scanning film: why do we do it?

[fp1]

Hi.

Playing the devil's advocate this afternoon. Scanning film is a royal pain, not to

mention ridiculously expensive. Before I tip my hand, so to speak, I'd like to hear why

others (professionals espicially) scan film instead of just buying a good dslr.

 

p.s. I am quite engulfed by the flames of hell already, and do not require more of the

same. In other words, spare me the poisonous barbs.

 

F. (a.k.a. "the world has been showing me its booty as of late.")

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

I like not having to worry about blowing out highlights and not having to worry so much about memory cards carrying 500 of my pictures getting damaged.

[stefanovandelli]

About a year ago I compared the output from a 6mp DSLR with the output from my film scanner. There was no contest and I bought the DSLR. I still have the film SLR but I just haven't shot film since with the exclusion of the the Rangefinder that I still occasionaly use. Maybe a more expensive scanner would make a difference. A drum scan maybe.... Bottom line is that right now 6mp are good enough for what I do and the results (i.e. the prints) are the best that I ever had.

 

I suggest that you get hold of a raw file from the camera that you are considering buying. Download a test version of a raw conversion software and have some fun with it. Draw you own conclusions.

 

I hope the world is going to show you a better side in the near future.

 

Good luck.

[stefanovandelli]

mmm... I just realised that I didn't answer your question.

 

Sorry for that..... I just thought I could share my story anyway.

[neil_baylis]

Just recently, I bought a brand new 35mm camera with an outstanding 15mm f4.5 lens. This gives me a 110 degree field of view. How much would I have to pay to get that in a DSLR? For the 35mm, I paid $420 USD.

 

So, for me, since I already have the 35mm equipment, it's about cost. The DSLR is just way too expensive.

 

If I had to do this a lot though, like for a living maybe, I would think differently, because scanning film is very time consuming, and for some folks time is money.

 

Neil

[qtluong]

Well, I have an archive of well over 100,000 slides and it's more useful to

have them on a <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/stock-photography.html">Stock Photography website</a> than just in file cabinets. Many of them were of course

shot while "good dslr" didn't exist.

[og]

I am still using Negatives, because of larger Dynamic Range and of Ultra-Wides (ok: and money.... :).<p>

 

I have just scanned 96 pictures in "auto-pilot mode" for indexing/reviewing/web purposes (1350dpi, AF+ICE), and it took 3 hours - while surfing on Photo forums :-) => not that painful... <i>(and latest Nikon Scanners would be much faster...)</i><p>

 

Very few of those pictures (3 or 5) will be worth scanning at High-resolution + post-processing. That's were the real work will be... (just like with a DSLR).<br>

And if you are using slides, you can look at them directly and skip the index scans completely.<p>

 

But I have a small production (100 rolls/year), and my selection is even smaller (5% of the photos are worth printing...).

Your situation may be a bit different, though...

[paul_rogers1]

I can't answer your question as stated, but I can tell you why I'm about to start scanning film after being pure digital for the past 8 years (a series of point and shoots followed by DRebel). Please let me know if any of these reasons are delusional!

 

1) Wider field of view, brighter view finder, and 1st-tier autofocus performance for less than 1/4 the price of a 1D MkII or 1/7th the cost of a 1Ds.

1a) Full frame means access to truly high quality wide angle without having to resort to a 1Ds or a 1D + Zeiss manual focus. I wish Canon would eliminate this issue by producing a truly sharp lens wider than 35mm. I'd be satisfied with going no wider than 35mm equiv if Canon would just offer a 21mm comparable to the Zeiss to put on my Drebel.

 

2) No more white skies. I'm tired of having to choose between blown highlights or properly exposed subject. I see plenty of web images showing the dynamic range I'm trying to shoot, but most were shot with film (or the digitals were tripod shots with exposure bracketing and Photoshop merging done post).

 

Regards,

 

Paul

[neal_shields]

I can capture more visual information with film than digital. (I have a 4x5 Velva chrome that has legiable type near the edge of the frame that is < 1/10mm tall. If you assume that it takes 8 to 10 rows of pixels to create legiable type, don't even bother to figure how many meg it takes to replicate that picture digitally.)

 

However, the fact that you can read that type with a 100x microscope adds nothing to the photograph. (Except the purpose of the photograph was a lens test) If I scan the transparancy at 150 dpi and make an 8x10 print or scan it a 4000 dpi and make an 8x10 print the results with modern continious tone printers will be the same.

 

So, I concede that, some of the finer detail may not enhance the picture and a digital slr might make a better-looking print than one straight from film.

 

However, I can always take the information that I capture with film and manipulate it to replicate the digital slr image.

 

However, if I leave information, at the scene of the crime, so to speak with the digital SLR, and want it later, it is gone forever.

 

In my example above if I want to take that 4x5 transparancy and blow it up 20 times, the information is there. I can drum scan it at 12000 dpi and make a print and you will be able to read the construction sign that would only be a white blob if the photograph was take with a 12 meg dslr.

 

In other words as a hobbyist, freed from workflow, and financial considerations, I want as much quality and flexibility as possible. Right now, and for the forseeable future that means film.

 

Beyond that I got burned in China with a dead battery in a battery dependent camera and no batteries for love of money. So beyond not having made the transition to digital, I don't even use film cameras that require a battery anymore.

 

Note: People have been noticing for many years before digital was invented, that sometimes photographs with less resolution, look better. There are very good examples and discussions of this in "Basic photographic techniques and Processes" (see review on Photo Net home page, and the book, "Image Clarity". So the idea that a 6 meg digital photo looks better than a 35mm 80 lp/mm slide is no suprise.

[link]

Here's my opinion, though I don't shoot stills professionally.

 

The least expensive digital camera I'd consider right now is the Canon 1Ds, and it's

$8000 + lens and memory and batteries.

 

So I went the film scanner route by buying a Nikon 8000 and a couple fuji 6x9

rangefinder cameras. Total cost: $4,500.

 

This combination gives me image quality a little bit better than the Canon in

resolution and much better capacity to capture tonal information on color negative

film. I don't shoot a lot of frames, so film cost is not a big problem and and it's $6

to develop only the 220 film (16 exp).

 

What I really like is that I have a huge pallet of color and tones to work with in

photoshop. If the sky is too bright I can always get the color and information from

the scan. So for me, this is a good workflow. When I want to shoot small, I can use

my old 35mm slr or point and shoot and get quality that is still as good as the 6mp

digital slrs. So I have a lot of options.

 

If I were doing this professionally, I'd go digital for sure to minimize expenses and

to have quick conformation from clients.

 

I take my photographs seriously and spend a lot of time perfecting prints in

photoshop. I'd hate to do all that work and be limited by the quality of a 6mp dslr.

But the price is files that start at 650mb and balloon past 2 gigs after adding masks

and adjustment layers. I can cook a frozen pizza in the time it takes to save one of

these files to disk! The actual work moves pretty fast with the large files as long as

one uses adjustment layers. The hi res changes don't really render until one needs

to print, then it's time for another pizza.

 

-bruce

[william_bloodworth]

Film (negative or slide) still captures more tonal range than the current lot of DSLRs. The Fuji S3 is promising more range. We'll see.

 

I would love to go all digital. I like the instant feedback and "shoot all you want and just erase the junk" aspects of digital, but I can't sacrifice the range for certain types of shooting.

 

I doubt there will be a significant resolution issue between 35mm and the Canon 1DS or Nikon D2x (when it comes out), but the dynamic range issue remains.

 

There are other issues related to workflow, systems compatibility, etc.. that are strictly case-by-case. But if it's just an issue of image quality potential, I think the writing is on the wall for 35mm, just as soon as the DSLRs get competitive in terms of D-range. For now however, I'm sticking with slides and good scans.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

I do purely B&W with digital output. ...and you are absolutely correct that the full process of achieving good scanning results is a PITA made even worse with silver halide based films.

 

Although I have seen some very pleasing results of digital capture B&W, however usually under reasonably controlled lighting conditions, for the main, digital capture as well as converted colour film tends to lack a tonal character achievable only with traditional B&W films. And Im certainly not promoting the 'grain' aspect as fine grain is usually my objective in this media. But a combination of sharpness, actuance, lattitude and mid-range glow combined deliver results that I am yet to see digital capture match, therefore, I continue to have my love/hate affair with the scanner.

 

As a caveat, however, I will note that these comments are not made as a blanket statement for traditional B&W films. Combinations of film, EI, developer, development and particular scanner characteristics are all part of 'the process' of achieving good B&W scans.

 

...donning the fire-proof vest, I click the submit button!

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

[vrankin]

I like the tonal range of film, the bokeh (blurred out of focus effects) of my 35mm SLR lens/film system, and the edge effects of film. But I like the white balance properties of digital, the instant feedback from digital, and the ability to immediately upload it to the Internet, print it straight from the card, and store it easily on my C Drive for doing just about anything imaginable.

 

Of course, all of these things can be gotten from a film scan, but I have to have that done commercially because the cost of a really decent film scanner is prohibitive for me.

[rob_landry]

Q. scanning film: why do we do it?

 

A. convenience

 

We scan our film because most of us don�t have the time or know-how to make prints conventionally, so we put up with what I consider to be a huge bottleneck in quality, the scanner. Sure, consumer/prosumer scanners have gotten better, but they�re still very limiting. They give us better quality than the lab can, but that�s not saying much considering most labs.

 

Now before someone jumps in here about conventional prints being inferior, yada yada yada, I�ve seen enough prints in my time to know a good print when I see one and an inkjet print made at home on a consumer inkjet is not what I would call exceptional quality (Epson 2200 included). Lightjet is getting closer, but details (especially micro-details) are still lacking if the scan was made on a desktop scanner. Scan on a PMT and then we�ll start talking. Unfortunately, that can get expensive quick, so we�re back to using our Coolscans and accepting inferior results. And such is the name of the game, now more than ever; how much quality are you prepared to sacrifice for convenience?

 

As an example, Christopher Burkett��his prints are breathtaking and are produced using entirely traditional methods; he�s a master printer. Not too many people are gonna be able to put out that kind of quality at home scanning their 8x10 film on an Epson flatbed. And that brings us back to convenience. Burkett probably spends more time on one print than many of us will ever spend on a thousand. He�s a master, no doubt, and those are few and far between in this day and age. I can respect a guy like him because he does things the hard way when everyone else (myself included) looks for the easy way out.

[ted_marcus1]

I agree that scanning film is a hemorrhoid. But I do it because it's a more cost-effective option than buying a DSLR. To replace my Elan II and lenses would cost a minimum of $2000, assuming a Digital Rebel (with the kit lens) and a Sigma 12-24 zoom to get the wide-angle capability. Then I'd need a bunch of memory cards plus some kind of portable mass storage for travel (of the current mass storage options, I would lean toward the Apacer CP-200 CD burner).

 

Since my camera and scanner are already paid for, it makes more sense to continue buying and scanning Portra 400UC. And the 22-megapixel scans from negatives may (or may not) have more detail than Digital Rebel files. Eventually I do hope to give up film, but right now it's not worth the cost.

[robert_herz]

Hi,

two main reasons: I still own an original, which is not computer based - very, very, very important, since I recently tried to open my diplomar work which has been written on Word 5.5. This was 10 years ago. Nowadays XP programs can not open it anymore :-(

Based on that, the "darkroom" work on the computer is more comfortable and the scanner doesn't need that much space.

Regards

Robert

[kkjuhy]

Sorry, I'm not a pro, but my answer is:

 

Because I'm still saving for a DSLR and in the mean time want to make a few prints myself (can't find a good place to make decent prints from slides for a reasonable price).

 

Yesterday I played around with a D70 from a co-worker, in the evening I made a few scans (Dimage Scan Dual III - agreed, not high end) and compared the results plus amount of work to the D70 files....

 

FILM IS DEAD! (oh well, just as with audio: some will always prefer vinyl and tubes)

 

(and I always loved slides!)

[gary_ferguson1]

I use black and white film and make dark room prints because there's no acceptable gloss option with inkjets. It's also a craft that I enjoy and that I spent twenty-five years learning, so it would be sad to abandon it.

 

I use colour negative film and scan for higher resolution, wider latitude, and the retouching capability of Photoshop. I also scan black and white film because even as a darkroom worker I recognise the sublime quality of black and white Piezzographic inkjet prints on matte paper.

 

I use a DSLR for convenience, for that ultra high acutance "snap", and also because if there's a lot of manipulation to be done to an image it's far easier working in an all digital environment. Photoshop selection tools for example perform more cleanly and efficiently with a digital shot than with a scanned shot.

 

I guess what I'm saying, and what many of the replies have already suggested, is that the film/digital debate seems to be recognising that all methods have their virtues and is moving beyond an exclusive focus on resolution. That's got to be a good thing.

[bruce watson]

I scan film so that I can process the image with Photoshop and print with an inkjet printer.

 

I still use film because there aren't any digital capture devices that do full frame 4x5 (and yes, that includes the Better Light scan backs, which are smaller than 4x5). Also, digital capture can not match the dynamic range of films like Tri-X. Finally, digital capture can't compare to film on a "resolution per KG" basis. A piece of film weighs a few grams - a Better Light scan back with all it's ancillary equipment weighs in at a few kilograms. If you are backpacking, 4x5 already takes up about 14KG. Adding another 10 KG for less coverage, less dynamic range, and much slower exposures (minutes) is just out of the question.

 

In other words, I use film and scan it because the technology hasn't caught up with my needs yet.

[larry_menzin]

If you shoot MF then scanning film is a requirement, unless you have the dough for a MF back (I don't).

 

Digital 35mm can be very good, especially if you stitch frames together for more pixels. This technique is great for landscape, but is much less workable for macro.

 

Also, the big, bright MF viewfinder is a pleasure when compared with looking into a 35mm digital viewfinder (unless you can swing a 14n or 1DS).

 

My conclusion is that you need to do both (MF film and 35mm digital) depending on the trade-offs of each individual circumstance. If I can find a used Kodak ProBack for a reasonable price, then MF film scanning can join the obsolesence of 35mm film scanning.

[steve_swinehart]

4x5, 6x12, 6x7 - now what DSLR do I get that can be used as easily in the field as any of the film cameras that gives the same image quality?

[scott_eaton]

I want a 6x7 or 4x5 camera that has a millionth the flexibility of a modern dSLR in terms of portablity and function. Got a dial on your Sinar P that goes from ISO 100 to 800?

 

I noticed that most of the actual educated replies in this thread were from MF and LF shooters. That's fine....I'm also an MF shooter that still carries my RB for back-ups when my D10 is outside it's aethestic envelope. Not often, but it does happen. I'm also the first to be not politically correcty and state the truth that the reason Velvia is so popular in 35mm is because that format is so friken small you need all the help you can get. On the other hand those of you shooting 4x5 and MF (me included) must think the world of photography revolves around only taking pictures of things that don't move. I was on the way home the other day and stopped to take some pictures of some kids playing basketball. Pretty tough subject matter for a MF camera with the exception of a Contax AF 645 ($$$$$). So, my point to those of you equating shooting digital as losing information in the original scene I can easily rebuke as the billion or so pictures one loses because MF and 4x5 are inflexible as hell in the first place. My 10D is ready to go in 5 seconds from the time I pull it from my bag. My RB isn't. Is your 4x5?

 

Otherwise, my RB with slide film and properly matched subject matter does things that is tough to match with the conservative capture of a typical dSLR. Again, not always, but sometimes. It all depends on the subject matter. Basically, if I want to invent colors that don't exist in the original scene, or emphasize subtle ones for artistic reasons, I'll grab my RB and tranny film and scan. Granted even my FE2 has a much better viewfinder than my 10D, it doesn't change the fact I can't get a scan from 400 speed film that will touch my 10D at ISO 400.

 

Print films have radically more dynamic range than digital, but that's if I need more dynamic range. Looking at my 8x10 Frontier portrait prints from my 10D vs the best 35mm scan and prints I've ever made, the 10D wins - easily, as long as I'm within the brightness range of the digital. Considering the tonal range of digital capture matches scanned print film more than scanned slide film, I'm finding little use for print film.

 

Those of you bragging about your darkroom skills haven't seen my greyscale Kodak metallic prints from my 10D. You probably don't want to either. Because high gloss papers like Fujiflex and Metallic emphasize grain structure they tend to make film scans look worse than they are. So, in this respect, especially with Kodak metallic, I have a medium at my disposal that can't be replicated in a wet dark room, and only weakly with 35mm film scans. Seems like an odd dilema, but is going to increasingly become more common.

[neal_shields]

The AP photographer at Lakehurst got three shots off between the time the Hindenburgh caught fire and when it hit the ground, which was almost instantious. He did it with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, manual everything.

[glen peterson]

I wish more people would Quit scanning and move to DSLR's. Then I could get thier used film equipment, even cheaper. I actually enjoy scanning film...I also enjoy working with shots from my DSLR. I'm most definitely not a pro. If it were my livelyhood my opinion would likely be different.

[neal_shields]

http://www.uncp.edu/library/instruction/images/hindenburg.jpg