[ShutterPro]

Hi,
I finally got into film, just trying out an old rangefinder Yashica before getting into some serious photography. And I absolutely loved it. But to get to the point...
... I bought an ISO/ASA 100 Fomapan film of 36 frames and loaded it into the camera. I got some really nice shots, and I couldn't wait for the lab to process my roll of film. Finally it was done and I looked at it, wondering how the cheapest film available managed to have such a dynamic range. When looking close, the negatives also showed incredible amounts of detail. So I scanned the roll of film on a scanner, with some extra film-scanning backlight. Settings were 16>8 bit (won't influence level of detail in my opinion) no scaling and a resolution of 3200 dpi, which is a medium resolution setting. When I opened the files on my computer, all of them were burry, very much unlike the pictures I have seen with my eyes. Where is the problem? Is the scanning resolution to high? Or do the negatives just seem sharper than they really are? What do you recommend?
Thanks for your replies,
Jan.
PS, the images are fine, with a great vintage feel to them, I'd just like to see more detail in them.

[C_Jones]

I have a scanner that I have used to scan negatives (35mm), but I have found that scanning 4 x 6 prints is very effective also.

[Bob 256]

Hi,
... I bought an ISO/ASA 100 Fomapan film of 36 frames and loaded it into the camera. I got some really nice shots, and I couldn't wait for the lab to process my roll of film. ........................ When I opened the files on my computer, all of them were burry, very much unlike the pictures I have seen with my eyes. Where is the problem? Is the scanning resolution to high? Or do the negatives just seem sharper than they really are? ..............................

It could be the "smaller looks better" syndrome - images not showing defects until you look at them in enlarged form. Your scanner is a sort of "enlarger" or "magnifier" in that it allows you to take a 35mm frame and blow it up to monitor size whereas when you looked at the negatives directly, you weren't using any magnification (or were you??). This was a common occurrence when watching VHS tapes on a small television and then years later on an HD big screen setup. They look terrible.

Not sure about your scanner (you didn't mention the model) but is the 3200 dpi resolution you mentioned a "native" resolution of your scanner or is your native lower than that and the scanner interpolates (e.g. scans at 800 dpi and then copies each scanned pixel 4 times to get 3200dpi) to 3200 dpi? If it's interpolating, all bets are off and that's where you could be losing your sharpness. I know some scanners out there scan at pretty low resolutions (native) but advertise 8000 dpi which is the output resolution and not the scanned resolution. Check your scanner specifications and if possible, scan a test negative which has a resolution chart on it (verified visually with a high power loupe or microscope). That should show you what your scanner is capable of and also check its focusing accuracy (something else which could affect scanned sharpness). Given that your scanner is up to snuff, we're back to the previous paragraph most likely.

Finally, get one of the good images printed using traditional printing methods (if you can find a print shop with an enlarger) and compare the enlarged print with a scan. That should give you some idea if the scan is at fault.

[AstroDave]

As Bob 256 asks/points out, what is the native resolution of your scanner? What scanner is it, actually?

Try scanning something else to test the scanner - some of the sharpest readily-available items which I know about are the US postage stamps for which you can feel the ridges (unfortunately most stamps nowadays are just printed with colored ink - they are flat to the touch) and US (and maybe other) paper currency - again, you can feel the ridges on nice crisp bills. (Just don't try passing those scans around!!)

[stevebrot]

Flatbed scanners often do a fairly poor job with 35mm negatives due to most units being fixed focus with limited real-world resolution and issues with negative curl. A dedicated film scanner or dSLR copy setup may provide better results.

For example, I have an Epson V700 Photo and the best real world resolution I have been able attain is about 2400 dpi. That value is close to what ScanDig managed with their test review of the V700 (ScanDig Test Report | Epson Perfection V700 Photo). Below is an example of what can be accomplished at 2400 with TMax 100 with that scanner.

Full Image at Web resolution...



Comparison of full-resolution crops between the above scan and a 2400 dpi scan using a Nikon Coolscan 5000...



The two are very comparable, but not above 2400 dpi. Note that this was my second attempt, differing from the first attempt with a different subject in that the negative was flat even without the carrier. Original post from 2010...Scanner Comparison Images - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com I'm pretty sure that results from even current high-end Epson product are not a whole lot better.


Steve

[LesDMess]

Perhaps your lab can also scan for you just as a second opinion?

Another way to verify if the detail has been captured on the film is with something like this Carson 40X loupe/microscope. Bought it many years ago and don't know if it is still available.



I had to resort to this optical verification when a client was sure his slides were sharp but my scans were not capturing it properly. Unlike a typical loupe (about 4X) or a grain focuser (10X), this will allow you see detail - if it was captured on film, about the same as a true 4000dpi scan.

Seems your across the pond from me. Otherwise I would offer to scan your first roll of film pro bono.

Good luck!

[ramseybuckeye]

I tried some film scanning with my KP and thought I got better results than the lab that had scanned some negatives previously, I've only tried it once and need to try again to get better at it, but it's just one of those things that I've had no real time or need to do. This is an example, KP and Tamron 90 macro, using a $16 tiktecklab A4 light pad and $20 negative trays. Of course your image is a negative so you have to reverse that. This sample was done with a trial version of mac negative lab 2.2. lots of grain, but the images don't look too awful.

[arnold]

The Yashica lenses are brilliant, so I suspect the scanner is out of focus on the film. Think about using a DSLR to copy film. I use a 35mm macro lens with a slide holder screwed onto the front. This avoids movement and focus problems, allowing slow speeds. I just go outside and point the lens into a sunny blue sky and fire away.

[rpjallan]

Not sure about your scanner (you didn't mention the model) but is the 3200 dpi resolution you mentioned a "native" resolution of your scanner or is your native lower than that and the scanner interpolates (e.g. scans at 800 dpi and then copies each scanned pixel 4 times to get 3200dpi) to 3200 dpi? If it's interpolating, all bets are off and that's where you could be losing your sharpness. I know some scanners out there scan at pretty low resolutions (native) but advertise 8000 dpi which is the output resolution and not the scanned resolution. Check your scanner specifications and if possible, scan a test negative which has a resolution chart on it (verified visually with a high power loupe or microscope). That should show you what your scanner is capable of and also check its focusing accuracy (something else which could affect scanned sharpness). Given that your scanner is up to snuff, we're back to the previous paragraph most likely.

I agree. It's a bit hard to offer any suggestions without knowing your scanner model, software and settings and also your workflow...

[BigMackCam]

Hi,
I finally got into film, just trying out an old rangefinder Yashica before getting into some serious photography. And I absolutely loved it. But to get to the point...
... I bought an ISO/ASA 100 Fomapan film of 36 frames and loaded it into the camera. I got some really nice shots, and I couldn't wait for the lab to process my roll of film. Finally it was done and I looked at it, wondering how the cheapest film available managed to have such a dynamic range. When looking close, the negatives also showed incredible amounts of detail. So I scanned the roll of film on a scanner, with some extra film-scanning backlight. Settings were 16>8 bit (won't influence level of detail in my opinion) no scaling and a resolution of 3200 dpi, which is a medium resolution setting. When I opened the files on my computer, all of them were burry, very much unlike the pictures I have seen with my eyes. Where is the problem? Is the scanning resolution to high? Or do the negatives just seem sharper than they really are? What do you recommend?
Thanks for your replies,
Jan.
PS, the images are fine, with a great vintage feel to them, I'd just like to see more detail in them.

Further to the post from @stevebrot above, are you using a proper film holder for the negatives, and does it have height adjustment? From everything I've read, film height from the scanner's sensor seems a likely culprit. If you're not using a film holder, you probably ought to be. If you are, try adjusting the height in increments and re-scanning each time to see which provides the best result. If there's no height adjustment, you could add shims using pieces of thin card or possibly electrical tape...

[MossyRocks]

I would think it is an issue with the scanner. I was never all that impressed using my flatbed scanner when I still did lots of film shooting so eventually I got a Pacific Imaging film scanner. That was a night and day difference between them in the results I got. The dedicated film scanner had a higher native resolution, better film holders and lots of options when doing scans. My general method of scanning was to have it do a 3 sample scan of -1, 0, +1 at the highest resolution. This results in huge files out of the scanner but there really isn't that much useable information so I would down sample to 5,000dpi and have some very nice images to start working with. Here is an old shot I took and scanned with some cheap film (some consumer Fuji ISO 200 film):

[tuco]

What scanner do you have? You will only find a true scanning resolution of 3200dpi in a few scanners these days. Many scanners report interpolated resolution or resolution of just the sensor and not of its full optical path.

[tuco]

A very rude Pentax Forum member made a demand that I post a 'pixel peeping' shot which I did. And it may be somewhat useful here now. How well your negative carrier holds the negative flat is a significant factor with a sharp scan too especially with thin film base and curly film.

RPX 25 at 2400dpi.

RPX 25

[reh321]

Back in 2003 - before I ever considered digital photography - I had a professional scan some Kodachrome-25 slides - intentionally picking several photos of railroad cars with small lettering - of mine; then I set up a slide projector in a room with my computer. Every detail I could see on a slide I could also see on the corresponding 3000x2000 slide, so I concluded that the detail I was getting corresponded to about a 6mp photo. Later I purchased a used LS-2000, a 2700 ppi slide scanner made by Nikon and scanned most of the slides I had accumulated over the years; I could actually see the grain on some photos taken with cheaper or high speed film. When I got a K-30 in 2015, I took several photos with the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens I had used to take those original slides and got results even sharper than I had ever gotten with Kodachrome-25. Based on my experiences over the years, I believe film photography was not as sharp as we thought it was ….. enjoy your results as is.

[LesDMess]

Back in 2003 - before I ever considered digital photography - I had a professional scan some Kodachrome-25 slides - intentionally picking several photos of railroad cars with small lettering - of mine; then I set up a slide projector in a room with my computer. Every detail I could see on a slide I could also see on the corresponding 3000x2000 slide, so I concluded that the detail I was getting corresponded to about a 6mp photo. Later I purchased a used LS-2000, a 2700 ppi slide scanner made by Nikon and scanned most of the slides I had accumulated over the years; I could actually see the grain on some photos taken with cheaper or high speed film. When I got a K-30 in 2015, I took several photos with the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens I had used to take those original slides and got results even sharper than I had ever gotten with Kodachrome-25. Based on my experiences over the years, I believe film photography was not as sharp as we thought it was ….. enjoy your results as is.

So your conclusion is that a 16MP K-30 exceeds professional scans or projections from Kodachrome 25 in terms of sharpness? BTW, do you know the scanner used? I recall back in early 2000 there was a very controversial post by a professional photographer who said that his 3MP Canon D30 equaled his scans of Fuji Provia 100 scanned on Imacon scanner.

I believe what you're saying as my aforementioned acquisition of the Carson microscope was because the client couldn't believe his Kodachrome slides were not critically focused as shown by the scans from my Coolscan since he and his family has been viewing them for all those years. Disappointing I'm sure but at least the content of his pictures - family shots, transcended their technical merits.

Just to be sure, there is a difference between sharpness and detail. A good example of course is that cartoon characters are very sharp but lacks detail compared to real characters.

There are of course many facets that potentially affects detail captured on film - target detail, film type, equipment performance, conditions and critical focus. Below I show a shot taken of a target with suffciently high detail, on possibly the highest resolution film, with great care and ideal conditions. To the left bottom is the 4X4 arrangement of12233 resolution chart used as a target and above it are 100% crops of scans of the center spot using the Pentax K20D 14.6MP 4672 X 3104, Coolscan 4000dpi 5700 X 3780 and Nikon D800 36MP 7360 X 4912. You can see that although the D800 applies more pixels then the 4000dpi Coolscan, the latter still achieves a tad more detail. The big 100% crop on the right is the optical magnification of the center spot and you can clearly see the detail not achieved by these methods of scanning.



I have also conducted this test using many other films and conclude that your results from film - at least in terms of detail, will of course depend on a lot factors and scanning is only one of those. There can potentially be many weak links in the chain.

Here is a comparison 100% crop of a "real world shot" not of the same subject nor taken at the same time but very similarly - a 24MP Sony A900 @ ISO400 compared to a Coolscan scan of Fuji Sensia 400. JPEG file saved at a relatively low compression so that artifacting is not a factor even at 200% magnification. I would say the result from the shot and the scan compares very favorably.