Medium Format Resolution

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Hi.
I recently got an RB67 (the one that fell) and shot a few rolls in Kodak 400TX in a studio setting. I used. 127 mm lens and lighting was confirmed with a Sekonik meter.

I processed the rolls myself in HC110 for 7 mins at 68 degrees, 30 sec stop and 10 min fix.
I scanned the negatives on an Epson 850 scanner and examined them on a computer. When I compared the scanned images to those from my Canon 1d mkii, (shot at same f stop with an,80 mm lens) I found that the Canon image was way better. Especially when enlarged them, the resolution of the 8.2 mp image was way better.

Please tell me what I am doing wrong. I remember getting some,low res scans of medium format film,a,few yeara ago that were amazing.

Thanks.

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

Can you provide examples?

Also, how was it scanned years ago - what scanner?

Hatchetman · Mar 9, 2018

Probably scanning issues of some sort. That is a whole can of worms to figure out.

faberryman · Mar 9, 2018

The V850 has an actual resolution of 2300 and can't resolve the grain, so I suspect your 1D images look sharper.

jeffreyg · Mar 9, 2018

At what ppi are you scanning the negatives? Try a resolution of 2400 or at least 1200 to compare make sure the negatives are held flat in the carrier. Down size the file later according to need.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Hatchetman · Mar 9, 2018

There are a million things it could be when it comes to scanning. A "raw" 6x7 file scan is going to be huge, like 40-60MB. I don't let any scanning software do anything for me. I move it to Photoshop where I do the sharpening, etc.

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Thanks everybody.

Just a few details I left out .I used HC110 dilution B. I scanned at 1600 dpi, 4800dpi and around 6000 dpi. The old scans were from "Dans" I believe.

I don't have access to the images now. At work and will upload later.
I will continue to play with the scanner and will send a roll to the lab. Just surprised at the lack,of resolution with the neg/scanner combo.
Thanks for the advice. Maybe when you see the images the issue may be more defined.

Al

destroya · Mar 9, 2018

its the scanning. I took a 6x7 tmax 400 neg. I scanned it on my nikon cs9000 and the wet printed the same neg. the scanned neg was clearly inferior to the wet print. the scanned neg did look ok, better than the digital 18mp camera print, but both were no match for the wet print. Scanning, I read someplace, reduces potential quality of a print in half unless you get a drum scan. Not sure I agree its that extreme, but it does make a difference.

scan at your scanners true resolving power and try again. also, if you can, get it wet printed and see for yourself if its the camera of the scanner. unless you have a drum scanner, the scanning will be the weak link in the chain

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

destroya said:
its the scanning. I took a 6x7 tmax 400 neg. I scanned it on my nikon cs9000 and the wet printed the same neg. the scanned neg was clearly inferior to the wet print. the scanned neg did look ok, better than the digital 18mp camera print, but both were no match for the wet print. Scanning, I read someplace, reduces potential quality of a print in half unless you get a drum scan. Not sure I agree its that extreme, but it does make a difference.

scan at your scanners true resolving power and try again. also, if you can, get it wet printed and see for yourself if its the camera of the scanner. unless you have a drum scanner, the scanning will be the weak link in the chain

By inferior do you mean detail/sharpness? If so, how big a print did you make and what kind of paper did you use that it showed more detail then a Coolscan 4000dpi scan?

faberryman · Mar 9, 2018

You need to scan at 4800 to achieve the maximum 2300 the V850 is capable of. If you scan at a lower setting, you will not achieve maximum resolution.

warden · Mar 9, 2018

Without seeing both the Canon and RB67 images it won't be possible to opine, other than to suggest that if your RB is working properly, and if you've made a quality negative, and if you've scanned it properly with your home scanner, the two images ought to be comparable if viewed at the same pixel size.

If your negative is professionally scanned though with a higher end scanner the RB quality will surpass the Canon.

Ted Baker · Mar 9, 2018

Maybe worth checking the "focus", by using little adjustments on the holders, or consider an after market holder.

If comparing jpegs from your canon they will have been sharpened, the epson certain needs some sharpening, if your using USM try a radius of .6 and 350% as a starting point before any resizing. YMMV

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Les Sarile said:
By inferior do you mean detail/sharpness? If so, how big a print did you make and what kind of paper did you use that it showed more detail then a Coolscan 4000dpi scan?

Inferior as to details. The Canon image shows way more detail when enlarged on the screen and maintaims that detail. I will upload images tonight.

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Ted Baker said:
Maybe worth checking the "focus", by using little adjustments on the holders, or consider an after market holder.

If comparing jpegs from your canon they will have been sharpened, the epson certain needs some sharpening, if your using USM try a radius of .6 and 350% as a starting point before any resizing. YMMV

Will try that. Thank you.

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

AlNY said:
Inferior as to details. The Canon image shows way more detail when enlarged on the screen and maintaims that detail. I will upload images tonight.

My response was to destroya since he referenced a Coolscan compared to print but your results from a flatbed on screen is another matter.

Ted Baker · Mar 9, 2018

AlNY said:
Will try that. Thank you.

Also consider turning your negs upside down, the recommended epson way reduces the risk of newtons rings, but the other way may keep part of the neg in better focus. If that makes a difference then I would defenitely consider after market holders to keep if flat and the correct height.

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Attached are the images. They were processed minimally in Apple "Photos". ( I wish Apeture was still around)

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

If these are the actual files you are comparing on-screen then the first thing you have to change is the scan resolution. You have to increase your scan resolution to at least 4800. Maybe even try 6400 and see if it makes a difference in actual detail achieved. If the results of a scan from medium format 6X7 film are less detail then an 8MP sensor in the EOS-1D Mark II, then something is grossly wrong - either the detail was not captured on film or the scanner is unable to resolve the detail on the film.

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

I just scanned another negative. Did not adjust anything in the scanning software and purchased Affinity. Increased the resolution to 4800.It seems better.Will upload.

The scans are better but are HUGE. The last scan was 110mp.. Although the scans are better, I guess I'm not used to the grain of the skin at increased magnification on the computer screen. The smaller digital file seems to resolve the skin with more detail.

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

I don't have much experience with TRI-X but from the limited use I've had with it, I've found it to be grainier then TMAX 400. If grain is a concern, perhaps a different developer would improve it or maybe TMAX 400 would be better for you.

Once scanned, the files are huge but when sized down to your final target, the grain is less pronounced, Perhaps you might try some grain reduction also.

AlNY · Mar 9, 2018

Thank you all for the advice.

Al

jim10219 · Mar 9, 2018

You can’t resolve the grain with a flatbed scanner. Not even close. It may look like you can see film grain on the computer screen, but you’re actually just seeing pixels. The best way to “scan” a negative at home is with a digital camera and a good macro lens and extension tube. You basically backlight the negative and take multiple closeup shots and stitch them together in an image editing software like Photoshop. From there, you’ll want to sharpen the image using an unsharp mask. You always have to sharpen a scan if you don’t want blurry images. How many shots depends on the resolution of your digital camera, how much time you want to spend with it, and what kind of macro lens you use. Of course you could also send them out for a drum scan, but that’s expensive.

A 6x7 camera with good film and a good lens ought to get you an image comparable to something around a 30-50 MP digital camera. The hard part is extracting all of that information and getting it into the computer.

Les Sarile · Mar 9, 2018

jim10219 said:
The best way to “scan” a negative at home is with a digital camera and a good macro lens and extension tube.

A 6x7 camera with good film and a good lens ought to get you an image comparable to something around a 30-50 MP digital camera. The hard part is extracting all of that information and getting it into the computer.

Do you have some results that support these?

jim10219 · Mar 9, 2018

Les Sarile said:
Do you have some results that support these?

Yes, but I don't have a way to upload files of that size to this site, plus, I don't want to go through all of the hassle. But it's well documented on the internet. You can Google it all for yourself if you like.

Here's a link to a website that shows a bit about what I mean with some real world examples:
https://emulsive.org/articles/scann...rum-scanner-vs-epson-v700-with-bonus-sony-a7r

jim10219 · Mar 9, 2018

And this is a link showing how medium format film has even higher resolution than I stated. Apparently a 6x6 negative has the equivalent of over 80MP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

Medium Format Resolution

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency