 but for my 6x8 Fuji slides there were lots of issues with slide

curvature and moire. Eventually I cracked and bought a Nikon 9000 for about 2000 plus the glass holder so I ended up

spending about $2500. It made scanning much easier although 6x8 can still take a couple of attempts. It is getting close

to paying for itself on MF alone ( probably about 200 scans or $2000 at Canadian rates) in addition I have probably

scanned 2000 to 3000 35mm on it. The scanning process is really prepare then fire and forget so it is not a big deal. Post

processing can be a pain as you need a fast machine because file sizes can be huge - a 16 bit 6x8 TIFF can be 500+

MB.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Maris,<br><br>How would shining light through a negative or slide and measuring how much of that light has come through work when the thing used to do that would not be able to sense that and how much light is hitting it, i.e. is light sensitive?<br>Am i right thinking that what you are saying is that you limit yourself to using a form of storage of information that consists of a chemically enhanced and altered state of the physical change light had on the light sensitive material used?<br>;-)<br><br>I.e. does this have to be yet another film vs digital thread?

[AlanKlein]

<p> When my lab use to print my MF 6x7mm slides, the lab would shoot 4x5" inter-negatives and then print chemically.. Doesn't anyone use inter-negatives to print from slides anymore?</p>

[robert lee]

<p>I have a Nikon 5000 and 9000; the scanners are effectively my enlargers. </p>

<p>I scan everything. The right tools make all the difference. The right tools means being able to extract some beautiful prints from otherwise unprintable negatives.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>I scan all my MF and 35mm film with a Microtek Artixscan M1 @ 4800ppi. It seems to be able to get the full range of whatever is on the film if I do a 48bit scan. </p>

[maris_rusis]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 18, 2012; 04:43 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maris,.........<br />Am i right thinking that what you are saying is that you limit yourself to using a form of storage of information that consists of a chemically enhanced and altered state of the physical change light had on the light sensitive material used?<br />;-)<br>

I.e. does this have to be yet another film vs digital thread?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not right at a conceptual level. Making pictures out of light sensitive substance does not use, invoke, store, generate, or transmit "information" of any kind; one thing physically imprints on another. A good analogy is a wave washing across a beach and leaving a sand ripple. It just happens and no information or information technology is needed to drive the process.<br /><br /><br>

No film vs digital debate is needed. They are different ways of making different pictures which in the end can be contrived to resemble one another. Only in the simple-minded world of "looks like means same as" is there a problem.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

What is a <i>"picture"</i>, Maris?<br>Why are you talking about <i>"can be contrived to resemble"</i> and <i>"looks like"</i>?<br>And how does that light sensitive material you only use exclude <i>"scanning and indeed any digital techniques"</i>?<br><br>Anyway, the question was about scanning, the hassle involved and why anyone would scan anyway.<br>You say you have no practical use for it. So why not tell us why, instead of starting on yet another film-vs-digital thing.

[teos]

<p>I do scan . 35mm until now ,on a dedicated Minolta Dimage III , but I ,recently plunged in the medium format , I plan to scan myself .Just bought an Epson 4870 for the job . Even if it takes time , it's a pleasure for me , as everytime it's a surprise to see the results on screen.<br>

Postprocessing is also an action that I like to do. </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>I do scan 35 mm, 6x9 and 4x5 with a dedicated film scanner (Coolscan LS 9000 ED, 4x5 by a subcontractor with a drum scanner).<br>

I don't have a digital camera (except a tiny Nikon L23 which is used to copy some stuff on the go).</p>

<p>I'm shooting only slides, scanning is convenient, and there is no need to post process images.</p>

<p>I'm doing it for quality reasons and because I don't want to spend the value of half a house for a PhaseOne IQ 180 digiback to match the resolution and quality.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>No darkroom for me; I scan. My intention is to scan "everything" but I rarely keep up with my even meagre medium format film shooting rate, plus there are many older MF negs and slides going back 20 years that I have only partially completed...I've scanned (and printed) electronic contact sheets of most of them, but have only scanned a minority of individual frames. Hey, there's always mañana.</p>

<p>I've had an Epson 4990 Photo for 6 or 7 years; it's distinctly better than my old Epson 3200, which is now my office scanner. I switched from Epson Scan to Vuescan soon after I got the 4990 - and it was well worth the investment.</p>

<p>Been thinking of another upgrade...the glassless, autofocus Artixscan M1/F1 that Tom above has been advocating might just be it. Especially as, of all the crazy irrational ideas, I'm going to go back shooting 35mm film again (alongside MF film, MF digital, and FF-DSLR), and the 4990 just doesn't impress on that small a format. </p>

<p> </p>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>I think of the Artixscan M1 as an auto-focus film scanner that comes with a flat bed on top of the film drawer. ;-) Haven't tried the flat bed yet. </p>