[jt_cph_dk]

Hi, you've got some sharp shots here!

Keeping in mind sample variation - i.e. my scanner can be not the best of the bunch or yours can be an exception - have you used the technique discussed here with this same frame or observed the film with a powerful loupe, like 22x? I was kinda content with the results of my Epson, until I started to look at how much more detail there was actually on film.

To answer the second question: my scans took a lot longer, because I noticed that - at least with my own scanner - I was able to extract more details from the film scanning at 6400, sharpening a bit the results, than resizing to 3200.

And, regarding the quality, it depends on how much close you go to your film, aka the reproduction ratio. I normally use 1:2 for the bulk of the shots, and 2:1 or 3:1 for the very best.

Here there are another example, to view what I mean. It has been shot on Hasselblad with the normal 80mm Planar, camera on tripod, soft shutter release 1m long etc. on Ektar 100 iso (the new kind). Don't take the tonality into consideration because I'm still struggling to find the perfect curve (being a color negative).

First the whole image



Then the 100% crops:

- I could make a 6400ppi scan and downsample to see the difference (I´m not sure what you mean with the ‘technique discussed here‘?). I haven´t ckecked in a loupe.
- I can see why you aren´t happy with your scanner. It´s really not sharp. The B&W scan crop posted by you here first, at the top looks better. But the Ektar has really, really fine grain in this version

[fotoreporter1975]

You really awake my interest here. Could you post this?

Sorry, but they live, for now, as raw "scans". To become fit to be seen they'll need a bit of Photoshop spa session

But I did a fast & rough processing on this one just to show you what I'm talking about. Keep in mind that to see the most obvious differences, though, you'd need to actually look at the print. The monitors are the primary limiting factor in those tonalities.

[jt_cph_dk]

But what about BW film that captured more DR than a digital camera can? I mean, do you lose that in this conversion?

That´s a good question?

[fotoreporter1975]

- I could make a 6400ppi scan and downsample to see the difference (I´m not sure what you mean with the ‘technique discussed here‘?). I haven´t ckecked in a loupe.
- I can see why you aren´t happy with your scanner. It´s really not sharp. The B&W scan crop posted by you here first, at the top looks better. But the Ektar has really, really fine grain in this version

- With the "technique discussed here" I intended the use of a digital camera + multishot.

- Not "my" scanner anymore, after I saw the results of using the Canon I dumped it in the *bay

You're referring to the b/w example. Now maybe I'm crazy, or maybe it depended in same strange way by the kind of contrast those negative had, but the Epson actually performed this good only with Adox 25 negatives (b/w) shot with an Hasselblad + 80mm Planar. The same negatives, developed in the same tank at the same time, but shot on a Pentax 67 weren't scanned as good, even though they were equally sharper - I checked with a 22x loupe. And you just saw what junk my 700v made of the Ektar shot with the same Hassy and the same lens

[fotoreporter1975]

That´s a good question?

Actually b/w negatives capture a lot of dynamic range FROM the scene, when taking a shot. But then they are intrinsically of low contrast, having to be printed on papers that doesn't have a lot of exposure latitude. So they are pretty easy to scan. Actually I have often to stretch the levels left and right to fill the histogram and so exploit the full latitude the camera is capable of.

[jt_cph_dk]

Sorry, but they live, for now, as raw "scans". To become fit to be seen they'll need a bit of Photoshop spa session

But I did a fast & rough processing on this one just to show you what I'm talking about. Keep in mind that to see the most obvious differences, though, you'd need to actually look at the print. The monitors are the primary limiting factor in those tonalities.

I´m impressed by the Canons ability to capture the reds in many tones. With my K7 I would have to make some pretty advanced settings for sure, just to get anything more than just a red monotoned jam. That´s one of the test yet to be done. Probably much better with FF sensors?

[fotoreporter1975]

I´m impressed by the Canons ability to capture the reds in many tones. With my K7 I would have to make some pretty advanced settings for sure, just to get anything more than just a red monotoned jam. That´s one of the test yet to be done. Probably much better with FF sensors?

I don't know if it depends from the sensor size or from the technology used. Sure when I used a Nikon D70 those reds I could only dream about… I remember trying to shoot an ultra-red fire and coming back with a bunch of mild-orange/magenta pictures.

You've got me thinking; when I'll have a bit of time I'll try and scan the same pictures with a Sony Nex 3 - and post the results -, just to see if the full format is responsible for this good behavior or not.

[jt_cph_dk]

Actually b/w negatives capture a lot of dynamic range FROM the scene, when taking a shot. But then they are intrinsically of low contrast, having to be printed on papers that doesn't have a lot of exposure latitude. So they are pretty easy to scan. Actually I have often to stretch the levels left and right to fill the histogram and so exploit the full latitude the camera is capable of.

The Epson has an Optical Density of 4.0 (4.0 Dmax -0.00 Dmin =DR 4.0) and should cover even slides..

That´s the nominal values..however I still see noise..

Here is an in-depth article on the subject: http://www.scantips.com/basic14b.html

[fotoreporter1975]

The Epson has an Optical Density of 4.0 (4.0 Dmax -0.00 Dmin =DR 4.0) and should cover even slides..

That´s the nominal values..however I still see noise..

Here is an in-depth article on the subject: Dynamic range, 24 bit vs 36 bit

Unfortunately the Dmax specs for scanner are just a claim, not an actual fact; more or less like the sported max resolution. And yes, the noise is the most annoying thing. Especially if you ever make adjustment to the curves to bring back some of the detail in the shadows present on film, but lost in the scanning, you will rewarded with a fair amount of psychedelic electronic snow, even if it's not Christmas yet

[jt_cph_dk]

Hi again, here is a link to a review on the Canon 5D II, it includes a precise description of the cameras dynamic range..
Canon EOS 5D Mark II In-depth Review: Digital Photography Review

[fotoreporter1975]

Hi again, here is a link to a review on the Canon 5D II, it includes a precise description of the cameras dynamic range..
Canon EOS 5D Mark II In-depth Review: Digital Photography Review

Thanks!

[fotoreporter1975]

BTW, I just posted a comprehensive guide to scan films with a digital camera:

How to scan films using a digital camera | | Addicted2light Addicted2light

It's a summing up of what has been discussed here, with some extra tips.

[artobest]

Hi, you've got some sharp shots here!

Keeping in mind sample variation - i.e. my scanner can be not the best of the bunch or yours can be an exception - have you used the technique discussed here with this same frame or observed the film with a powerful loupe, like 22x? I was kinda content with the results of my Epson, until I started to look at how much more detail there was actually on film.

To answer the second question: my scans took a lot longer, because I noticed that - at least with my own scanner - I was able to extract more details from the film scanning at 6400, sharpening a bit the results, than resizing to 3200.

And, regarding the quality, it depends on how much close you go to your film, aka the reproduction ratio. I normally use 1:2 for the bulk of the shots, and 2:1 or 3:1 for the very best.

Here there are another example, to view what I mean. It has been shot on Hasselblad with the normal 80mm Planar, camera on tripod, soft shutter release 1m long etc. on Ektar 100 iso (the new kind). Don't take the tonality into consideration because I'm still struggling to find the perfect curve (being a color negative).

First the whole image



Then the 100% crops:

@Fotoreporter, looking at your Epson scans, it seems to me your film holder may not be set to the correct height. Have you adjusted the feet on the bottom and tried rescanning? If that doesn't work, I can recommend the betterscanning.com holders. Those scans of yours are simply poor - the Epson may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than that.

[fotoreporter1975]

@Fotoreporter, looking at your Epson scans, it seems to me your film holder may not be set to the correct height. Have you adjusted the feet on the bottom and tried rescanning? If that doesn't work, I can recommend the betterscanning.com holders. Those scans of yours are simply poor - the Epson may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than that.

Thanks for the advice artobest, but the film holder was calibrated. And I used an anti newton glass on top of the film, cut to the size of the Epson holder, to ensure film flatness.

However the results are not really poor per se, I was pretty content with the v700. They are fairly small crops of big files that looks just fine in normal use, but horrible in comparison with the results of a better scanning technique.

[timmijo]

I find this discussion fascinating. My question is probably only remotely related: I have heard that photographing a (film) photo print is better than scanning it. Naturally, that makes sense=less glass to get in the way.

I have then heard that the technique would be to mount the DSLR on a tripod head that can swivel to face down. Place the photo prints on the floor (an immaculate floor) and shoot pics of the photos in adequate light at close range, same plane. I have not tried this since I do not have the swivel capability. Can anyone give me a link to a technique or some sort of advice? I am sitting on mountains of film prints and would start this way before attempting to scan negatives or anything intricate like that. Thanks.