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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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?

Hi Cem,

I don't have personal experience with the Fuji PRO 160S CN film, but it doesn't look much different from what I'd expect from the Canon FS4000 scanner @4000 PPI and an ISO160 color negative emulsion. Slides scan with lower noise because they require less of a contrast boost, but their higher density range is a challenge for a consumer grade scanner. You mentioned Multiscanning, have you tried the visible difference between 16x and fewer samples?

Depending on scan technology I assume that the result could be improved a bit. A drum scanner has the possibility to vary the size of the scanning spot and the sampling density. The combination of both can pull the most detail out of a piece of film, while keeping graininess low. But the price per scan might be prohibitive, unless the image is very important. Finding a scanner and a competent scanner operator make it an even more hit or miss operation.

A feature I like in the Minolta 5400 PPI consumer scanner (Scan Elite, model 1), besides the resolution, is the possibility to use a grain equalizer (lightsource diffuser) which allows to reduce apparent grain and suppresses dust and scratches, even on film that contain silver (where dICE will fail). Unfortunately, Minolta dropped that feature in its second generation model, probably due to insufficient light output from the newer lightsource. The moment my scanner dies, it's probably impossible to get it repaired (it was already difficult during it's commercial life).

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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.

It might, but what it really does is reduce the contrast at the limiting resolution. Depending on the interactions between the optical components, the MTF will get a different shape, but in prostprocessing most of that change can be restored (except at the limiting resolution).

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.

Yes, but don't forget that the film MTF will be combined with the scanner MTF. It's the combination of that second generation dogital image that's going to compared to the first generation digital image. Also the Raw converter makes a difference in how much detail can be retrieved from the Bayer CFA image. Lot's of apples and oranges, so IMHO one can only compare based on end result, and it requires an MTF comparison to objectively understand what we see.

On the other 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?

No I haven't specifically tested that, I haven't shot film since I got my 1Ds2. I do believe that a very fine grain film like Technical Pan holds its ground, especially because in Post Processing it stands more high spatial frequency boost without getting more grainy. Black and white film will already be sharper than color film, and one can choose a developer solution that exploits certain characteristics of the emulsion. Since I got my 1Ds3, I think it would be a very close call but then the 1Ds3 is still a color camera. If a Monochrome version would exist, it would be hard to beat.

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?

I wouldn't suggest that a 1Ds2 is superior in resolution, but in practice (due to MTF differences) there may be a smaller difference in apparent resolution than even I expect.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Or Nikon ;-)!

Of course!

Still, he mentioned the 70-200 2.8L which is unlikely to work with the Nikon! The other way round, yes a Nikon lens can be used on the Canon, LOL.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

Of course!

Still, he mentioned the 70-200 2.8L which is unlikely to work with the Nikon! The other way round, yes a Nikon lens can be used on the Canon, LOL.

Asher

Nikon has a fairly good AF-S VR 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED-IF

mounted on a D3x…

 

[Martin Kuivenhoven]

Thanks guys, this thread got me to go out to the zoo today and return with 36 shots .. Then the light was gone. Now all left is to develop the film and scan. Maybe I will already have some results by next week ..

Fun!

Regards, martin

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Just finished spotting the first shot from a roll of Adox CHS100 taken last week. I hope that you enjoy - I like the print I have of it.

Mike

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

It is beautiful Mike!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mike,

The images is remarkable in how bright light is handled. I didn't know about this film. How do you process it?

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

It is beautiful Mike!

agreed! very nice.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Thank you all. I was very pleased with the the films tonality. I developed it in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes agitating every 3. This is another from later the same day (when I got back from London!) straight off the scanner with no levels or spotting.

Asher, the Adox films are made in Croatia or the Czech Republic and are basically 50s films. They are orthopan films, so with very limited red sensitivity. On scanning the grain is much softer than FP4. The only issue Ihave at present is that the scan needed a lot of cleaning up - much more than the tri-x I developed at the same time -I'll need to try the other tank to eliminate that before I draw any firm conclusions.

Mike

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Thank you all. I was very pleased with the the films tonality. I developed it in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes agitating every 3. This is another from later the same day (when I got back from London!) straight off the scanner with no levels or spotting.

Mike

Is that the Charing Cross Station by any chance? Seems very familiar to me.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Cem, This is York again. I had a day rtip to London with work, so took the opportunity to take the camera with. I'll post a couple more in a few days when I've been through them a bit.

Mike

 

[Martin Kuivenhoven]

Mike, impressive shots and a promising thought of more shots to come.

Inspired I took a roll of film to the Zoo to find out that getting back to film again takes practice as well

Fun nevertheless (for me as less experienced shooter) but a long way to go.

Regards, Martin

 

[Ron Morse]

This was with the EOS 3 70-200 2.8 IS. Kodak ultramax 400.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

I posted the raw scan of this earlier - I thought that I'd quickly put up the final print version before heading off to scan my first Ektar 100 shots I'll try to come back later to comment on Ashers seed planter and a couple of others that caught my eye at a distance in the last few days.

Mike

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

This seems to have been a thread that has been popular, I guess people are interested. So here is another.

This is in bright Palm Springs mid-day sun. It was probably about 100 degrees outside.

Photographed with my Mamiya 645AFDII, Tri-X 400 pushed two stops. And this is from the roll scan done at processing.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Good choice. I've often described Tri-X as a "muscular" film that conveys a strong sense of line.

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

I shoot color too...

Although I really like black and white film, especially Tri-X, well I just can't stop shooting color too. This is medium format on my Mamiya 645AFDII on Kodak 160VC and roll scanned at processing.

 

[John Moore]

Scan negatives and film rolls

i have a bunch of 35mm negatives and I was wondering how I can go about scanning them in so I can manipulate them on the PC. Also i was thinking of taking my rolls of film to a photoshop and have them develop and put them on a disc so I can put them on the PC. Is this a recomended method since i don't have access to a wet darkroom?

 

[Asher Kelman]

i have a bunch of 35mm negatives and I was wondering how I can go about scanning them in so I can manipulate them on the PC. Also i was thinking of taking my rolls of film to a photoshop and have them develop and put them on a disc so I can put them on the PC. Is this a recomended method since i don't have access to a wet darkroom?

John,

This is always a good start. You may have extra dust on them. Plead with the guys to puff away the dust! Removing dust is no big issue in PS. Then when you have images you really like, you can get a professional scan. The other way is to get a nice flatbed scanner, such as an Epson V700 series or a dedicated film scanner such as made by Nikon or Canon.

Get started! That's the main thing. The pictures will be much better than you ever imagined. The range of gray scale on negative B&W film is phenomenal.

If you go up to 4x5 film, you can develop simply by using a dip and dunk method with a metal film holder and then contact print! All pretty basic but with first class results.

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

i have a bunch of 35mm negatives and I was wondering how I can go about scanning them in so I can manipulate them on the PC. Also i was thinking of taking my rolls of film to a photoshop and have them develop and put them on a disc so I can put them on the PC. Is this a recomended method since i don't have access to a wet darkroom?

John

As Asher says getting them scanned is a good start. It's worth finding out waht scanner they'll use and how they'll colour correct. I don't really like the autocorrected scans I get back from labs, but if they come back raw then you'll need to learn to do your own correction (all part of the fun).

Whatever Asher says, try to avoid dust in scans - cleanup is a right royal pain, but if it's colour neg then digital ice works wonders (a dust removal algorithm).

Eventually you may wan to get your own scanner. I have a Nikon LS5000 that I heartily recommend.

Mike

 

[John Moore]

Thanks for the advice guys. I will venture out to the only photolab left in my area and ask some of the questions you posed here. i will also price some of the equipment you suggested. I am really new to this so I am sure i will have a lot more questions.

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

John,

Just be cautious about the typical consumer photo labs. My experience with doing that a few years back was only ok. At processing they would roll scan as a jpg at under 1 megabyte which was way too limiting.

I now use a pro lab, I send my film in, they process and roll scan at whatever specification you request and it comes back as a tiff. I typically have my medium format scanned at the 6-10 megabyte range and I can very easily get excellent prints at 8x10 or letter size from them or even somewhat larger. For me it is very cost effective. Anything larger I go for drum scans of individual frames usually at 50 megabytes.

I use The Icon in Los Angeles.

Thanks for the advice guys. I will venture out to the only photolab left in my area and ask some of the questions you posed here. i will also price some of the equipment you suggested. I am really new to this so I am sure i will have a lot more questions.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

John,

Just be cautious about the typical consumer photo labs. My experience with doing that a few years back was only ok. At processing they would roll scan as a jpg at under 1 megabyte which was way too limiting.

I now use a pro lab, I send my film in, they process and roll scan at whatever specification you request and it comes back as a tiff. I typically have my medium format scanned at the 6-10 megabyte range and I can very easily get excellent prints at 8x10 or letter size from them or even somewhat larger. For me it is very cost effective. Anything larger I go for drum scans of individual frames usually at 50 megabytes.

I use The Icon in Los Angeles.

I would echo Ian's comments, but I've not yet found a lab that will do scans how I want. That's really all that's holding me back from a MF setup as I can't afford a Nikonn 9000 at the mo.

Mike

 

[Will Thompson]

Most recently I have been shooting 8x10 Polaroid and then scanning on a $29 refurbished flatbed Epson scanner.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Most recently I have been shooting 8x10 Polaroid and then scanning on a $29 refurbished flatbed Epson scanner.

There's no substitute for cubic, sorry square, inches

Mike

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

Film seems so easy

I just got back another set of scans fro a shoot. It always pleases me how little work I need to do in the way of white balance, skin tones, color with film.

This was with the Mamiya 645AFDII, 45AF 2.8 lens and Kodak Portra 800. No additional lighting, just what was in the room and from the storefront window of the gym about 25 ft away.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Just a quick share from the other week - this was shot on Portra 400NC and last night I printed a test print on a sheet of HP Aquarella textured art paper that I had lying around. I am delighted with the print, which far exceeds my expectations (particularly as I used a canned profile for Hahne textured paper)

One thing that struck forcefully home however, was that as I've sold the 35 color-skopar lens I took this with, I don't have a lens that really flares at the moment, and yet the flare in the upper right corner is delightful in building the impact of the picture (although I have mixd feelings about the flare across Naomi's face).

Oh, I also noticed that Kodachrome is being 'retired'. It's hardly surprising as I suspect even apart from digital's onslaught most of us have not used any for some years. I've ordered a few rolls as a last hurrah, and will be interested to see if it is as contrasty when fresh as I recall.

Mike

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

A new one...

I haven't posted in a while!

Although I am best known for being a bodybuilding and fitness photographer, it is faces that I enjoy photographing the most. I loves the face photographs of both men and women. So even when I have an assignment that is body related I always do some close up face photography.

This is Tiffany. I was shooting her for a magazine assignment. She has gone from being a 235 overweight girl to being an example of fitness. But I love her face and hope you do too.

I photographed this with the Mamiya 645AFDII on Kodak 160VC film. It required almost no post work in Photoshop other than reducing it in size for online resolution. Color, contrast and even sharpness is 'as is". Thank You Kodak!

 

[Ian L. Sitren]

And one more...

From the same shoot.

This was very bright over head sunlight. Mamiya 645AFDII and Kodak 160VC.