Returning to film! Who uses what film and how do you scan it?

[Daniel Buck]

I didn't see this post earlier. I've been scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film on an Epson 4990 with good results!

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

Well I can't help myself, my favorite photos still seem to come from medium format and Tri-X.

Now don't get me wrong, I do shoot a lot of digital. In the last two weeks I have done editorial and advertising shoots with my Canon 5D and also a Leaf AFi7.

The Canon is a great lightweight camera, perhaps the best value out there. The Leaf produces amazing images. I will try to get around to posting my views of the Leaf and some pics in the appropriate forum here later in the week.

But for now, this is the Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 320 pushed two stops and roll scanned at approx 10 mbs.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ian,

I like the genuine TriX and hope you'll show me prints some time pushed like this. When does it get too grainy for a 16x20?

I've been thinking of picking up a folding MF camera of some sort. I thought Fuji was going to come out with one.

Asher

 

[Daniel Buck]

I've been thinking of picking up a folding MF camera of some sort. I thought Fuji was going to come out with one.

You could pick up a Zeiss 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 folding range finder for pretty cheap now days! They don't have a meter, so it's convenient to put a little voigtlander meter on the hotshoe, or other brand. I carry my 6x9 Zeiss Ikon in my laptop bag with me, (along with my digital... haha!)

 

[Asher Kelman]

You could pick up a Zeiss 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 folding range finder for pretty cheap now days! They don't have a meter, so it's convenient to put a little voigtlander meter on the hotshoe, or other brand. I carry my 6x9 Zeiss Ikon in my laptop bag with me, (along with my digital... haha!)

That's what I was thinking of! Does it have a coupled rangefinder?

David Goldfarb has 6x6 Perkeo and that certainly has a great lens and fits in the pocket!

Asher

 

[Daniel Buck]

That's what I was thinking of! Does it have a couple rangefinder?

David Goldfarb has 6x6 Perkeo and that certainly has a great lens and fits in the pocket!

Asher

No, the range finder isnt linked to the lens. You use the range finder to find your focus distance, look at the dial, then rotate the end of the lens to match the number you have on the dial. Then you compose through a different viewfinder.

It's a fairly slow camera to use, but it's enjoyable, and inexpensive

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

I'm thinking on getting a cheap NIKONOS underwater camera and use film...

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

"Voigtlander introduced the new Bessa III at Photokina, a classic style folding 120 camera in 6x6 or 6x7 format. Price and shipping date has not yet been announced by the Cosina factory."

http://www.cameraquest.com/index.htm

http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7jzkae.html

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Fuji_GF670

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ian,

I already put announcement on this two days ago on the front of OPF News! I've my eye on it. I'm waiting to hear back on the specs and delivery! Oh the price too would be helpful, LOL!

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi folks,

I have just scanned a 20 yo Ektachrome slide and posted the result and the details of the processing here.

Cheers,

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Finding film is next to impossible

Hi folks,

How and where do you find film nowadays? In the Netherlands, it is a huge PITA. I am looking forward to shooting color negatives and slides but I was unable to find any shops which had some in stock. Just a few types are readily available so I ended up buying Fuji Pro 400H to start with. I wrote about this in this thread originally.

So which films do you prefer for scanning purposes?


Cheers,

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Believe it or not, we actually have a Dutch language forum on APUG.org. You might ask there where people are buying film locally. I know one of the people in the traditional photo supplies business who has been active on various forums is Robert Vonk, whose business is called "Fotohuis," and he goes by that moniker on the internet in general, but I gather he has been ill recently, so I'm not sure how easy it is to contact him at the moment. His website, http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/ is currently inactive.

I usually buy film at one of the local shops around here--B&H, Calumet, Adorama, and so forth--or I order from Freestyle in Los Angeles.

 

[Asher Kelman]

David,

The idea is that Cem chooses the film and then we'll join and shoot the same film for a while so we have something here in common. Whatever the film is, I'm in!

Asher

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

Back in December I shot an amateur bodybuilding competition using my Contax G1, 45mm lens on Fuji Pro 800z. I must say that I enjoyed shooting with that very much and I am extremely satisfied with the results. I only had it roll scanned but it is just great.

On my website "SecondFocus"

With that said, I like the results of scans of Fuji 400H and also all of the Kodak Portra films. I also love Tri-X in medium format, perhaps my favorite.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

David,

The idea is that Cem chooses the film and then we'll join and shoot the same film for a while so we have something here in common. Whatever the film is, I'm in!

Asher

Sounds like a plan. I shoot a lot more B&W and color transparency than color neg, but it could give me an excuse to try something a bit different.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Believe it or not, we actually have a Dutch language forum on APUG.org. You might ask there where people are buying film locally. I know one of the people in the traditional photo supplies business who has been active on various forums is Robert Vonk, whose business is called "Fotohuis," and he goes by that moniker on the internet in general, but I gather he has been ill recently, so I'm not sure how easy it is to contact him at the moment. His website, http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/ is currently inactive.

I usually buy film at one of the local shops around here--B&H, Calumet, Adorama, and so forth--or I order from Freestyle in Los Angeles.

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for the tip, I'll look into it. I went to Antwerpen this afternoon to the Calumet store but alas, they had no film any longer. I've then visited another good shop, Grobet, and they had some film rolls which were past their best before dates. So I bought whatever I could find, among others the Fuji Pro 160S. I took some pictures using this film and had it developed at a local store using their 1 hour service. When I came back home, I have given it a try with my Canon FS4000US film scanner, to see how it'd go. Unfortunately, I am disappointed. I cannot get anything but very grainy pictures with a lot of color balance problems, probably due to being past their BB date.

Here is one such example. Canon EOS 3, 70-200mm L IS f2.8, Fuji PRO 160S negative film:

PS: The big red blob down the LHS must be a lens flare, I guess.

Cheers,

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Back in December I shot an amateur bodybuilding competition using my Contax G1, 45mm lens on Fuji Pro 800z. I must say that I enjoyed shooting with that very much and I am extremely satisfied with the results. I only had it roll scanned but it is just great.

On my website "SecondFocus"

With that said, I like the results of scans of Fuji 400H and also all of the Kodak Portra films. I also love Tri-X in medium format, perhaps my favorite.

Thanks for the tips Ian. I have ordered some rolls of Fuji 400H, will report how it goes.

Cheers,

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for the tip, I'll look into it. I went to Antwerpen this afternoon to the Calumet store but alas, they had no film any longer. I've then visited another good shop, Grobet, and they had some film rolls which were past their best before dates. So I bought whatever I could find, among others the Fuji Pro 160S. I took some pictures using this film and had it developed at a local store using their 1 hour service. When I came back home, I have given it a try with my Canon FS4000US film scanner, to see how it'd go. Unfortunately, I am disappointed. I cannot get anything but very grainy pictures with a lot of color balance problems, probably due to being past their BB date.

Here is one such example. Canon EOS 3, 70-200mm L IS f2.8, Fuji PRO 160S negative film:

PS: The big red blob down the LHS must be a lens flare, I guess.

Cheers,

Hi folks,

No reactions yet, anyone? Well, here is another frame from the same roll. I could get the grain a bit better under control with this attempt. What do you think?

Workflow: Scanned with Canon FS4000 @2000 dpi. Multi-exposure scanning. Medium level IR dust and scratch removal in the scanner software (VueScan Pro 8.5.01). Saved as a prophoto rgb 16-bits tiff file. Opened in PS. Applied noise reduction (using Dfine 2) as the first step. Adjusted LCE and contrast. Cropped some 8% from the bottom. Capture sharpened using Focus Magic. Converted to sRGB/8-bit and downsized. Output sharpened with Focus Magic.

Just to give you an idea how it looks like in detail, here is a 100% crop of the original "raw" scan file, without any post processing in CS4.

And finally, here is a 100% from the full-rez scan @4000dpi (no PP):

Cheers,

 

[nicolas claris]

And finally, here is a 100% from the full-rez scan @4000dpi (no PP):

Hi Cem
what is the size of the file (full image) at 300 dpi?
I don't want to start the film/digital war but imho it doesn't compare to a 1Ds3 file…

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Cem
what is the size of the file (full image) at 300 dpi?
I don't want to start the film/digital war but imho it doesn't compare to a 1Ds3 file…

Scanning a 35mm negative @4000 dpi yields an image of around 4000x6000 pixels (max). So if you print this at 300 dpi, you'd have 13"x20". Minolta scanners can squeeze 5400 dpi out of the film but I do not think that there will be a noticeable difference between 4000dpi and 5400 dpi taking the grain of the film into account.

Re. comparing analog files to digital, you may be opening the pandora's box there, LOL.
Of course it looks nowhere as good and clean as a DSLR file, it doesn't even compare my old 40D let alone a 1DsMkII. This picture was taken with my very sharp EF 70-200 L IS f2.8 lens using a low contrast 160 ASA/ISO film. Mind you, this crop has had no noise reduction or sharpening applied to it, it is the raw scan. So we have to accept the fact that grain will always be a part of the film no matter how good your equipment is. I cannot say how these would look like if they were scanned with a drum scanner though.

Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Scanning a 35mm negative @4000 dpi yields an image of around 4000x6000 pixels (max). So if you print this at 300 dpi, you'd have 13"x20". Minolta scanners can squeeze 5400 dpi out of the film but I do not think that there will be a noticeable difference between 4000dpi and 5400 dpi taking the grain of the film into account.

Ah, not so fast. Don't underestimate the effect of the so-called "Grain-aliasing". Depending on the type of grain (actually the dye clouds) in their 3-dimensional layout, and the type of lighting the scanner uses (the model 1 version of the 5400 minolta scanner could use a light diffuser to reduce the Callier-effect), the 5400 ppi scanner may produce significantly finer grain.

Here is an example, comparing several scan resolutions (but unfortunately also different scanners), resampled to the same size. They are scans of 35mm Portra 160NC color negative film:
Nikon LS-2000 scan (@2700ppi)

Nikon LS-4000 scan (@4000ppi)

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 scan (@5400ppi)

It might look grainier than the LS-4000 crop, but it is actually more accurate in replacing the grain blobs with finer grain.
And that's even without the "Grain equalizer activated.

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 scan (@5400ppi) with a bit of Neat Image grain removal.

When printed at 300ppi, the uncropped full frame image would measure 26.0 x 17.4in or 66 x 44cm.

Re. comparing analog files to digital, you may be opening the pandora's box there, LOL.
Of course it looks nowhere as good and clean as a DSLR file, it doesn't even compare my old 40D let alone a 1DsMkII. This picture was taken with my very sharp EF 70-200 L IS f2.8 lens using a low contrast 160 ASA/ISO film. Mind you, this crop has had no noise reduction or sharpening applied to it, it is the raw scan. So we have to accept the fact that grain will always be a part of the film no matter how good your equipment is. I cannot say how these would look like if they were scanned with a drum scanner though.

Scanner resolution is important. First of all you'll be able to get real higher resolution out of the film, and secondly you'll reduce the grain (especially after downsampling). At 16MP or higher, film is surpassed by a DSLR, even on resolution. That's why I bought a 1Ds Mark II, and I haven't shot film since.

Bart

 

[Mike Shimwell]

As Nic and Bart point out a 1Ds3 file is far cleaner and resolves more than film, but I'm still being amazed at what film can resolve when scanned at 4000dpi. On the pther hand, 35mm film just has a totally different look to digital and therefore a different use.

One day (when the pound is less weak and I can afford a decent scanner or we've got used to it!) I'd like to try some MF (ideally 6x7 or 6x9) film. Bart's suggestion that digital passes 35mm at 16MP is interesting as others have claimed 3, 6, 9, 10, 12... 35(!) I still don't have an answer to this, although film type is obviously important, but I've sort of stopped worrying about it too.

I've been interested in comparing 5D, 1Ds3 and film prints at about 18 by 12 inches and they are very different. At some point I'll do the decent thing and shoot the same scene using each body and the closest lens, and possibly a couple of different film types.

Bart can you comment on your technical view on this - not for a war, just out of interest. Too many people have an agenda.

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Bart,

Thanks for sharing these careful examples. How much different would a professional scan be?

The other aspect is how we react to the myriads of different parameters in the final result of one film versus another and then digital images? The idea to examine is not just resolution but also character, or experience. So will the medium change the feelings and impact in any useful fashion?

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart can you comment on your technical view on this - not for a war, just out of interest. Too many people have an agenda.

Hi Mike,

I have no agenda, just objective measurements. I've been able to get some 80 line-pairs of resolution out of regular low ISO color film. Say we can get 85 line-pairs with a high resoution scan, a 16MP 1Ds Mark II can theoretically resolve 69.4 LP/mm, if not for its Anti-aliasing filter which reduces that some. Why is that equivalent to film? It's because of the difference in MTF.

Film has a very low MTF at these high spatial frequencies. So while it can resolve detail, it's so low contrast that we can barely see it. Digital on the other hand has a rather high MTF, right up to the point of limiting resolution. It therefore 'looks' more contrasty/sharper. And of course Digital can be much cleaner than film-grain alows, but that's only relevant at large magnification and without noise reduction.

A 1Ds Mark III can theoretically resolve 78,1 LP/mm, which is (except for the AA-filter) almost equivalent to film+scanner resolution, with a higher contrast at the limiting resolution, and with low noise. It therefore surpasses what film can offer.

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,

Thanks for sharing these careful examples. How much different would a professional scan be?

Assuming one can still find a capable scanner operator, and they were already rare when film was the predominant medium, slightly finer grain still, and with even larger MP images.

The other aspect is how we react to the myriads of different parameters in the final result of one film versus another and then digital images? The idea to examine is not just resolution but also character, or experience. So will the medium change the feelings and impact in any useful fashion?

It's reasonably apparent when one compares the MTF curves. High MTF is usually more important for the perceived quality than high resolution. Boosting the small detail contrast will also increase the film graininess.

Bart

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Mike,

I have no agenda, just objective measurements. I've been able to get some 80 line-pairs of resolution out of regular low ISO color film. Say we can get 85 line-pairs with a high resoution scan, a 16MP 1Ds Mark II can theoretically resolve 69.4 LP/mm, if not for its Anti-aliasing filter which reduces that some. Why is that equivalent to film? It's because of the difference in MTF.

Film has a very low MTF at these high spatial frequencies. So while it can resolve detail, it's so low contrast that we can barely see it. Digital on the other hand has a rather high MTF, right up to the point of limiting resolution. It therefore 'looks' more contrasty/sharper. And of course Digital can be much cleaner than film-grain alows, but that's only relevant at large magnification and without noise reduction.

A 1Ds Mark III can theoretically resolve 78,1 LP/mm, which is (except for the AA-filter) almost equivalent to film+scanner resolution, with a higher contrast at the limiting resolution, and with low noise. It therefore surpasses what film can offer.

Bart

Bart thanks. That's interesting. My experience to date is certainly in agreement with this and even the 5D with only 12.7Mp apparently outresolves film in these terms - i.e. much higher contrast at the limiting resolution. I wonder what the impact of the Bayer demosaicing is - I have read that good system resolution for a bayer sensor with aa filter may be 75% of the max. So the 1Ds3 may get close to 60lpmm in normal circumstances. You've only got to look at the MTF curves for even ektar 100 to see the fall off at this sort of frequency. On the opther hand, some slow black and white film can do pretty well up to that sort of frequency and so a scanned frame may be a match for a 1Ds3? Have you tested this?

Also, on this basis it seems likely that a 4,000 dpi scan from a 6x9 or 6x7 neg may have an advantage over a 1Ds3. Again do you have a view or experience on this as there are not a few pundits who would suggest that a 1Ds2 outperforms 6x7 in print?

Cheers

Mike

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Any comments about the scan samples I've posted above? Do the results seem to be what one should expect or am I doing something wrong in the scanning process?

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Scanning at higher resolution and downsizing reduces noise. Best scanners increase DR

Any comments about the scan samples I've posted above? Do the results seem to be what one should expect or am I doing something wrong in the scanning process?

Cheers,

Cem,

I must admit I'm not used to looking every day at film scans. So many thousands of digital files have altered perceptions. In real life, things are neither grainy nor crystal clear. The angle of light on the bark of a tree might not be right. We do not see everything the same on different days. Films meant to have a gentler slope of contrast will look different than a digital file. So either identical scenes and give us identical 100% crops or else we have to judge this on it's own but probably as a print.

I looked at the 100% cropped shot of the branch and cluster twigs. It shows the grain of the emulsion and some purple fringing because the tree is backlit. At f2.8, I'm surprised to see the image as soft as it is but where did you focus? The branches may simply not be in that limited DOF!

In any case the file does beef up quite a bit with an S-curve, local contrast sharpening and 2 pixel ~ 150% sharpening. But each time only using about 20% to 40% of that layer and blending back, as is my custom.

I then reduced the file to 42% (so that would be 42% in width and length). There was not enough fine detail to justify that large file size anyway. With the reduction, the pictures look as if they would now print well. I have not tried it, as yet. Calculating that at 4,000 pixel per inch a 36x24 mm piece of film (the size of a full frame Canon CMOS sensor) would have 21 MP equivalent, all things being equal. If my empiric judgement is valid, then the realistic value of the film as processed and scanned would be 21 x.42 x.42 "MP" = 3.78 "MP". So on the face of it it would seem that I feel that this film is giving me the experience of under 4MP. It could be. That's just my guess.

You are asking a lot of the film to be taking a cluster of branches at the open aperture of 2.8. I don't know what your distance was.

The factors of the depth of focus and the scanning with a scanner that can probably do at best 3.3 O.D. means that we are not getting ll there is from your film. A top level scanner would reach 3.9 or 41.2 OD and that would show in the shading of the dark twigs. The nuances cannot be expected to be done justice with the prosumer level scanner you used. My guess is that given a skilled operator and a professional level scanner, the apparent worth of the pixels would be double what they are now, ie at about 7 MP.

You have not shared the actual focal length of thev zoom lens you chose. Let's imagine it was 200mm. If so, the DOF at say 3 to 6 meters would then be 3.9cm-16cm (1.54-6.3 inches). So some of the softness could perhaps be due to the wide aperture. DOF Calculator!

(At 70mm, there's no worry as, DOF would be ample to cover this shot, 33cm-135.9cm, or 13-53 inches).

What does this mean? The film must be printed and then you can see whether it can serve your purpose and give something that digital does not. One thing it should do and that's slow us down so that each shot is better thought out.

I'd love to see the same shot with the same lens using film versus any Canon digital. Then we can look at the center, where we know our focus was made. I'd go to f5.6 so we are not looking at DOF issues and not diffraction issues at the other end.

So lets have another go!

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

I'd love to see the same shot with the same lens using film versus any Canon digital.

Or Nikon ;-)!

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Cem

This is a 100% unprocessed crop from Portra 160NC. Unfortunately shot as the light faded, so not quite as crispy as yours, however the grain structure seems preferable to me.

I printed the original file at 18 by 12 (about 300ppi) and it makes a nice print actually, with the gain not at all evident other than as a light texture. I tend to use just a bit of colour noise reduction in LR2 on film at present.

Mike