Scanning Medium Format Film

[barry_r]

<p>I've been using digital cameras up to now but am exploring the possibility of using a medium format film camera, either 6x4.5 or 6x7, to improve on the ultimate quality of my images and maybe just for the fun of going old school.<br>

I've read somewhere that is recommended to use positive slide film because of the lack of control over how a processing lab makes a print from a negative (I would not be doing that myself). So that means scanning in the film. I've had a lot of experience with an Epson V750 at work so I would probably use something like that.<br>

<br />A very basic question that I am grappling with is this - given the potential advantage of film over digital in dynamic range, treatment of highlights etc., how much of that advantage is retained when the film is scanned in, since the scanner itself uses a digital sensor? Please note: I am not so much interested here in resolution, just color, treatment of highlights, etc. I've so far found both sides argued in various places, but I'd like to get the input from some of the knowledgeable people here. What, if anything, is "lost" by the scanning process?<br>

<br />Also, although I've never had the need to do it before, I believe a scanner like the Epson 750 is able to scan a color negative and produce a color positive image. If so, what are the pros and cons of starting with positive vs. negative film? My guess is that the latter might involve more tweaking in software.<br>

Thank you.</p>

[alexo]

<p>I had never gotten a scan that even remotely approached the luminescence, the color or the pop of the slide. What you lose is dynamic range, color gamut, color luminescence. In other words, you lose the soul.</p>

<p>Shoot negative film if you're going to print it. Shoot positive to project. There's nothing like a medium format projected slide.</p>

[leonard_borger]

<p>Interesting thought. I shoot 2 1/4 x 21/4 film for prints. Have not shot slides in a long time. Are there any slide projectors available? Are there any light boxes or anything else, that you could enlarge a slide and display it on a wall? Thanking you in advance. <br>

Also to answer the above question. I shoot 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 B&W film, Acros 100. I have the film processed professionally. Scans are on an Imacon machine. Some of the photo's are printed on canvas, digital from the scans, again professionally, and some wet printed, professionally, the old fashion way, no digital. All 18" X 18" square. I used to shoot professionally but now retired. Had one of the wet prints at the framer last week. Was offered $3,000 for the print, unframed, from a client at the framer. Just my 2 cents about digital. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You might want to read this article by Ken Rockwell about slides.<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film.htm</p>

 

[c_watson1]

<p>Scanner technology is stagnant. DSLR sensor technology isn't:</p>

<p>http://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Mid priced scanners (Epson, Plustek OF 120 etc.) have real issues with retaining the vibrancy of a slide. They need software to bring the colors back to reality. Unfortunately, that can't completely be done. Some slide films scan better than others, especially when using SilverFast software. Velvia 100 is so difficult to scan that I am careful about which subjects I shoot with it. Velvia 100f is not much better. Velvia 50 is much easier to work with. Provia 100f scans pretty well. Neg film actually scans easier than the slide films, at least with Silverfast. Ektar is easy to scan but don't expect to match the subject you saw with your eye exactly. SilverFast can reverse the image to positive from a neg film. Drum scanners which use a photo-multiplier tube, do a much better job of retaining the original image but at a high price.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>A slide isn't really what you want to use. Transparency film has less range, not more, a lot less, than modern digital sensors, and problems with holding highlights relative to neg film. Don't worry about the ways a negative scan can go wrong--you need to learn how to color correct things yourself, anyway, and then that won't be an issue.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Color negative film has more dynamic range than slides or black and white negative film.</p>

<p>As the gamma is lower, it isn't hard for a scanner to scan it. The scan software then expands back to a more usual gamma, which may be too much for the output mediam (file format). I think that means you want TIFF or a similar file format.</p>

<p>With wet prints, you have to adjust the print exposure carefully, as the paper has a compensating large gamma. This allows for a large exposure latitude need for simpler cameras.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The biggest problem with negs is that you have no reference point to see whether the colours , contrast erc are right or not. You often have to settle for plausible , which may of course sometimes be better than accurate. </p>

<p>I don't agree that you can't persuade a scan to be as bright, colourful as an original transparency. You just should approach scanning with the expectation that you'll need to make some adjustments before it looks quite as you want it. And that's true of pretty much any rendering process , for example I've rarely seen a digital raw file that wouldn't benefit from some changes. I have hundreds to thousands of MF transparencies scanned well enough to print, from a range of scanners from drums through Imacon/Hasselblad, Nikon Coolscans and Epson flatbeds. Some made by me, some made by scanning services, some made by labs. You just have to understand that</p>

 

<ul>

<li>The nature of the output you seek determines the types of scanner best used to make the scan. A beautifully shot MF transparency can be used make a print a metre across. But to do that you'll need a drum scanner and a skilled operator. OTOH if what you want is the ability to get your work onto a screen and decent prints maybe 12" across, a flatbed should be fine. The Imacons/Coolscans /Minoltas fit somewhere in the middle If you buy a basic scanner such as an Epson flatbed, there's nothing to stop you sending a really great shot out to a lab for a bigger more detailed scan</li>

<li>The biggest issues IMO with scanning MF transparencies are keeping the film flat, and understanding that the medium inherently contains only 4-5 stops of useful information. Its important to get as much shadow detail out as you can, but if you're trying to get information out of a scan that doesn't have it, things look bad very quickly. The choice of transparency medium means that you've accepted a severely limited dynamic range and the actions you can take (grads, fill flash etc) to reduce subject brightness range to something your film can handle. .</li>

<li>As someone said above, film does not necessarily have a greater dynamic range than a digital sensor and transparencies have far less. </li>

</ul>

<p>You ask how much you lose in the scanning process. There are so many variables that I'm not convinced that there's a good answer. I'm not even sure that comparing a scan with a film original is particularly useful given there are other factors such as enlargers, printers , papers that add into the story. But I will say that the best large prints produced from my slides have most often been from scans. I found I could usually get bigger, better balanced, sharper in the corners, more detailed and infinitely more repeatable prints from scans than from enlargers. </p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>OP: If so, what are the pros and cons of starting with positive vs. negative film? <br>

<br>

Positive (reversal) film has more contrast, especially deeper blacks, but less dynamic range of <strong><em>capture</em> </strong>than negative color film. The ration is roughly 6 stops v 10 stops. Negative color film never gets as dense as reversal film, and less contrast (gamma).<br>

<br>

The biggest problem with scanning is color balance. In this respect, reversal film is easier to scan because you have the original for comparison. You can also calibrate the scanner to a particular film type. There are no such standards for scanning negative film. Sometimes the color balance is easy, other times it is frustratingly elusive. You play with the balance until you have something that pleases you.<br>

<br>

Despite these problems, I prefer color negative film over reversal, because the large dynamic range makes it easier to capture most subjects, and leave more room for corrections. The ultimate goal is a nice print, which can be very hard to get with reversal film.<br>

<br>

Modern digital cameras have a dynamic range in excess of 13 stops. At one time you needed a digital MF back, but now practically every high end DSLR or mirrorless camera can do it. I scan 35 mm slides with a digital camera (Sony A7Rii), and can pull more useful detail than my Nikon LS-4000 scanner, with greater resolution. I don't yet have a holder for MF film, but they're available. Negative scans are simply inverted in Photoshop (ctl-I) then adjusted to remove the excessive cyan caused by the orange mask.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"....given the potential advantage of film over digital in dynamic range"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL! Where did you get that garbage from? Reversal film has a dynamic range (subject brightness range - SBR) of about 7 stops at most. A modern DSLR can exceed that by several stops easily.</p>

<p>Perhaps you're confusing the SBR with the Dmax-Dmin of slide film, which can approach 3.5 or so (given perfect processing). That's a density range of over 11 stops, but that's nothing to do with the subject dynamic range. The high density range simply puts a high demand on any scanner to scrape the deepest shadow detail off the film.</p>

<p>Negative film will also easily exceed the SBR capture range of reversal film BTW.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Here's an example of the dynamic range that a DSLR is capable of. The camera used was a Nikon D800. More recent cameras may do even better.<br>

The upper part of the image is the full-frame, as shot. The lower section is a crop from under the bridge with the "exposure" increased in post. As you can see there's still plenty of detail to be seen in that deep shadow area.</p>

<p>If the same scene had been shot on any current slide film, I can guarantee that the area under the bridge would have been rendered near-solid black with hardly any detail.</p><div></div>