Basic scanning advice

[Adrian Bacon]

There seems to be more than enough color space in sRGB to handle scans. No one will ever notice the difference with scanned film. The post processing that goes on after scans is so rough, no one can ever tell. The biggest problems with scans are that they are rough. You have to sharpen beyond belief. The colors especially with negative color film is often different than reality. Just getting them too look somewhat normal is the main problem. Worrying about matching some color space or missing a few colors is the least of the problems when I scan. The scanning process is just not fine enough to pick up differences that a human will notice. Maybe your experience is different.

My experience is very different than that, and no, sRGB does not have enough space to handle editing scans. As soon as you start pushing or pulling things around, you bang into it’s edges and start to clip tonal information. sRGB is meant to be a destination color space, not a color space you edit in.

I’m curious what you mean by the post processing being so rough. What do you mean by that? If you have to sharpen a lot, you aren’t scanning at very high resolution, and/or your scan is not in focus.

If you’re having trouble getting you color negative film scans to look reasonably like reality, then I would say your workflow could use some improvement.

Having said all that, I realize that a lot of people take your same position about color negative film. This is partly because digital color is not that easy to learn, and adapting an analog source to it just makes it that much more complex, however, it is possible to have very good if not excellent scans of color negative film.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

One fact that is not always fully appreciated is that a 36Mpixel camera (for example) is not a true 36Mpixel tricolor imaging device. Instead it is three interleaved imaging devices, e.g.18Mpixel green, 9Mpixel red, and 9Mpixel blue. This means that it cannot reproduce what a true 38Mpixel imaging device can supply. This is because digital cameras (with very few exceptions) use a Bayer sensor. What the camera has to do is to try to fill in the missing information to provide a pseudo 36Mpixel image, but in doing so it has to use some sort of educated-guess algorithm, which is almost certain to fail under certain conditions. This is just another way of saying that it is impossible to fill in the missing information in a risk-free way.

In contrast, a scanner does provide the true Mpixel rating. For example, a 4000dpi scanner produces a true 24Mpixel tricolor image. In some cases optical limitations may mean that you don't get the fill benefit of all of the sensor megapixel rating. Flat bed scanners are notorious for this.

This is all true, however I would offer that we’d be hard pressed to tell the difference with our eyeballs under most circumstances. Bayer sensors are not without fault, but they do provide a remarkably good compromise.

 

[wahiba]

I have a basic Epson V300 that is set up for 35mm. However it is possible to scan 120 in two scans and then stitch them together. I am actually still using Photoshop Elements 7 still and using the panorama feature I cannot see the join. If you have not got a scanner yet I would consider the larger Epson that does 120 in one pass as it must be easier.

Taken on a Rolliecord Vb with the 16 frame fitted on my last roll of Rolliechrome Slide film.

Canal in Late Afternoon

• wahiba
• Jul 31, 2019

The 16 on 120 was in place for these pictures on Rolliechrome 200. The last roll I had.

I do not use the default screen for 120 but one made from card with the slots cut in. On the Epson do not forget the extra small slot obviously used to indicate end/start?

I have tried photographing negatives on a back light with a digital camera and while my efforts worked it was bit of a lsh up, but some people swear by it, especially with a decent flat field lens.

I also have a cheap a cheerful feed through quickie for 35mm only. Much quicker than the flat bed but really only snapshot quality useful for getting previewss quickly.

 

[Les Sarile]

Very helpful. My favorite films are Portra and Tri-X, and my favorite format is 6x6cm on my Hassy and Rollei, so I have plenty of source data. From what I've read in this thread, I'm leaning toward the Epson 550, unless someone can sell me on the capabilities of the higher end Epsons. Are there any other brands worthy of consideration?
Andy

If you want to scan your 4X5 then I would suggest at least the Epson 4990 if you can find them used in good condition. I picked one up practically giveaway on local CL. Otherwise the Epson V7XX or V8XX. I don't believe there are any others that can perform.

I don't know if the V550 has improved on the V500 in terms of actual resolution but if it doesn't then that's another reason to get the 4990, V7XX or V8XX. I haven't formally tested my 4990 so I can't qualify it's resolution yet but casual observations of results indicate it's better then the V500 and in the league of the V7XX. The 4990 is a slower scanner then the others.

Full res V500 -> http://www.fototime.com/89F76D805B0AFF8/orig.jpg

Full res V700 -> http://www.fototime.com/C6858EE09C0BFDA/orig.jpg

 

[Les Sarile]

In contrast, a scanner does provide the true Mpixel rating. For example, a 4000dpi scanner produces a true 24Mpixel tricolor image. In some cases optical limitations may mean that you don't get the fill benefit of all of the sensor megapixel rating. Flat bed scanners are notorious for this.

With the release of the Canon D30 in 2000, a pro photog compared it's results to ones he made on Provia 100 scanned with his Imacon and declared the D30 resolves more detail. When I got my Coolscan 5000 a few years later, I started observing that my scans from various films I used far outresolve anything my 4MP E-10 could and here we are comparing 37MP D800 to scans from my 35mm film . . .

Here is a scan from my Coolscan of Provia 400 compared to a 24MP Sony A900 at ISO400 - not an exact comparison but very similar subject. The A9 still has more pixels applied at 6000 X 4000.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/B6BF7BF83DA25A7/orig.jpg

 

[AndyH]

If you want to scan your 4X5 then I would suggest at least the Epson 4990 if you can find them used in good condition. I picked one up practically giveaway on local CL. Otherwise the Epson V7XX or V8XX. I don't believe there are any others that can perform.

I don't know if the V550 has improved on the V500 in terms of actual resolution but if it doesn't then that's another reason to get the 4990, V7XX or V8XX. I haven't formally tested my 4990 so I can't qualify it's resolution yet but casual observations of results indicate it's better then the V500 and in the league of the V7XX. The 4990 is a slower scanner then the others.

Full res V500 -> http://www.fototime.com/89F76D805B0AFF8/orig.jpg

Full res V700 -> http://www.fototime.com/C6858EE09C0BFDA/orig.jpg

Something else to think about. Most of my current work is on 120 film; I rarely shoot 4x5 any more because of the expense, and the videos I've seen on stitching two 120 scans of a 4x5 negative make it look fairly easy. I use the subscription versions of Lightroom and Photoshop.

I'll check into the 550's resolution before purchasing.

This thread has been very illuminating. I appreciate all of the informative responses.

Andy

 

[Les Sarile]

A colleague of mine's dad was a WWII combat photog and he asked me to scan one of his 4X5. Even at 2400dpi he was very pleased with the results.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/5DCEE0B3D75F78C/orig.jpg

With an 8X10 scanning area, you can take a pass at a whole roll of 36exp 35mm for a quick preview at 600dpi. Problem is just trying to arrange them on the glass.

This one of Fuji Astia 100 inserted in a holder. Half the frame is cutoff on the last strip.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/EEEB5C4CBC442CB/orig.jpg

This one of Kodak 400UC bunched up to get the most of the film strips within the scanning area. I could have overlapped it more to fully include all the strips.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/B3997C3A230D873/orig.jpg

 

[GLS]

If you already have a DSLR and a macro, I would recommend getting a copy stand and good LED light box to do DSLR scanning. It takes a little investment in time to get the process set up, but once you have it nailed you can actually scan 135 and 120 film much faster than with a consumer flatbed, and with higher quality too IMO. C41 colour inversions are indeed the most tricky part if you do them by hand, but if you have Photoshop there is a plugin called ColorPerfect which makes this process trivial. There are several other software solutions for colour inversions, but ColorPerfect is the one I use and recommend.

 

[AndyH]

If you already have a DSLR and a macro, I would recommend getting a copy stand and good LED light box to do DSLR scanning. It takes a little investment in time to get the process set up, but once you have it nailed you can actually scan 135 and 120 film much faster than with a consumer flatbed, and with higher quality too IMO. C41 colour inversions are indeed the most tricky part if you do them by hand, but if you have Photoshop there is a plugin called ColorPerfect which makes this process trivial. There are several other software solutions for colour inversions, but ColorPerfect is the one I use and recommend.

But I don't have that gear, as I noted in the OP (sadly, my old Smith Victor copy stand with lights rusted while left in storage). I'd need to buy a Nikon D750 - $1,500, Fast macro lens $400, LED light box $25, and Alzo copy stand $145. If I had any of those, it might be worth the effort, but throwing more than $2K at this seems like overkill. I've seen videos of both methods, and really don't see much difference in the speed. Is the quality really better than one of the Epson scanners?

Andy

 

[Les Sarile]

But I don't have that gear, as I noted in the OP (sadly, my old Smith Victor copy stand with lights rusted while left in storage). I'd need to buy a Nikon D750 - $1,500, Fast macro lens $400, LED light box $25, and Alzo copy stand $145. If I had any of those, it might be worth the effort, but throwing more than $2K at this seems like overkill. I've seen videos of both methods, and really don't see much difference in the speed. Is the quality really better than one of the Epson scanners?

Andy

For sure you will not need a fast AF macro lens because you will shoot stopped down. A Nikkor manual focus lens will be just fine as they are typically super sharp.
DSLR scan of b&w and slides take least amount of post work but color negatives can be excessive to get right.
Dust and scratch removal can add a lot of post work and the higher the res the more dust and scratches you will see.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not sure where OP's problem is.
Develop (checked), scan, process (checked).

Epson flatbeds have very easy to use software. All in auto gives best TIFFs.
Plustek with Silverfast is more complicated, but nothing too complicated. Again, next to full auto works.
And camera sensor size is not so critical with 1.5(6) crop as long as it has enough MP.
It just much more hassle to deal with DSLR rig comparing to scanners, IMO.

 

[KenS]

I 'invested' in an Epson V850 just over a year ago after selling a 'specialised' pentax lens. Being now 'retired' after a multi-year career as a Pro (technical, scientific, biological) I "invested' in an Epson 850 Pro for scanning and printing my LF negatives (4x5 and 8x10) onto Pictorico OH film for prints using the 'archaic print processes' as a means of enlarging to a suitable size and preventing any 'physical damage' should I be somewhat too eager to get a print made. I have to admit that I am more than satisfied with the 'quality' of the resultant negative scans. It is a LOT slower than using my original
negative for contact printing under my home-built UV light source. I'm somewhat interested in scanning some of my 'select' 35mm and 120 negatives for the same alt process printing, but... It may be some time to 'find, select some 'chosen' 35mm and 120 roll film images after those many years of larger film formats.

Ken

 

[GLS]

But I don't have that gear, as I noted in the OP (sadly, my old Smith Victor copy stand with lights rusted while left in storage). I'd need to buy a Nikon D750 - $1,500, Fast macro lens $400

I thought you said you had a D7100 and a DX macro lens? The DSLR you use doesn't have to be full frame. So, you would only have to buy the copy stand, lightbox and some kind of holder for the film (a carrier from an enlarger is very good for this).

And yes, the quality can be markedly better than using a flatbed to digitise 135 or 120 film. A flatbed makes more sense to scan large formats IMO, as there it truly is more convenient, and the scanner resolution is less important than with smaller formats. Regarding speed, I don't know what video you saw but it takes literally seconds to digitise a frame of film using a DSLR. This way I can digitise a roll of 120 in under 5 minutes, whereas scanning a single frame of 6x6 or 6x7 in high resolution with a flatbed can take 10 minutes or more.

DSLR scanning requires a slightly more DIY attitude compared with a flatbed, but if you are willing to invest a bit of time, research and thought into it the benefits are quite tangible.

 

[Wallendo]

I use an Epson V600 for 120 scanning. It's major weakness in this regard, however, is it's film holder. It is worth the effort to pick up a better holder like one of these: http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/v600.html (I use the adjustable model, although I haven't adjusted it yet, but the glass overlays are likely all you really need). The Epson 120 format holder has no way of holding the film flat.The Epson does a decent job for 35mm, but I usually use a Plustek film scanner.
A 4x5 compatible scanner will likely be much more expensive. If you shoot B&W, you could consider making a contact print on paper and then scanning that if you wish to enlarge it.

 

[AndyH]

I thought you said you had a D7100 and a DX macro lens? The DSLR you use doesn't have to be full frame. So, you would only have to buy the copy stand, lightbox and some kind of holder for the film (a carrier from an enlarger is very good for this).

And yes, the quality can be markedly better than using a flatbed to digitise 135 or 120 film. A flatbed makes more sense to scan large formats IMO, as there it truly is more convenient, and the scanner resolution is less important than with smaller formats. Regarding speed, I don't know what video you saw but it takes literally seconds to digitise a frame of film using a DSLR. This way I can digitise a roll of 120 in under 5 minutes, whereas scanning a single frame of 6x6 or 6x7 in high resolution with a flatbed can take 10 minutes or more.

DSLR scanning requires a slightly more DIY attitude compared with a flatbed, but if you are willing to invest a bit of time, research and thought into it the benefits are quite tangible.

Thanks! I've shot projects in the past where the setup took a bit of time, but the process became simple once you started and routinized it. Nevertheless, I'm more interested in quality than speed at this point. I do have a ton of old 35mm negatives to do, but there's no hurry on those. Most of my current work is 120 film, 6x6 format, although I still shoot some 35mm on occasion. I have been advised that an APS 24 MP sensor is insufficient for a 6x6cm negative with sufficient resolution in TIFF format. Bad advice?

Now on to some C-41 chemistry and practice in rolling film onto Nikkor reels. But that's a topic for another thread!

Andy

 

[GLS]

I have been advised that an APS 24 MP sensor is insufficient for a 6x6cm negative with sufficient resolution in TIFF format. Bad advice?

It depends what you deem sufficient, and how much work you want to get into. I use a D810 (with a 36 MP sensor) and routinely just take a single shot with the film frame almost filling the smaller digital frame dimension, then crop to the film frame edges, which for 6x6 gives me around a 22 MP image which I find is enough for most uses (unless I wanted to make a huge print). If you did the same you would end up with about a 15 MP image. You would have to judge yourself if that is sufficient for your needs. If you need more resolution you can always take multiple shots at 1:1 magnification and stitch them together in software, but this approach brings its own challenges and is much more time consuming.

 

[GLS]

To illustrate the above numbers a little, here is a re-sized version of one of my DSLR captures of a frame of Agfa Copex Rapid (shot with my Hasselblad 501CM). Not a very interesting image, but I chose it for this purpose as it is taken on an extremely high resolution film. There is still considerably more detail in the negative than I can capture in a single frame, but nonetheless it gives some idea of what is possible. The below is about a 9.5 MP re-sized version of the full 22 MP image (click on it to see the full size):

 

[Karl Hudson]

Hello all,
I'm new to this forum, but you may have seen my name on other forums over the years. I specialize in service and support of the Heidelberg Scanners, and I wanted to give you guys in Southern California a "heads up" on the fact that we will be installing a Heidelberg Chromagraph S3400 High Resolution Drum Scanner next month in Rancho Cucamonga, for a gentleman by the name of Mark Hamilton. There was a general lack of professional scanning services utilizing German-made scanners in Southern California (but an abundance of options in and around San Francisco), so after giving it a lot of thought over the past year or two, Mark pulled the trigger on this project. So that means there's a new lab opening soon, which will be offering up the best scans available anywhere, in the Los Angeles area. He opted for the Granddaddy of drum scanners which weighs in at 700 kg (1500 lbs). It is capable of delivering up to 19,200 dpi optical resolution, on the smallest drum (based on a 35mm sized original), using the native Linocolor software, which generates an 8-bit Tiff. 15,500 dpi optical resolution is the utmost capability for the 16-bit Tiffs generated using Silverfast. It's a photo-multiplier based design, so no CCDs come into play.

In other news, there's a trend I've seen going on in London, where most of the fashion work (which went back to being shot on analog, about three years ago in that market) is being printed in the darkroom first, and they are getting some really beautiful results from scanning these reflective 10-8 (8 x 10 in) darkroom prints mounted under mylar on the large drum, or laying them flat inside a nice high-end flatbed scanner, such as the Heidelberg Nexscan.

Just thought I'd let you know, for those special instances where you'd really like to have the best possible scan quality there is, but can't justify getting your own Granddaddy scanner.
Best wishes from the high North,
Karl