Drum scans: slide vs. negative

[angelo_smaldo]

hy i shoot always with fuji slides couse i do reportage (i m semi-

pro)and i scan ALL...today i read this interessnat article at

pcphoto magazine:

 

http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/pastissues/2000/dec/scanning.html

 

 

so IS good scan neg?

 

but everyone say different things,from one part is bad thing from

another best..who is the right??

 

TODAT i bought 10 rolls of provia 400F, i paid at wholesale about 4

� for a roll (half price couse expire in august),good price but i

think that at dealer this slide reach � 9-10 at entire price,....

today i saw that if i shot with negative i can pay at wholesaly � 1

circa for a roll of agfa vista 100 or 1,5 for fuji superia 100, why

dont shoot with neg?and after scann and USE photoshop( i have also a

plug in digital velvia ...the result is like velvia shoot!)ahh i

NEVER print my slides or neg...WITH 30 � i can shoot 1.000 and more

photos!:)and i love of neg the wide latitude of exposition!

 

i can use an heilderberg drum scan(untill 11.000 optics dpi)so

quality is at high high level..but...CAN I REACH good quality

scanning neg?someone has THE truth:-)...?have I a orange colour

dominant in dig.files?how to change?

 

thanx

angelo

[conrad]

As I understand it, and from what I have experienced with my own film scanner, is that slide film can be more difficult to scan because it tends to have a higher density. It can be harder for a film scanner to pull the detail out of the shadows compared to negative films. Of courrse, how bad this is depends on the quality of your scanner.

[daniel_taylor]

Everyone says different things because different scanners, and different scanning programs, do better/worse with different films. Sometimes the right profile or software can make or break a particular film/scanner combination.

 

My recommendation is to try a few neg films and see how they work with your scanner and workflow.

[gary_a._hill]

On the contrary, scanning negatives is easier, because negatives have a compressed dynamic range. The dynamic range of slides can exceed the range of some scanners. As for the color mask and complementary colors making it more difficult, this is irrelevant nonsense. It is trivial for the scanner software to deal with this, given the proper profile.

 

On the otherhand, color fidelity is less well controlled for negatives, as color correction takes place during printing. It is not sufficient to have a color profile for the film type. Good color calibration of negatives requires putting a color target on the film.

[angelo_smaldo]

yes different scan different result...but as i said i can use an Heidelberg drum scan of circa 50.000 $ of cost...i think the best and expensive in the world....(my dad has a lithography and the he collabore with a photounit lab that has high quality products)and i can use heidelberg drum scan at lower cost then a low resolution scanning at photo lab where i process slides and neg.

 

i ll try to scan negatives at 11.000 dpi next days (but B/W) and i ll tell you the result

 

angelo

ps what about fuji superia and agfa vista?

 

and about ilford color neg and ilford DIA?

thanx again

[scott_eaton]

To get a little more detailed on this issue, color neg film is easier for scanning hardware to handle because of it's reduced density range, but it's tougher for scanning *software* to handle because of the orange mask, inverse nature, etc. With slides, everything is reversed requiring very good scanning hardware and, oddly, very simplistic software.

 

Drum scanners like the Heidelberg in my experience do a *lousy* job with color negs because their software is designed primarily to handle color transparencies. You'll likely end up with lots of grain and a murky image requiring massive Photoshop corrections with a drum scan from a neg. Where negs do best is with dekstop scanners that typically have more intuitive software than can figure out how to put a negative image back in the right place. This is where high quality color neg films like Portra UC and Fuji Reala catch up, and in many cases surpass slide films, especially when it comes to exposure lattitude. A Heidelberg scan is not the best test for scanning color negs.

 

Fuji 400F is a great film, and scans with marvelous color saturation, but if you're half a stop over exposed with this finicky material no drum scanner in the world can fix it. Portra UC won't scan with as much color saturation as 400F, but it will beat 400F in terms of sharpness and has much, much better lattitude.

[craig_bridge]

The Heilderberg drum scanner is a wonderful device but the question you need answered is what software and version does it have and did it come with good film profiles for the films of interest?

 

With slides, you have a built in color reference. With negatives, you don't unless you include a known color target on every roll.

 

If you are getting an orange shift in your scans, you aren't using the correct film profile or your negatives aren't biased appropriately for the profile. Try offsetting the blue channel curve a fixed amount. If you aren't consistent enough on your exposures, you will have to do this for each and every frame.

 

There is a reason why SilverFast and other high end scanning software for drum scanners is a big ticket item!

[johann_fuller]

A good film scanner and operator can get very good scans from neg. however to get a good neg scan you have to start with an overexposed neg (1-2 stops). Therefore in many practical situations it's not possible to shoot neg optimaly. The absolute killer of neg quality is to shoot at it's rated speed or underexpose it - grain goes through the roof and colour gets knocked out. BTW Provia 400F is my favourite film - pity it's so damn expensive.

[bruce watson]

Angelo,

 

The information contained on a negative is in the size and spacing of grain and grain clumps. This same information on a transparancy is in the size and spacing of dye clouds. It turns out that to caputure this information from a very fine grained film, you need a scanner resolution of 2000dpcm (5000dpi) or so. Higher scanner resolutions do not help - there is nothing to be gained by scanning any normal film at 11,000dpi.

 

There is nothing physically preventing you from getting good drum scans from either transparancies or negatives. As noted by others, Heidelberg's LinoColor software is biased toward transparancies. This doesn't mean that a competent operator can't produce an excellent scan of a negative on a Heidelberg scanner. The key is an operator that has the experience and desire to produce a good scan.

 

You should also note that drum scans will acentuate the properties of your film. A properly exposed film will clearly do better than a poorly exposed film. In other words, the drum scanner can not produce shadow detail where there is no information on the film. The wide exposure latitude of negative films is a help here.

 

I do my own drum scans. I scan 4x5 negatives, both color and B&W. There is no doubt in my mind that you can get get excellent results scanning negatives with a drum scanner. It all depends on the motivation of the operator.

[Robin Smith]

I second Scott's analysis. Slides can be easier to scan because the software is simple - you can really just try and match the original. Negative film can be frustrating as there is much more interpretation required. This I like less, but there is no doubt that negative film can produce wonderful scans if you work at it and negative film has the other advantages that Scott mentions. Still WYSIWYG is a good feature of slides...

[roger krueger]

Not an issue with your Heidleburg, but many people still have the "negs don't drumscan

well" idea in their head because around 15 years ago it WAS the truth. Much like the "Macs

are better graphics machines" issue.

 

The compressed range and mask of a color neg mean you're throwing away 2-3 bits of

information from the full range of the scanner. On a scanner with 16-bit or even 12-bit

internals this isn't a problem, but on an ancient (early 90's and before) drum scanner with

8-bit internals you end up with a file that has only 5-6 significant bits--ugly, ugly, ugly.

[gary_a._hill]

R. Kreuger makes a good point I hadn't thought of. If you prefer to scan color negatives, 12 or 14 bit sampling instead of 8 should be much better.

[scott_eaton]

Roger, the problem with color negs and PMT based drums scanners is *still* a problem today as much as it was with first generation drums. It's the same problem encountered with modern desktop scanners causing grain problems with conventional B/W films.

 

Provided you have a drum operator with no life, willing to spend an hour or two with your film, and just happens to have a fresh profile for whatever Fuji wonder print film you are using that week you might get lucky. Chances are what you'll get is a full 16 bits of data with about 6 of those bits nothing more than enhanced grain because the dynamic range of the scanner has nothing to do.

 

This is a classic case of somebody that will eventually justify that 'color negs suck in terms of scanning' because they've forced the conclusion. I'm not going to let that happen because I'm sick and tired of hearing it.

[gary_a._hill]

I use Portra 100T color negative film and Pro PhotoCD scans, with excellent results, by the way.

[jonathan_bundick]

If you are interested in making prints from the scans, I suggest you read what the real experts, at West Coast Imaging have to say on the subject. It is their business to know and they don't spend their time posting babble on the web.

 

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqscan.html

 

About 2/3's down the page, read the question on getting high quality scans from negative film vs chromes. You'll have your answer.

[gary_a._hill]

Ok, I read the FAQs from West Coast Imaging. I don't see anything in there that makes me want to change from Portra 100T negatives for my application (copying flat art).