todd_phillips3 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 <p>It took me two months, but I finally finished shooting my first roll of 120 and will get it developed tomorrow.... <br>I'm a mostly digital shooter beginning to dabble in film. So far I've only had a couple rolls of 35mm color neg film developed, using a reputable local lab (Pro Photo Irvine, that uses a Noritsu). I had them scan just so I could compare my scans with theirs... As stated I scanned straight on the glass without the film holders (They must be buried somewhere in my garage but I haven't been able to find them yet...).<br>The (porta 400) colors with the lab scans looked better than what I've been able to achieve with my scans, but their scans (I am guessing because they are at only 6MB resolution, and/or their settings) had a kind of noise reduction/pasty quality (especially at 100% viewing) that I wasn't too fond of... In that regard I actually prefer my scans...<br>So now I am debating whether to pay the lab the extra $3.50 to scan my 12 shots of 120. I am wondering if that pasty look of their scans with my 35mm will go away with the higher res of the 120? Part of the debate is also that this first roll I shot is actually expired Portra 160 from like 2009 that I got for $2 at a camera show. I went with it knowing that I'd probably blow many of the shots on my first roll (which I did) because I'm learning how to use my Yashica 124G... (My next rolls of new Portra 400 are waiting in the fridge)...<br>Either way I will be scanning these shots with my 4870, but for now it has to be straight on the glass until I find my holders...(Or does anybody have a suggestion for a holder other than the $65 holder that betterscanning.com offers?)<br>How big a difference would I see scanning the MF negs with the holder compared to what I get with straight on the glass (all else being the same)? If it's a significant difference, I might have to spend the weekend unloading my garage looking for those holders. <br><br />Thanks in advance for any constructive input. ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 <p>Well the Betterscan business is predicated upon a theory that fairly minute control of film to glass difference, and the ability to keep film flat (and some holders don't do that terribly well) makes a big difference to scan quality. As I own a Betterscan holder and AN glass for flatness on my Epson V700, I guess I must believe that. Certainly on a big scan ( much bigger than the numbers you speak of here ) at 100% you can see the effect of racking up and down the distance from film to glass.</p> <p>But some of this depends on why you're scanning - what are you going to do with them. Are you expecting to print from the scans and if so at what size. I think you can sometimes get lucky with flatbeds by putting the film right on the glass or scanning in a card mount ( which worked pretty well for screen-based stuff with an old Epson Perfection 3200. On the other hand you can get unlucky too. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips3 Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 <p>There are a few from this roll I will want to print if they turn out as I want them to... It's expired film though so I won't know until I see them. If I do print, how big will depend on how nice the images are. I don't imagine it'd be bigger than 8x10... Inititially I'm just scanning to view them on screens and to practice dealing with my film images.<br> Card mount? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips3 Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 <p>I don't know why I said I got 6MB scans back from the lab with my 35mm rolls. I just checked and they're just 1791x1188 jpegs averaging about 1.5MB.... They also look a lot better than I remembered from the last time. I think it was just because I was comparing them to the large tif scans I did... I think I'll just pay for their scans for now and then only scan myself ones that I want to print, if I want to print them large... I'm guessing their scans will be 1188x1188 which means I could only print those at around 5x5, right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 <p>I was never happy at all with my Epson 3170's scans, with the carriers, or on the glass (one sure thing in your case is going to be that the best focus will not be with the neg or CT on the scanner glass, so that's a lose, right from the start), but then I read someone's plan for wet scanning by supporting the carrier glass up on O-rings, putting the film on the bottom of the carrier, not the top. When I tried this, it worked great, so that's what I'm going to be doing from now on for larger film sizes.</p> <p>Thanks to recently starting to use Evernote, I can even provide a link:<br />https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ScanHi-End/conversations/topics/13858</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 MF's higher resolution is completely lost when all you get after scanning are 1.4 MP or 2.1 MP scans (b.t.w.: MB is not a measure for resolution. MP is. How the two relate depends entirely on the colour/tone depth and storage method. If you wish you could store a high resolution - MPs - image in a smaller - MBs - file than one that contains a lower resolution image). I woudn't pay a single cent for such scans.<br>A half decent film scanner scans at about 3000 to 4000 dpi, producing roughly 40 to 80 MP from a 6x6 negative. You will not need all of that resolution to begin to see the medium format advantage (you will to see all of it), but the scans you are getting are woefully inadequate.<br><br>Lacking a scanner, i would search for a lab that does a better job.<br>And look for more than just resolution: they need to treat your film with respect, not produce scratches, scuffs and fingerprints (before scanning, so those all end up visible in the scan. Nor after, making their scan the only chance you had to get a decent scan from your negatives). They have to know how to use their scanner so they don't mess up exposure, contrast or colour. And they need to produce a decent size scan that does get all the good stuff from your negative.<br><br>But even with a modest flat bed scanner with film option, it shouln't be too difficult to get better results. I do not know the Epson 3170, but Epson certainly made scanners that are capable of producing good results at much higher resolutions than what you got from the lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>Below is a sample of the sharpest 35mm negative I've scanned on my Epson 4870. It was shot with a Yashica SLR and 50mm prime on Agfa Portrait 160 back in '89. I used the film holder that came with the scanner. </p> <p>Other 35mm negs taken with my Minolta Freedom Zoom P&S in the early 2000's didn't scan as sharp understandably.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Seaman Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>I've got a 4870 which came without film holders so I used the ones from my old 2450 which work OK. You could probably make holders out of black card somehow, but be careful not to block the calibration area at the top right of the bed.</p> <p>I wouldn't worry too much about the film being slightly out of date. You probably wont even notice the difference. When you scan film the colours and contrast are often slightly off straight out of the scanner anyway and you generally have to use an image processor to set the levels and tweak the colour balance etc. You can try to do it in the scanning software but its generally easier to post process them.</p> <p>The 4870 claims 4800 DPI but I find in practice there's little difference when scanning at 2400 DPI, and I often use 1200 DPI for non critical work on medium format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips3 Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p >@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G</a>, I might be getting higher res scans from the lab with the MF roll.. The 1791x1188 jpegs are what I got from them with 35mm. I will just order their scans with the first roll at least for learning purposes. If I can't come up with a scanning workflow that I am happy with from this first roll, I will pick a different lab for sure. I <a href="http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/epson-perfection-scanners-quick-tuning-tip-3279/">read</a> about a way I can find out the best focus distance for my scanner and then I will figure out a way to suspend my negs.. I read that <a href="http://www.instructables.com/id/The-clothespin-hack,-how-to-scan-photographic-film/">clothespins</a> can even work... ;-)<br> That's a nice scan you got from 35mm Tim!<br> <br />Thanks John for the tip about DPI with the 4870. I've been always using 4800 trying to get the best I can with my 35mm shots but I will definitely try 2400 and compare. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>Every technical article I've been able to find on the subject indicates that all flatbeds top out at around 2200 resolution, regardless of the manufacturer's specs. The concept doesn't seem to be able to push beyond that. That's fine for large format, OK for medium, and not that great for 35mm, except for small prints and web use. Scanning above that just wastes time and drive space, apparently.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>I do recall reading that the route to the best 2000ppi scan from a flatbed is to scan at the highest available resolution and then downres, rather than scan at 2000ppi.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>I think there's a certain amount of gain from scanning a bit more than target res, but scanning at the max, I can't tell a bit of difference from scanning at 3200, and the difference between 3200 and 2400 isn't too much. . . . if everything else is optimized</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>I made holders for my Epson 4870 for all 120 formats from 6x4.5 up to 6x12 and for 5" x 4" film.<br> It seems to work best with the film 2.5mm above the glass.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_fowler Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p> I've used my Epson V600 for over a year and about 2 months into using the supplied negative carriers I new there had to be something better. "Cuz I've got Scotch in my blood I decided to try a piece of thin clear glass (5"x10") laid down on the negatives. The following scan were a visible improvement and kept the negs perfectly flat, more so I believe than a single piece in a holder could and no Newtonian rings either. Try it, it costs next to nothing. Peter</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips3 Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>Appreciate all the helpful input!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimadams Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 <p>I've always scanned with the negative directly on the glass with a sheet of anti-Newton glass on the negative to hold it flat. The results have always been (to my eyes) excellent. I turn off all scanner settings that relate to tone correction. I scan 4x5 negatives at either 1600ppi or 3200ppi. With a 1600 scan, I usually end up with a 50-something Mb file to begin with. I've made prints from these scans with excellent results...sharp and detailed. When you view a scan at the "actual pixels" setting in Photoshop and can count someone's eyelashes and see the tiny blood vessels in their eyes, you know you have a good scan.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western_isles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 <p>I have been using a 4870 for some years and the first time I scanned 120 I did so without holders. My agent promptly turned down the digital scans but accepted the another batch of 120 E6 originals I had sent to him. Since then I have had few problems other than caused by own carelessness. Moral of the story is use the holders they make a much better job.</p> <p>I normally don't scan 35mm on the 4870 as they are not suitable maybe the lab has higher res scanner which can do the job.</p> <p>Try scanning to the highest resolution with a file size of about 30-50Mb. You can then work on the original and downsize if you need to. I normally scan to a tif file.<br> The 4870 is a very good scanner, persevere. Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now