How to extract the most detail out of film?

[RattyMouse]

I'm shooting right now medium format, 6 x 4.5 in size. I think I'm getting decent results from lab scanned negatives. However, I dont think what I have is very close to digital in terms of sharpness. I am using a Fujifilm GA645 with a very very sharp lens. I think that I should be doing better.

I have read many times that the only way to get good scans from negatives is through drum scanning. However, the cost of this is totally prohibitive. Does this mean that no matter what I do, my film negatives will always be less than a digital camera?

What about if I move up to 6 x 9 negatives? Still very far behind digital in terms of sharpness?

How about on prints? From what I understand, in today's printing world, a negative is given to a lab which is then scanned to be printed. Is this correct? Do all labs use drum scanners? If not, then even lab prints use less than perfect ways to extract detail out of film.

I shot medium format before the digital revolution and was always in awe of the sheer quality that was produced by 6 x 9 negatives. Is that all gone now except when expensive drum scans are done?

How can I do better? Or is that all there is today unless you print optically at home?

Thank you.

 

[Les Sarile]

If the actual data has been captured on film and your point of reference are from desktop flatbed scans then you maybe disappointed.
Scanning with at least a Coolscan at 4000dpi will alleviate that quickly - particularly when comparing to alternate media.
I am happy with the Coolscan 9000's 4000dpi as in the example scan of medium format Fuji 160S below - crop only with no other pre or post anything.
I have plenty of 20" X 30" prints - optical and from scan, of 35mm so print sizes only go up from there.
I have 8000dpi scans from Imacon of 35mm but have yet to try drum scans.

Link to full res version -> Fuji 160S MF
***Keep in mind this is a highly compressed JPEG file at 8400 X 8400 pixels of about 10Meg, so viewing past 100% on-screen and you may see artifacting.

 

[pschwart]

It all depends on what you want to do with the scans. Scanning medium format on even relatively low-end hardware can yield impressive output for the web or small factor enlargement. Here is a quick scan I did to proof the negative.
If I decide I want to print this image I might scan the neg on my Nikon 9000, but the Epson scan will make a fine digital negative for printing carbon transfers which will hold all that detail.

Details:

Bronica SQ (6x6)
Zenzanon 80mm, shot at f5.6 I think
Adox CHS Art 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50
scanned with Vuescan and Epson V700 with a BetterScanning holder and ANR glass at only about
1600 ppi, so not even a hi-res scan
Photoshop: minimal sharpening

 

[RattyMouse]

I want to print my negatives with the same quality I got back in the film era. I dont know how to do that in a cost effective way today. Back in the day, I could print my 6 x 9 negatives at 20" x 30" prints for $20 or so that were spectacular. No grain, wonderful tonality. Does something like this today exist? Do scans of these negatives look good at large size?

 

[pschwart]

Done well, a color or monochrome inkjet print can match and even exceed what most can achieve in a wet darkroom print. I don't print 20x30, but I am very pleased with the quality that can be achieved with hybrid workflows and medium format (Rollei TLR, Bronica SQ, Fuji 6x9). If I wanted to print larger than 20x24 from MF I might consider drum scanning.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have the same frustrations with medium format scans. I get my scans done at "pro" labs...places like North Coast Photo and others. They do a great job on 35mm, but medium format scans (6x7) are just marginally better. They should be MUCH MUCH better given the size of the film. I believe their scanners are built into the commercial printing equipment. I don't think they were designed for medium format film. Short of a $50-$200 drum scan I don't know what options there are. (Other than analog enlargements).

 

[pschwart]

Get someone to scan some of your negatives on a Nikon 9000 using a glass film holder. You might be surprised -- for many applications the Nikon is a reasonable alternative to drum scanning.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I found my Mamiya 645 shots were less sharp than expected when scanned. Once I optically printed and got the same results I found the issue was with the camera. It turned out to be the focus screen positioning in the camera. Shot close to wide open the plane of focus was not where I thought it was. But even once that was fixed I find I still get more detail out of the D800E than I do with drum scanned 6x4.5 film. And that is sometimes using the same lens, the Mamiya 120mm macro.

But you should easily be able to get a sharp 20x24 print from the scanned 6x45 film. If you can't make sure your focus is spot on. And you need to use a tripod to do your tests, as hand holding can really rob you of sharpness. But if your scanned film still isn't sharp spring for a drum scan just to see what is possible with the combination. One thing to keep in mind is that the scanned film will never look as sharp as digital at the 100% pixel level. But usually with scanned film it has a whole lot more pixels. So it's best to compare prints or scans down sampled to the size of your digital camera output and properly sharped.

I think moving to 6x9 would best the D800E. 4x5 certainly has more captured detail when drum scanned, but not as much as I initially thought it would. I don't know what camera you are comparing to, but if it's a high res full frame camera you may not be seeing anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Les Sarile]

Below is an example of what can be achieved with 35mm Kodak Techpan at ISO25 processed in Technidol using an old second hand manual focus Pentax-M 50mm F4 Macro. From bottom left:

1. ISO12233 Chart arranged 4 wide by 4 high. Horizontal and vertical results are therefore multiplied by 4. Center portion in red for comparison. Results in LPH ( Lines per Picture Height).
2. Pentax K20D of the frame of the whole frame of Kodak Techpan. This shows 100% crop of the center portion. Resolves 2100 X 2100.
3. Pentax K20D of the 4X4 reschart setup. This shows 100% crop of the center portion. Resolves 2100 X 2100. DPReview K20D resolution shows extinction of 2400 extinction that corroborates this.
4. Coolscan 9000 of the whole frame of Kodak Techpan. This shows 100% crop of the center portion. Resolves 4000 X 3200.
5. Using the K20D + 4.5X bellows optical magnification of the center portion of the frame of Kodak Techpan. Resolves 5000 X 5000.

As a reference, in the DPReview D800 resolution test states, "The D800, however has a theoretical maximum of 4,912 lines per picture height while our current chart 'only' measures up to 4,000 lines per picture height."

Link to full res -> http://www.fototime.com/1F7747A69031070/orig.jpg

• Keep in mind, these results are from 35mm film. Everything else being equal, medium format of course resolves a linear amount more times based on area.
• Most of the time, depth of field, technique, lens and even the subject matter will tend to trick most when they conduct casual res testing. Make sure to account for these things and you should be able to easily quantify real results.

 

[Les Sarile]

#3 above should state, "Resolves 2400 X 2400."

 

[Peltigera]

What resolution is the lab using when scanning? *My local lab wil do fairly low resolution scans as default (they call them 5x7 scans) but will scan at a higher resolution if you tell them to (it also costs more).

 

[desertfotog]

I have an Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner and have been making some scans of old 35mm and 120 film negatives and having them enlarged to 11x14 or 11x17. The lady who makes my prints says that with my scans I could make prints four time larger if I wanted to. Let me tell you I worked all summer getting the scans to be good enough. I even purchased most everything I need for a darkroom just in case the scans didn't cut it. It has not been easy.