all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.
That is about how the cookie crumbles.
Sandy King
...all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.
Unless you print larger than 15"x15", you will not see the difference between a MF scanned on a V700 or V750 and a drum scanner.
Interesting link about scanners : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
What about 17x22", or 24x36"?
Will you do that if you have a digital MF and forget about film or you keep using film even you have the best digital MF?
So what to do? can you give me money to buy a drum scanner or at least a dedicated film scanner [Nikon 9000]? I will appreciate that a lot from you and i will scan all your film for free
NO, but the big difference here is that I am not the one moaning about the scanquality of flatbeds, I know they generally suck...Sorry, don't feel offended, but I do think it is a bit hilarious to start talking about scanquality if your "reference" is one of the most expensive digital camera's ever...
No, but I have the distinct feeling there might be some Hybridphoto members that would be more than willing to trade your H3DII-39 for their drum or filmscanner (not me, I own neither..., I am just a poor artist struggling to get by...)
But seriously: Here is what I would do (and I do it myself!): Get an enlarger (probably for free nowadays), make a small darkroom, and start enjoying printing in a wet darkroom... if you are really serious about this analog stuff next to your XX MPixel MF digital stuff!
The first time you print a 4x5 B&W negative on let's say 20x24 in a true darkroom, you will be caught...
Marco
The first time one makes a 20x24 inkjet print that exceeds the quality of a silver gelatin print made with an enlarger you'll never want to spend hours enlarging in the darkroom.
Reading is fine, but you should make your prints and assess the results yourself. This will determine what *you* are able to achieve with your equipment and your technique for the size prints you make. The Epson 7xx can deliver fine results for modest magnifications, but if you don't have time to develop scanning skills, you may do better shooting digital. Quality tools do not guarantee quality resultsAnd bad postprocessing can ruin digital, too, so there is no escape -- craft is required no matter what approach you take.
What is craft?
I saw my friend film shots scanned by Noritsu minilab scan [even at low resolution] way better than my scanner V750, not sure if that type of scanner is different or they did any calibration or processing or whatever, but the results i've seen from that scanner against my V750 making me to feel either my scan processing is not good enough or my scanner can't match that scanner.
On flickr i saw someone was posted some shots taken by Sinar 8x10 and scanned by V750 and the results were so nice, so it made me more confused as i don't know if he did good job in scanning that i didn't know how or maybe because he was scanning Large Format shots [Sinar and 8x10, sure it is terrific maybe], i will do more scanning later when we settle in the new house and see how can i get the optimal or maximum quality out of V750.
Tareq, I don't actually think you are doing something "wrong", but two things need to be separated here:
First, your remark about the Noritsu:
You are talking about a professional minilab. I don't know what the prices are, but I bet it is in the tens of thousands of dollars. So YES, there is a very high quality scanner in there. You can not compare a 700 dollar flatbed like Epson V750 with that. The Epson has at the most 2400 ppi max, the Noritsu might do 5000 or maybe even 8000 ppi, similar to a Hasselblad X5 or drum scanner. It is like comparing apples with pears... can't be done.
So now you wonder why that guy DID get proper results of 8x10. Well, easy, even my cheap Canon 9950F flatbed, with a maximum true optical resolution of 1200 ppi can do it.
What is the case, is that the larger the film format, the lower the needed optical resolution to get a good scan.
As a consequence:
The bigger the film format, the lesser the requirements needed for the scanner to create a good image
So even cheap flatbed CAN make good scans (at least in terms of total image size and captured megapixels of image data), of large format source material.
I know some people here on Hybridphoto may object to my bold generalizations, but my only aim here is that I make it hopefully a bit more clear to you...
Just do the math:
35 mm, 4000 ppi scanning resolution (pixels per inch) = 4000 x 6000 = 24 MPixel scanned image
8x10, 1000 ppi = 8000 x 10.000 = 80 MPixel scanned image
To understand the above calculations, just look the MPixel count and compare it with your H3DII-39 that has 39 MPixel. What is your conclusion? YES, the 1000 ppi scan of the 8x10 image has BETTER image quality than your current digital Hasselblad, and surprise, the higher resolution scan at 4000 ppi from 35 mm has LESS image quality than your hassy...
Maybe a bit counter-intuitive, but as you can see, both scanning resolution and film format determine the final outcome in terms of quality and size of the image captured.
By the way, I strongly recommend you to read two articles by myself, you may find them enlightening:
- Optimal scanning resolution
- Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film test
Marco
craft: skill in planning, making, or executingWhat is craft?
I saw my friend film shots scanned by Noritsu minilab scan [even at low resolution] way better than my scanner V750, not sure if that type of scanner is different or they did any calibration or processing or whatever, but the results i've seen from that scanner against my V750 making me to feel either my scan processing is not good enough or my scanner can't match that scanner.
On flickr i saw someone was posted some shots taken by Sinar 8x10 and scanned by V750 and the results were so nice, so it made me more confused as i don't know if he did good job in scanning that i didn't know how or maybe because he was scanning Large Format shots [Sinar and 8x10, sure it is terrific maybe], i will do more scanning later when we settle in the new house and see how can i get the optimal or maximum quality out of V750.
I think about that scans on flickr, i can't judge until i see his way of scanning, also i am not sure if i scan a larger formats i may get better results, i think mounting the film could affect the results, also i got one sharp and nice color once with my scanner but dusty and i forgot what i did as i tried again with same frame and i didn't get it again sharp, so i think i have to experiment more to get the most out of it, and from what i hear from many i think i have to give it more more time and tests then i will see.
craft: skill in planning, making, or executing
OK, it's nonsense to compare the Epson and the Noritsu without defining specific parameters, but if used with judgment and skill the Epson *can* provide quality results.
No disrepect intended, but you are probably right, you have not learned to get the best out of the Epson. The Epson can product a fine 16" print from a 6x6 negative (no cropping, using a decent film holder). It is much less capable scanning 35mm film.
Tareq, two other generalized points:
- Never compare a low resolution internet image (let's say 600*800 width and height), with the results of looking at your scans at 100% resolution, (called "Actual pixels" in Photoshop). If you reduce the size of an image, for example to display it on the internet, it will ALWAYS look good, no matter how crappy the original scan or digital photo.
- It is generally recommended NEVER to scan above the TRUE OPTICAL resolution of your scanner. If the scanner can not do more than 2400 ppi (pixels per inch), as is the case with your Epson V750 according to most tests I have seen and remarks of other members of Hybridphoto, than scan at maximum 2400 ppi but not above (so no 4800 ppi). It will only add blurry redundant pixels without image information at higher resolution than the true optical one, meaning the image looks less sharp compared to a scan at the true maximum optical resolution of the scanner.
If you scan your 35 mm, but even better your medium format images at 2400 ppi max, like Philip rightly said, you should be able to get acceptable or even good scan results on your Epson V750. Also remember that you will always have to sharpen up scanned images, and more than digital images captured with a digital camera, as these last ones generally had in-camera sharpening already applied, whereas scans, have not (at least if not by default done in the scanning software).
Lastly, I do have the feeling you need to seriously start reading and learning more about digital images and photography. Besides buying a book, I can also highly recommend the following link:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
The author of these webpages really manages to describe a lot of "difficult" subjects concerning digital photography in a clear way, combined with good explanatory images. Should be of some help to you to start to understand digital photography and images.
Marco
You should say i need to start to read and learn about film photography, not digital photography, digital photography is not a problem for me and i never asked about digital, scan is related with film mostly even to convert to digital, but the problem is with scanning itself, also why you said that i need to start to read and understand about digital photography?!!!
I know this scanner is good enough, but it seems i don't know how to use it as you all use it to get better results, i couldn't understand a lot of tips or steps i see on the net, and i will keep searching where i can get a video tutor about how to use this scanner, i understand by watching more than by reading, and my English is not that good to understand everything i read and even if i ask it will not help me if i still don't understand some words and statements.
You should say i need to start to read and learn about film photography, not digital photography, digital photography is not a problem for me and i never asked about digital
Thank you very much!
I see, i also believing that scanner is something else, even i saw it it is bigger and huge over that Imacon in the lab [the Imacon is just sitted next a monitor on a table, but that Noritsu is a big machine, WOW]
Tareq, it was you yourself who wrote:
And similar things in other post, now tell me how I need to interpret that?
But one thing: rest assured, it took me a few years to understand the basics too and get a full grasp of what digital photography and scanning is about!
I don't agree with this statement at all. Scanning is ALL about digital photography. The mere fact that you make this statement at all and don't see its wrong, is a sign you need to learn more about digital photography in general. Almost all aspects of digital photography apply to scanning. If you understand concepts like colormanagement, colorspaces, pixels, sharpness and sharpening, curves and histograms, resolution, than you can learn to scan too.
Only when you start printing in a wet darkroom using an enlarger instead of scanning your negatives, could you say that it is for the most part unrelated.
Again: have a look here (I learned a lot of new things there too), it really IS a good website:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
Tareq, since your lab has an Imacon, which are excellent scanners too, about comparable to drum and even better than most filmscanners, I would recommend you to try and scan on that scanner once. Since you also wrote that you learn more by "seeing" than by "reading", I can in that case recommend you to download and view the good Imacon video tutorials about the Flextight software used with the Imacon scanners, and located at this university website:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/IT_tutorial_web_site/photography/photography_flexcolour.htm
Marco
I would even be as bold to state that scanning has NOTHING to do with analog film photography, except for using a piece of film to extract digital data.
You will learn absolute nothing that helps you to make better scans by learning about developing your own film, push or pull development, fine grain developers, fixers, stop baths, latent images in silverhalide crystals, silver halide chemistry, selenium or sepia toners... because that is analog photography.
You WILL learn to make better scans by learning about the basic concepts of digital photography...
Marco
, also tomorrow Saturday it will start a workshop in my area about darkroom [4 Saturdays, talking about film, equipment, developing/processing, printing, and not sure what else], so will see what will this workshop add for me.
i will not waste my time to play with photoshop if the scan itself is crap
I think the key is to learn about those scanning software, if i get to understand that then it will make my scans easier or better, if not then photoshop will never help me to enhance my scans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?