Scanning film....or not?

*Rense* · 05-23-2009, 08:06 AM

Well, I would like to know what you do: scan your B&W negs or do you print them and scan the prints afterwards?

I like the prints, but it's so much cheaper to have them developed only, and print the best ones afterwards... But I still didn't decide what's the best way around, so please, I would like your opinions (although it might have been asked a thousand times before...).

ryan s · 05-23-2009, 10:56 AM

The negatives are better to scan since they have all the "information" intact. Prints are kind of compromised in their range of tones and highlights/shadows.

Are you having your negs done by a lab? Do they offer an affordable scan to CD option? If I shoot color, this is what I do. Scanning color is really hard...at least for me...

Edit: Just had some thinking time on this. If your ultimate goal is to make prints, then by all means, go straight for the print. If you want to digitize pictures to put on the computer, then it would be best to scan the negatives and make prints from the file you create and edit on the computer

*SOldBear* · 05-23-2009, 11:21 AM

Find a lab that has a good scanner, then have it develop the films and scan them for you. Note that many labs scan negs to only about 2 mega pixels, OK for web but you can't print big from the scanned images.

Or if you can afford a good negative scanner, have the lab develop the films and scan them yourself.

Scanning prints is the last resort.

*photolady* · 05-23-2009, 12:07 PM

I've always scanned my negs. Color and B/W. As has been said, scanning the negs you get all the info on there, as opposed to print scanning which only has about 200ppi. But a dedicated film/slide scanner is better than a flatbed with scanning capabilities.

Be aware, most labs that scan your prints for you, do so at low quality scans, and usually save them as jpgs.

*Rense* · 05-23-2009, 12:11 PM

Thank you all! I have a film scanner myself, but it's an old one, a probably 10 yrs old Canoscan. And it iiiisssssssssss sssssssslllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww. Scanning prints is faster, unmeasurable faster, I guess. But I will scan my negs....

Originally Posted by photolady

I've always scanned my negs. Color and B/W. As has been said, scanning the negs you get all the info on there, as opposed to print scanning which only has about 200ppi. But a dedicated film/slide scanner is better than a flatbed with scanning capabilities.

Be aware, most labs that scan your prints for you, do so at low quality scans, and usually save them as jpgs.

The last sentence implies you wouldn't. But what would be your choice? Tiff? or something else even?

troyz · 05-23-2009, 12:59 PM

Since it's B&W, I would just ask my lab for a contact sheet -- it's cheap, convenient, and requires less time and film handling than scanning.

*photolady* · 05-23-2009, 01:09 PM

What's the significance of a contact sheet.That still doesn't give the user any detailed scans.

I use tiff and I've heard of others using png. PNG (portable Networks Graphics) is lossless. But if you don't compres tiff iimages they are lossless too.

Most labs won't scan as tiff or png.

Btw, I'm also looking into buying dedicated film scanner. I can't afford the one I want, a Nikon Coolscan, but I hear plustek and pacific image make decent ones. And some are cheaper then the Nikon.

Nesster · 05-23-2009, 02:53 PM

I would scan from a print under these conditions: I, or someone expert, has spent time with the printing process to produce a top quality interpretation of the negative. Or, if it is medium format, a good contact print will work in the scanner as well.

Otherwise, for me these days scanning film and doing the print/interpretation in photoshop gives me more control, ability, and saves a lot of time + chemicals.

*photolady* · 05-23-2009, 02:59 PM

Scanning prints still won't give a great quality image like scanning film does. I've been scanning film since 1991. And I'll continue scanning film rather scan low quality prints.

Clarkey · 05-23-2009, 07:35 PM

I get my lab to develop the films and that's all.

I scan negatives or (preferably) positive slides most of the time (and for colour). I use a Minolta Dimage Elite II scanner which can give some good results. Some of the epson flatbeds can give good results, but be careful of film which does not lie flat in the holder. The epson units are also prone to out of focus results - a unit which can adjust focus is a big step forward.

I was always told that the range of tonality on prints is only 100, whereas the range of negative is around 1000 (as per the Ansel Adams Zone system), so have always scanned negatives.

If you are able, either purchase a good dedicated scanner (I'd recommend the Minolta, the Nikon coolscan or the Microtek i900 with the dual tray (especially if you are thinking about MF scanning as well). The epson units are good within the limits mentioned.

Scan in as high a bitrate as you can and scan in TIFF. That way you have an "archive" to go back to when working on images - you can always down convert, but the other way is hard.

Finally, if you need noise free images (maybe not since you have indicated that you are scanning BW) consider some 3rd party noise plugin. I have used Neat image with good success.

*Wombat* · 05-24-2009, 06:01 AM

I've never had satisfactory scans from labs, even when I've asked for high res tiffs, so these days I develop my own B&W negs and scan them. The results are OK, not brilliant, as I only have a flatbed scanner, but at least I have full control of the process. I have to say, though, that the more I use my digital SLR the more disenchanted I'm becoming with messing about with film. If it's going to wind up on my computer anyway, and if the end result is only going to be mediocre, I can't really see the point anymore.
But don't let me put you off, mate.
Les

*Rense* · 05-25-2009, 01:20 AM

Thanks for all your thoughts and recommendations! So that will be scanning of film (negs BW and color, and positives too), and saving them in TIFF format. I guess I will spend some time with the computer, because of my prehistorical (but film dedicated and good!) scanner.

Venturi · 05-25-2009, 11:41 AM

+1 for scanning yourself.

The lab here that will do true high-res scans charges $3 per frame. I did the math and if I buy a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED, at their rate it would pay for itself in about 10 rolls of 36.

*k100d* · 05-25-2009, 12:14 PM

labs here charge about $5 a roll to scan. i do that and not get prints and then i will rescan on a Nikon scanner the ones i really like and want to show off

frith · 05-27-2009, 12:09 AM

So, would it be offtopic to ask what type of scanner is best? I have a boatload of colour and B&W film and negs that I would like to drag into the 21st century....