Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Negative or transparency film?
- Thread starter sportback
- Start date
vandevantersh
Member
I know nothing about scanning. Are there a few indicators of scan quality?
My "tree" picture was scanned at 4546 x 3046 (35mm). For a 36 exp roll, processing and scanning was ~$25USD at a "one day processor".
Steve
My "tree" picture was scanned at 4546 x 3046 (35mm). For a 36 exp roll, processing and scanning was ~$25USD at a "one day processor".
Steve
cs_foto
Member
there is no indicator of scan image quality at all. only by looking at the results and enalarging (printing) them one can judge resolution, colour etc.
the same with a digital file captured by a digital camera, a 12 mega-pixel image from lets say a full frame DSLR will be extremely better than a 12 mega-pixel image taken with a mobile phone. They both have the 'same' theoretical resolution 12 mega pixels (4000 x 3000 pixels lets say) but the image quality will be obviously different when you compare the two.
Frontier scans are cheap, lets say £2 a roll and they offer decent quality, enough to send by email and pretty decent for a 10"x8" print.
The advantage of a Frontier scan over a home flat bed scanner is speed and colour. With the Frontier almost no correction is needed, the files come ready to go, good contrast good colour, film as film should be. At home using a Flatbed or even a Nikon 9000 you have to mess a lot in post-processing to get a good result.
Some prefer more control (flatbeds at home) others like me just use frontier scans as test prints/scans, the same way that people used to use contact prints to select and edit their work. The frontier scans are decent enough to be used instead of contact prints. (you can evaluate density/exposure, colour, composition etc)
If you want gallery (or so-called fine art) quality you have to go for an Imacon scan or Drum scan, and yes the prices are high. But this is not something that you will do to all your shots, only those that for a reason are going to be printed in a special way (to be framed, published in a book/magazine, sold and so on)
Regards
the same with a digital file captured by a digital camera, a 12 mega-pixel image from lets say a full frame DSLR will be extremely better than a 12 mega-pixel image taken with a mobile phone. They both have the 'same' theoretical resolution 12 mega pixels (4000 x 3000 pixels lets say) but the image quality will be obviously different when you compare the two.
Frontier scans are cheap, lets say £2 a roll and they offer decent quality, enough to send by email and pretty decent for a 10"x8" print.
The advantage of a Frontier scan over a home flat bed scanner is speed and colour. With the Frontier almost no correction is needed, the files come ready to go, good contrast good colour, film as film should be. At home using a Flatbed or even a Nikon 9000 you have to mess a lot in post-processing to get a good result.
Some prefer more control (flatbeds at home) others like me just use frontier scans as test prints/scans, the same way that people used to use contact prints to select and edit their work. The frontier scans are decent enough to be used instead of contact prints. (you can evaluate density/exposure, colour, composition etc)
If you want gallery (or so-called fine art) quality you have to go for an Imacon scan or Drum scan, and yes the prices are high. But this is not something that you will do to all your shots, only those that for a reason are going to be printed in a special way (to be framed, published in a book/magazine, sold and so on)
Regards
sportback
Member
Thanks for your input - and yes, I tend to agree with you. I'm happy enough with my scans for proofs (And all I do is apply an USM in PS, so not much mucking around at all) and as I can't actually print larger than A4, anything else will be treated by a lab.
As I haven't actually ever shot anything which merits printing poster sized, this has yet to be tested!
As I haven't actually ever shot anything which merits printing poster sized, this has yet to be tested!
Today I got back my drum scanned neg. I was going to post the results and 100% crops of the Nikon, Imacon and the drum so you could all see the differences but, to be honest, they are so close it is not worth me doing.
The Nikon is slightly worse in terms of sharpness to the Imacon but the Imacon looks like it had default USM applied at the scan stage. The drum scan is about as sharp as the Nikon but with better tonal gradations than the Imacon. To my surprise, the Imacon had worse corner sharpness by quite a lot compared to the drum. Because I could only control the scan from start to finish myself with the Nikon, comparing them to the others is a little meaningless anyway. To be honest, any of the options would be good enough for most. Perhaps the Imacon and drum scanners really start to shine with trannies and deep shadows, which is important to me because 90% of what I do is with E6.
If I had to choose one scanning process, price be damned, I'd choose the drum option. Then again, wouldn't we all?
PS: Just got 10 rolls of 120 Astia 100F back from the lab. I nearly cried, the colours, depth and sharpness are so good. I don't know if I could ever use a 100% digital process for my work. I just love getting the film back and seeing the images pop off the light box. Heaven!
The Nikon is slightly worse in terms of sharpness to the Imacon but the Imacon looks like it had default USM applied at the scan stage. The drum scan is about as sharp as the Nikon but with better tonal gradations than the Imacon. To my surprise, the Imacon had worse corner sharpness by quite a lot compared to the drum. Because I could only control the scan from start to finish myself with the Nikon, comparing them to the others is a little meaningless anyway. To be honest, any of the options would be good enough for most. Perhaps the Imacon and drum scanners really start to shine with trannies and deep shadows, which is important to me because 90% of what I do is with E6.
If I had to choose one scanning process, price be damned, I'd choose the drum option. Then again, wouldn't we all?
PS: Just got 10 rolls of 120 Astia 100F back from the lab. I nearly cried, the colours, depth and sharpness are so good. I don't know if I could ever use a 100% digital process for my work. I just love getting the film back and seeing the images pop off the light box. Heaven!
sportback
Member
Thanks again for your valuable input - I'm still going to have a roll developed and scanned (Imacon) when I get the time to actually take it in to the lab...
In the meantime, here's a scene recently shown in B&W, revisited in colour (FUJI Pro 160C), and I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that perhaps my scans aren't so bad after all.
In the meantime, here's a scene recently shown in B&W, revisited in colour (FUJI Pro 160C), and I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that perhaps my scans aren't so bad after all.
Attachments
Daniel Unkefer
Member
Sportback,
That image looks really great on my screen.
I need to teach myself to make scans like you are doing.
Really lovely image!
That image looks really great on my screen.
I need to teach myself to make scans like you are doing.
Really lovely image!
On my screen, at web resolution, your scans look great. Things may be different when doing large prints where really sharp grain detail can be important.
Let me be clear too that the Imacon scans were definitely a step up from the Nikon scans I do myself, just not $30000NZ better. (A nikon 9000ED costs about $6500NZ compared to $37000NZ for the Imacon X1.) They were more tonal and sharper but I had no control of the scan myself. I imagine if it were my own unit, and I scanned to RAW files like I do with the Nikon, and converted using the Hassy / Imacon software, I'd pull out a lot more information compared to the cheaper Nikon 9000 scans. But that's only me trying to justify the price difference!
Let me be clear too that the Imacon scans were definitely a step up from the Nikon scans I do myself, just not $30000NZ better. (A nikon 9000ED costs about $6500NZ compared to $37000NZ for the Imacon X1.) They were more tonal and sharper but I had no control of the scan myself. I imagine if it were my own unit, and I scanned to RAW files like I do with the Nikon, and converted using the Hassy / Imacon software, I'd pull out a lot more information compared to the cheaper Nikon 9000 scans. But that's only me trying to justify the price difference!
sportback
Member
I think it's all down to individual appreciation in the end. By that I mean that as an 'amateur' who is unlikely to produce wall sized enlargements, the system I use is perfectly adequate. Thanks to another forum member, I've revised my scanning procedure and quite frankly these show a huge difference in comparison to my original efforts.
Perhaps the major influence was reworking my exposure calculations when actually taking the photograph, and learning the limits of the different emulsions plays an important role as well.
The next hurdle is composition! But I'm working on that one...
Perhaps the major influence was reworking my exposure calculations when actually taking the photograph, and learning the limits of the different emulsions plays an important role as well.
The next hurdle is composition! But I'm working on that one...
Are you still shooting neg film? Exposing for the shadow detail? If find when I shoot Fuji Pro 400H I get better results at 320ISO, and sometimes in scenes of high contrast I overexpose by about a stop to stop the shadows looking murky / grainy. Is that what you're doing?
I think it's all down to individual appreciation in the end. By that I mean that as an 'amateur' who is unlikely to produce wall sized enlargements, the system I use is perfectly adequate. Thanks to another forum member, I've revised my scanning procedure and quite frankly these show a huge difference in comparison to my original efforts.
Perhaps the major influence was reworking my exposure calculations when actually taking the photograph, and learning the limits of the different emulsions plays an important role as well.
The next hurdle is composition! But I'm working on that one...
sportback
Member
Up until now I've used exclusively negative film stock, and I expose for the shadows. But I've just received some rolls of Fuji PROVIA 100F and when the weather gets better (!) I'll do some tests. I had heard that transparency film scans better, but without a side by side comparison, it's hard to tell from other peoples individual scans.
The shot posted earlier of the lane and tree is not far from me, so I'll shoot the same scene on the PROVIA and scan it for comparison. Once I've decided what film stock is best for me, I'll shoot some reference frames with under/over exposure to decide the 'real' sensitivity of the film (in my eyes)
The shot posted earlier of the lane and tree is not far from me, so I'll shoot the same scene on the PROVIA and scan it for comparison. Once I've decided what film stock is best for me, I'll shoot some reference frames with under/over exposure to decide the 'real' sensitivity of the film (in my eyes)
bladdered
Member
For those interested in scanning, I'd encourage you to listen to the Inside Analogue Digital Radio podcast with Kodak Photo engineer Ron Mowrey, 04/04/09.
His point of discussion is Pos-Pos versus Neg-Pos and leaves you in no doubt that the negative is the best starting position for scanning.
Simply, he explains that slides had to be provided so the Editor's could see a final image on a light box. Internegs were then used for the production process.
Without the need for the light box, there's no advantage for the slide. [Unless you need a specific look, I presume]
Well worth a listen IMO.
His point of discussion is Pos-Pos versus Neg-Pos and leaves you in no doubt that the negative is the best starting position for scanning.
Simply, he explains that slides had to be provided so the Editor's could see a final image on a light box. Internegs were then used for the production process.
Without the need for the light box, there's no advantage for the slide. [Unless you need a specific look, I presume]
Well worth a listen IMO.
I just found the link. Thanks anyway!
What he says about the motion picture industry and neg-pos printing is interesting and I can see what he means in my raw scans. Using a program like Vuescan instead of Nikon's software with the Nikon 9000 makes a huge difference. Nikon's software clips a heck of a lot of the toe and shoulder, reducing the useful latitude of neg film. I guess this is so amateurs get quick, acceptable results. With Vuescan you can a vast amount more info in the highlights and shadows but have to know how to adjust the end points in software to get the correct contrast range. So in that sense, and the way he describes the benefits of the neg-pos process, I can definitely see the advantage of shooting neg for moving footage or optical C-type stills prints.
Having said all of that, I still find from experience that (a properly exposed trannie) gives a better result when scanned. I'm not 100% sure why it is, but as Ron points out, neg film falls victim to more grain aliasing when scanned. I've always assumed it's because of the orange mask, but I've never found out. Scanned trannie, whether scanned on a Nikon, Imacon or Drum (I've only drum scanned a few 400ISO Portra NC films to compare,) is far finer looking in the grain department. As long as the exposure is correct, and if I'm scanning for digital output, I get the best results from trannie.
But...
If I were printing optically, I'd shoot negative film 100% of the time. As Ron says, it is just more tonal. But no pro lab prints optically in my country anymore and I'm not about to buy the equipment myself. All my work is scanned and outputted on an Epson 7800 24" printer these days. It's just so much more convenient.
I'd love my own Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5, but then again, for that kind of money I could almost buy a MF digi system, simplify my workflow AND save on film processing costs in the long run!
Tim
What he says about the motion picture industry and neg-pos printing is interesting and I can see what he means in my raw scans. Using a program like Vuescan instead of Nikon's software with the Nikon 9000 makes a huge difference. Nikon's software clips a heck of a lot of the toe and shoulder, reducing the useful latitude of neg film. I guess this is so amateurs get quick, acceptable results. With Vuescan you can a vast amount more info in the highlights and shadows but have to know how to adjust the end points in software to get the correct contrast range. So in that sense, and the way he describes the benefits of the neg-pos process, I can definitely see the advantage of shooting neg for moving footage or optical C-type stills prints.
Having said all of that, I still find from experience that (a properly exposed trannie) gives a better result when scanned. I'm not 100% sure why it is, but as Ron points out, neg film falls victim to more grain aliasing when scanned. I've always assumed it's because of the orange mask, but I've never found out. Scanned trannie, whether scanned on a Nikon, Imacon or Drum (I've only drum scanned a few 400ISO Portra NC films to compare,) is far finer looking in the grain department. As long as the exposure is correct, and if I'm scanning for digital output, I get the best results from trannie.
But...
If I were printing optically, I'd shoot negative film 100% of the time. As Ron says, it is just more tonal. But no pro lab prints optically in my country anymore and I'm not about to buy the equipment myself. All my work is scanned and outputted on an Epson 7800 24" printer these days. It's just so much more convenient.
I'd love my own Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5, but then again, for that kind of money I could almost buy a MF digi system, simplify my workflow AND save on film processing costs in the long run!
Tim
bladdered
Member
Glad you found it Tim, and your view is interesting. I just typed this out for others:-
Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.
Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos
Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.
Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides.
Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.
Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos
Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.
Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides.
Attachments
Haha, yes I didn't realise the spelling!
It was a really interesting listen for anyone else interested in or persevering with film during this digital age. Thanks for posting. I've never heard of these pod casts and will make a point of listening to more of them when time permits.
As for the 'ol neg vs pos thing, I reckon that unless you're a gun at getting perfect exposures (which I'm not) negative film in usually a better option. Every day when I'm out shooting with Astia or some such E6 film I panic I'm blowing my highlights or plugging up the shadows. I live in New Zealand where the light is brutal and that kind of pressure can really drag a man to drink!
I really wish I could get the finer, more natural looking grain I get from scanning E6 with neg film. That's the only think holding me back. There are just too many positives (excuse the pun) to shooting C-41 in harsh and varied conditions to make it a real cut and dry decision. For commercial jobs I only shoot neg because of the extra room for error, which says it all really.
The other side of me reckons shooting E6 has made me a significantly better photographer technically and forced me to really analyze light and exposure. I hate to think how bad I'd be in terms of knowing the basics of exposure if I was brought up on digital, what with instant feedback etc. God bless being forced to wait and stress over film at the lab!
It was a really interesting listen for anyone else interested in or persevering with film during this digital age. Thanks for posting. I've never heard of these pod casts and will make a point of listening to more of them when time permits.
As for the 'ol neg vs pos thing, I reckon that unless you're a gun at getting perfect exposures (which I'm not) negative film in usually a better option. Every day when I'm out shooting with Astia or some such E6 film I panic I'm blowing my highlights or plugging up the shadows. I live in New Zealand where the light is brutal and that kind of pressure can really drag a man to drink!
I really wish I could get the finer, more natural looking grain I get from scanning E6 with neg film. That's the only think holding me back. There are just too many positives (excuse the pun) to shooting C-41 in harsh and varied conditions to make it a real cut and dry decision. For commercial jobs I only shoot neg because of the extra room for error, which says it all really.
The other side of me reckons shooting E6 has made me a significantly better photographer technically and forced me to really analyze light and exposure. I hate to think how bad I'd be in terms of knowing the basics of exposure if I was brought up on digital, what with instant feedback etc. God bless being forced to wait and stress over film at the lab!
Glad you found it Tim, and your view is interesting. I just typed this out for others:-
Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.
Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos
Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.
Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides.
cs_foto
Member
Thanks for the link, amazing stuff!
From my point of view, in terms of scanning, slide is easier because the colours and tones are just what they are, no fiddling and guessing with white balance or tones, you can always refer to the original!
on the other hand I still cannot believe how easy it is to expose negative film, the latitude is crazy (and more so the dynamic range)... you can play with the exposure about 3 stops and you will still get something absolutely useful and that you can blow to whatever size... at the moment I'm shooting Fuji 160s and I can expose shots in the same roll at iso 100, others at 200 and others at 400 and process it normal and all shots are 100% usable! - auto ISO is not a digital invention
cheers again for the link
Film gives you different quality than digital, so no reason to make the comparison... for someone who wants and likes film the phrase would read: "for that kind of money I could buy a Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5!"
From my point of view, in terms of scanning, slide is easier because the colours and tones are just what they are, no fiddling and guessing with white balance or tones, you can always refer to the original!
on the other hand I still cannot believe how easy it is to expose negative film, the latitude is crazy (and more so the dynamic range)... you can play with the exposure about 3 stops and you will still get something absolutely useful and that you can blow to whatever size... at the moment I'm shooting Fuji 160s and I can expose shots in the same roll at iso 100, others at 200 and others at 400 and process it normal and all shots are 100% usable! - auto ISO is not a digital invention
cheers again for the link
Film gives you different quality than digital, so no reason to make the comparison... for someone who wants and likes film the phrase would read: "for that kind of money I could buy a Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5!"
Yeah, I know, but man I'm sick of stressing out about outsourcing processing, scanning and printing. I would absolutely LOVE a Flextight but then I remind myself that a Hassy H3DII-31 isn't too far off in money. It's a different look, sure, and I wouldn't want to convert half way through an important project, but I'm sure digital can sing just as well with good, consistent treatment.
It would take a heck of a lot of persuasion for me to give up my Mamiya 7ii kit having said all of that. And no way am I going back to 35mm film for personal work.
Decisions, decisions, decisions...