Best films for scanning-2008

[StevieRose]

Hello-
I am new to this site, and have searched without finding this information. After five years of shooting digital, I have decided (for several reasons) to dig out my 35 mm gear and adopt a hybrid approach again for awhile. I would like to shoot 35mm C41 color film, have it developed locally, and then do my own high rez scans on the "keepers". I have a Minolta Dimage 5400 II film scanner as well as both Silverfast and Vuescan software on a Mac based computer system.

As I haven't shot film in 5 years I would like your opinion as to which C41 films in ISO 100, 400, and 800 would fit this workflow the best?

Thanks!

Steve

 

[jd callow]

I have used the new Fuji films 160s and 160c and they scan very well. I have not used any of the new 400 or 800 colour films, nor have I used the new 160 portras so I can't help you there.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Any film that works with your photographic vision is the best film to use.

Scanning anything takes practice. You can't learn anything overnight. Take your time testing to find the correct settings on the scanner for the film you use.

 

[jd callow]

Sadly, I have found some films don't scan well or not as well as others.

 

[Daniel Balfour]

What makes one film more "scanable" then another? And what (negative) density range is optimal for scanning?

 

[donbga]

What makes one film more "scanable" then another? And what (negative) density range is optimal for scanning?

That depends somewhat on the scanner, but if we are talking about B&W negatives, film developed for silver printing should scan just fine on most decent scanners. B&W films developed to a higher CI can also be scanned fairly easily as well.

Color transparencies are a differnt story. Fuji Astia is a 'good' scanable transparency film.

Don Bryant

 

[lenny]

The film to use for scanning is as tight a grain as you can get - the higher ISO films don't do as well. Unless you like that effect...

The negative density range for b&w is twice what is used for standard darkroom prints. From normal base numbers all the way to 2.0, for instance. It doesn't have to be, one can make scans of all your old negs, but nice and rich and thick works great.

I would generally stay away from things that contain Phenidone, as in Rodinal, as this accentuates the edges of the grain. When I scan, I zoom in to the grain level and make adjustments based on what I see. Most people prefer a very tight grain...

I have had great results with PMK negs as well as D-23. Efke and Ilford films...

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[sanking]

I have had great results with PMK negs as well as D-23. Efke and Ilford films...

Lenny
EigerStudios

Pyro staining developers are highly recommended for negatives that are to be scanned. PMK is very good for this type of work. I also recommend Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-MC, two formulas which I developed and continue to support.

With developing in pyro staining developers the silver grain density in the highlights is masked by the pyro stain, which is similar to a dye stain in C-41 processing. The result is less grain in the highlight than if one were to develop with non-staining developer.

Sandy King

 

[Ted Harris]

I'll echo the sentiment that films processed i staining developers scan very well. I can add that I have not yet scanned a film that gave me a bad scan ... some require more work than others and the grainer films will, well of course, show grain when scanned at a high resolution. Having aid that I have scanned some older high ISO grainy B&W films and they printed quite nicely.

 

[Robin P]

Kodak Portra 160 & 400 (recently improved) is very good for scans and I get good results from it with 6x6 & 6x4.5 but for 35mm seem to get more manageable colour from Fuji Superia 200.
Modern C41 neg stock should all be good for scanning as it is scanned during the normal minilab process these days.
For B&W I prefer Kodak CN400 over Ilford XP2.

Cheers, Robin

 

[toadhall]

I would generally stay away from things that contain Phenidone, as in Rodinal, as this accentuates the edges of the grain. When I scan, I zoom in to the grain level and make adjustments based on what I see. Most people prefer a very tight grain...

Lenny
EigerStudios

I suspect that some of these film/developer preferences are based upon the scanner. I regularly develop in Prescysol EF (staining) and Rodinal and don't have problems scanning on a Nikon 8000.
John

 

[Greg_E]

Within the last year Kodak has released films designed for better scanning. Sadly most of those have gone to the motion picture industry.

I've been told that silver based B/W films work better if they are made into positives. Has to do with trying to look through the silver particles to make the highlights in a negative, and the detail that may get lost because of all the silver. Making them positives (like the DR5 process) is said to reverse this since the dense silver will now be in the darkest areas where you may not notice a lack of detail. I have yet to try this, but plan to in the near future.

Also it was suggested to me that the c41 developed B/W films would scan better because of the dye (back to the dense silve issue above).

 

[Erik Ehrling]

I have a Minolta 5400 and for me I get better colour from slide film (no need to fine tune wb later). My current favourite is Fuji Provia 400x, which I find nicely saturated, but not oversaturated. (Also try Provia 100F or Astia for less grain).

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

 

[Ram]

Kodak Portra 160 & 400 (recently improved) is very good for scans and I get good results from it with 6x6 & 6x4.5 but for 35mm seem to get more manageable colour from Fuji Superia 200.
Modern C41 neg stock should all be good for scanning as it is scanned during the normal minilab process these days.
For B&W I prefer Kodak CN400 over Ilford XP2.

Cheers, Robin

Hi Robin,

Do you find that the Ilford XP2 Super has a slightly higher film base contrast in comparison to the Kodak T400CN ?

Kind Regards, Richard

 

[nsouto]

The whole film/scan grain issue is almost moot for me: I have Neat Image as part and parcel of my post-processing and used with care - custom profiles, very mild noise reduction - it achieves nearly zero scan grain effects in most modern films, without any negative impact on sharpness/detail. Anyone who doubts that,have a look at my gallery.

I also like to separate real film grain from scan-alias grain. The latter is usualy caused by "rough" emulsion side films, where you get a non-shiny surface. That is a killer for scanning, no mater how small the real film grain might be. Both kinds of "grain" can be corrected with Neat Image but scan-alias is a lot harder to fix.

Having said that film emulsions have certainly changed in the last two years to allow excellent scanning. Basically what the film makers have done is add a smooth coat on top of the emulsion side, to get rid of the "rough" surface and its nasty effects on ccd scanners.

A lot of my previous "no-no" films have become instant winners once I tried them again in recent times.
My current favourite is Astia's latest emulsions: very forgiving, excellent shadow detail, almost no grain, incredible colour saturation. Kodachrome class all the way! Better than Velvia 50, in some respects.

Superia 400, a consumer film, is absolutely stunning in the latest trials. As good as anything at that ISO.
Reala is always good, although I still think recent Superia 400 is right up there with it or even slightly better.

Provia 400X is perfect for higher speed positives, much much better than the older Provia. Still a bit expensive but worth trying.

On b&w:
Ilford's XP2 has undergone scan-alias reduction: the latest ones I tried have had almost no nasty effects. Kodak's bwc400n has had the anti-scan grain treatment for ages and scans incredibly well.

The only serious problems I still have are with silver-based b&w, mostly due to inability to use Ice. Starting to get the hang of it. Some developer/film combos are better than others.

Currently, I like DDX and Ilford's Delta 400 and 3200 a lot. DDX also works well with older-style emulsions, like hp5, fp4 and pan-f. Acros is also a treat with DDX. Microphen works OK but DDX is more convenient for me.

I get good results with Rodinal on Acros 100, medium format. Very sharp, a bit of real film grain, but not as much scan grain.

Going to try xtol soon.

 

[lenny]

The whole film/scan grain issue is almost moot for me: I have Neat Image as part and parcel of my post-processing and used with care - custom profiles, very mild noise reduction - it achieves nearly zero scan grain effects in most modern films, without any negative impact on sharpness/detail. Anyone who doubts that,have a look at my gallery.

You have to remember that all noise reducers are basically blur filters.

Lenny

 

[Erik Ehrling]

You have to remember that all noise reducers are basically blur filters.

If you want to clean a picture from noise you can do much better than just blurring it.

Personally, I like the results very much from NeatImage with 0-30% luminance and 100% chroma noise reduction. It gives me much cleaner scans from both colour negs and slides, with very little loss of detail.

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

 

[nsouto]

Exactly. Same here. I go for 100% chroma, 35-45% luminance, threshold at -30.
Works a treat and doesn't take away any detail.
But the noise of each type of film needs to be sampled and saved
as a profile. I have one for each of the films I use regularly.

 

[GREGGAN]

Have anyone tried the new Ektar 100 film from Kodak?

Have anyone tried the new film from Kodak?

* Ultra-vivid color
* Exceptional sharpness
* Extraordinary enlargement capability
Recommended applications:

* nature
* travel
* outdoor photography
* fashion
* product photographyBlog Image

Featuring ISO 100 speed, high saturation and ultra-vivid color, EKTAR 100 offers the finest, smoothest grain of any color negative film available today.

Ideal for scanning, and offers extraordinary enlargement capability from a 35mm negative. A perfect choice for commercial photographers and advanced amateurs.

Questions and Answers
Tech Pub E-4046

 

[Erik Ehrling]

Have anyone tried the new film from Kodak?

I just collected my 20 rolls I had ordered from Adorama.com (just because I wanted to try it out and no-one seemed to be carrying it here in Sweden anytime soon) today. Now, I only have to wait for the weekend to go out and shoot some of it...

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

 

[donbga]

Have anyone tried the new film from Kodak?

I've not but a good friend of mine has tested the film with Leica MPs and ASPH and Summicron lenses. The film scans extremely well on dedicated film sccanners and drum scanners.

The color appears to be saturated but not overly so and film grain is extremely fine but may not be as fine grained as the old Ektar 25, but that is only a guess on my part now as I've not pulled out some of my old Ektar negs to compare to the new Ektar.

Don Bryant