[Jonathan Mac]

I'd like to know how the film photographers these days digitise their shots, as I think it would be interesting to see how many people use each method. I have an Epson V500 and can't say I'm very happy with the quality, especially with 35mm film, but I see some shots on the forums that were taken on film and are very sharp and generally look great.

I hope I've thought of all the most popular options.

[arnold]

I have used a slide projector, with the camera mounted above it and behind, and photographed the projections. This slide is a typical example (taken with a Kodak Retinette in 1962)

[twitch]

I scan with a Plustek 7600 dedicated 35mm scanner.

[smigol]

For medium format 6x7 black and white, I put the negative on a light table and take a picture with a digital camera (specifically my K10D with the SMC PENTAX-DA 1:2.8 35mm Macro Limited lens. For color negatives -- of which I only have 35mm -- I use the scanning service of the developing firm. I could probably use the same technique as the black and white but the orange base is problematic. I've done it in the past with Photoshop back in the dark ages but it was always a kludge.

[Buffy]

I have an Epson V700 flatbed scanner for scanning medium format film. For 35mm film, I am lucky to have access to a Kodak HR500 Plus scanner.

[jimmm18]

Canon 9000f and scan negatives. Bring into lightroom to process and print.

[G and T]

For medium format I use an Epson V700 and for 35mm I use a dedicated film scanner, a Canon Canoscan FS4000US. The effort to connect one of these older scanners is well worth it just to get genuine 4000dpi scans, which flatbeds don't
seem to be able to do even though their quoted output is higher. I went to the extra effort of connecting via SCSI as the other connection on my scanner was a rather primitive USB1 which was too slow. The drivers for it were simple to get as
I just downloaded the last updated drivers which were for Windows Vista but they still work perfectly on Windows 7&8, it also works on Vuescan. Less than 1 hour's work to get a scanner running flawlessly that has an output that rivals scanners worth $1000s, I'm more than happy with its performance and the money I saved has funded my LBA.

Glenn

[adelorenzo]

I hate scanning film so much that I've vowed to stop doing it unless absolutely necessary.

For B&W I will now only scan the prints I make in my darkroom. For colour I'm going to get the lab to do scans from now on. If I need to make a color inkjet print I'll re-scan that frame but otherwise I'll spare myself the grief.

[aurele]

Canon 9000f and scan negatives. Bring into lightroom to process and print.

Same for me, but with Camera Raw. I love the process of doing it.

[John Poirier]

I'd like to know how the film photographers these days digitise their shots, as I think it would be interesting to see how many people use each method. I have an Epson V500 and can't say I'm very happy with the quality, especially with 35mm film, but I see some shots on the forums that were taken on film and are very sharp and generally look great.

I hope I've thought of all the most popular options.

I now use an Epson V700 for film scanning.

As you haven't been specific about the issues you have with your scans, I can't speculate on what the sources of your difficulties might be.

In general terms, successful scanning requires a certain level of understanding of both film and digital imaging technology. It also requires systematic testing and practice. There is no magic solution for quality scanning, no matter what equipment or software you use.

Speaking for myself, I'm able to produce scans with the V700 that make very sharp prints. For example, I have just made a dozen 16x24 inch prints as part of an upcoming show. Sharpness is such that film grain is rendered convincingly. I could get somewhat sharper results with other scanners, but the V700 is what I can afford in semi-retirement. (Note that the sharpness is in part the result of careful processing in Photoshop- but the basic information is there in my scans.)

I have also digitized many thousands of images using cameras, various macro setups and various light sources. This approach works well within certain limits, but for best quality I still prefer scanning.

[stevebrot]

I'm able to produce scans with the V700 that make very sharp prints.

Are these from 35mm negatives or from medium/large format?


Steve

[John Poirier]

Are these from 35mm negatives or from medium/large format?


Steve

35mm. Yes, I know a lot of people say the V700 is no good for 35mm, but that hasn't been my experience. There are some odd inconsistencies in V700 performance that make me wonder about manufacturing tolerances, but I've been able to pull of pretty good results.

I used to do a lot of work with an LS8000 with glass film holders. The same images scanned on my V700 require somewhat more sharpening at a radius of 3 pixels or smaller when working at an output resolution of 300 ppi for 16x24 images, but the final prints are very, very close.

Some of my methods are a little different from accepted "wisdom". For example, I scan at 6400 ppi. It is quite true that the V700 does not resolve 6400 or even 4000 ppi. However, I would say that my unit does a little better than the 2400 stated by a lot of people.

Scanning at 6400 avoids grain aliasing. It also seems to pick up some information that translates to a better rendering of grain than I am able to achieve at lower resolutions. Part of the process involves careful sharpening in several stages in Photoshop- not in the scanning software. I've arrived at this method after considerable testing.

I do have a fairly powerful computer and lots of storage, so working with extremely large files is not an issue.

I would not use the V700 for critical work- for example, master copies of negatives of significant historical value (I did that sort of thing for 20 years.) However, for pleasing scans of 35mm where convincing but not perfect rendering of grain is acceptable, the V700 has served me well for about 6 years.

These days I'm concentrating on scanning a large number of my medium format images, going back to the early 1980s. Once I've finished that job, probably in a year or two, I'll look at what is available for dedicated 35mm scanners. The V700 may be worn out by then...

[Jonathan Mac]

My problem with the V500 is sharpness. Scans are not sharp and do not usually give good results even at 2400. I suspect much of this is down to film flatness, as some films, especially 35mm, are very curved and no amount of flattening under books etc seems to resolve this. I might have to adjust my use of film for this - for example, I recently shot some HP5+ in an Olympus Mju which came out very sharp, but most recently I shot T-Max 400 in a P30 and the scans were abyssmal.

[ronnies]

I voted for a good quality film scanner but that only applies to 35mm negs/slides as my Nikon Coolscan IV only does 35mm. If I'm shooting 120 then I borrow a flatbed to scan them or at a push use my D200 and 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

Ronnie

[fs999]

I'am scanning with an Epson V500 and a Betterscanning variable holder at 2400. It is always sharp.