[ismaelg]

Hello,

The more I read the more confused I get. I jumped in the digital bandwagon over a decade ago. But I'm finding myself shooting film again now. However local scanning services are horrible. So I want to scan my own negatives. It seems a dedicated film scanner is preferred over a flatbed.
In my case, after 25 years of shooting film, 99.999% are 35mm color negatives. My medium format Yashica Mat 124 haven't taken a shot in over 20 years.
My intention is more archiving than printing. If I ever print it will not be very big.
I plan a budget of about $500 so a Coolscan 9000 is out of the equation for now.
While speed is good, it is not a crucial parameter.
Brand new is preferred, but used may do as long as it performs as expected.
How about Coolscan IV? Or Konica-Minolta Dimage?
What other parameters do I need to consider?
Any recommendation?
My head is spinning...

Thanks,

[stevebrot]

Hello,

The more I read the more confused I get. I jumped in the digital bandwagon over a decade ago. But I'm finding myself shooting film again now. However local scanning services are horrible. So I want to scan my own negatives. It seems a dedicated film scanner is preferred over a flatbed.
In my case, after 25 years of shooting film, 99.999% are 35mm color negatives. My medium format Yashica Mat 124 haven't taken a shot in over 20 years.
My intention is more archiving than printing. If I ever print it will not be very big.
I plan a budget of about $500 so a Coolscan 9000 is out of the equation for now.
While speed is good, it is not a crucial parameter.
Brand new is preferred, but used may do as long as it performs as expected.
How about Coolscan IV? Or Konica-Minolta Dimage?
What other parameters do I need to consider?
Any recommendation?
My head is spinning...

Thanks,

If you can find a Coolscan IV or Dimage for $500, that might be your best option in that price range. Considerations:

• Time to scan (yes, it is important)
• Automated scanning
• Negative holder design
• Digital ICE (applies only to color, but essential)
• True scanning resolution (very few deliver more than 2300 dpi)
• DMax

For fairly objective reviews see: Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice (Note that Reflecta = Pacific Imaging).


Steve

[ismaelg]

Thank you Steve!
I'll check it carefully. Question: What are Digital ICE and Dmax?

Thanks!

[stevebrot]

Thank you Steve!
I'll check it carefully. Question: What are Digital ICE and Dmax?

Thanks!

Digital ICE is a scratch/dust detection and removal feature. It works quite well with color slides and negatives, but is not compatible with B&W.

Dmax is a measurement of the dynamic range of the scanner. Higher DMax means better shadow detail while avoiding blown highlights.


Steve

[Ben_Edict]

Thank you Steve!
I'll check it carefully. Question: What are Digital ICE and Dmax?

Thanks!

Dmax = Maximum Density the scanner can still reproduce without just showing a black blob. Many scanners claim a Dmax of 4 or even somewhat more - but in effect only go up to 2.8 or 3.2.

Dmax can be increased by multiple scan passes, which specialised software can achieve with most scanners. Silverfast can do it and the much cheaper VueScan can also do the multiscanning/multismapling thing. That way Silverfast increases, for instance, the Dmax of the Epson V700 from 3.3 to 4.2, which rivals the best dedicated film scanners.

deltaD (should be the Greek letter delta, but no idea, how to type that...) = Dynamic Range, the scanner can reproduce, basically how many f-stops the scanner can actually differentiate in a neg or slide. A top-notch black and white negative can have a dynamic range of 12 f-stops - most scanners are below that or abyssmally below that and have thus a smaller deltaD

Digital ICE = Infrared-based Dust and Scratch Removal. The scanner has a IR emitter and the Digital ICE software analyses the reflected IR ad can thus recognize defects on the film, which than can be repaird. Diogital ICE is a proprietary technology and some scanner manufacturers (like Canon) have rivalling technologies. But generally Digital ICE is the best dust and scratch removal technology.

Ben

[Vertex Ninja]

@ismaelg
Consumer flatbeds don't have enough real resolution for good enlargements of 35mm. 2300SPI will give you a ~6x enlargement @ 360DPI. An 8x10 inch print is ~8x+ enlargement. If you are just wanting them for screen viewing then a flatbed would be fine. An Epson V700 would probably be enough for good 8x10s, but If all you have is 35mm, pick up a dedicated film scanner; a Nikon or Minolta. You'll be glad you did!

... A top-notch black and white negative can have a dynamic range of 12 f-stops - most scanners are below that or abyssmally below that and have thus a smaller deltaD...

Is this true? I was always under the impression that if you can scan the D-range of the negative, which is less than a slide, you can get that information. I always believed, and from experience have found, that the initial density is more important than the the output range. For example, using special developing techniques you can compress 15+ stops into a rather thin looking negative. It would be easier to scan than an overdeveloped negative with only 5 stops of scene information, for example.

[tedwhite]

Ismael, I use a German Plustek Opticfilm 7200 35mm film scanner. It is about the shape and length of a loaf of bread. Has a slot in the side for film tray insertion. Works quite well at 2300-3500 dpi, but you can forget the claimed 7200 dpi. I use Vuescan. It is far easier and more user-friendly that Silverfast.

I believe they are under $500. Mine is rather old. There are newer models available. I'm writing this on my laptop and will post a scan from the Plustek when I get back home to my desktop.

Ted

[Ben_Edict]

@ismaelg
Consumer flatbeds, don't have enough real resolution for good enlargements of 35mm. 2300SPI will give you a ~6x enlargement @ 360DPI. An 8x10 inch print is ~8x+ enlargement. If you're are just wanting them for screen viewing then a flatbed would be fine. An Epson V700 would probably be enough for good 8x10s, but If all you have is 35mm, pick up a dedicated film scanner; a Nikon or Minolta. You'll be glad you did!

That would be the way to go. A flatbed is the tool of choice for larger formats at a limited budget. But dedicated 35mm scanners would be preferable, though one must carefully select a capable modell.

Is this true? I was always under the impression that if you can scan the D-range of the negative, which is less than a slide, you can get that information. I always believed, and from experience have found, that the initial density is more important than the the output range. For example, using special developing techniques you can compress 15+ stops into a rather thin looking negative. It would be easier to scan than an overdeveloped negative with only 5 stops of scene information, for example.

Negs have a much higher dynamic range than slides. Colour negs have a much flatter Gamma and thus are easier to scan, once the scanner is setup to remove the masking. BW negs vary very much in Gamma and dynamic range as they are developped in any conceivable way and not in a standardized process like c-41. I, for once, don't think I ever crammed as much as 15 f-stops into a BW neg. My limit was around 12 f-stops. That needs already a lot of dodging and burning and split expsoure to get some contrast into the midtones - I woon't even think about the work involved to print a 15 f-stop neg!

Ben

[Vertex Ninja]

... I, for once, don't think I ever crammed as much as 15 f-stops into a BW neg. My limit was around 12 f-stops. That needs already a lot of dodging and burning and split expsoure to get some contrast into the midtones - I woon't even think about the work involved to print a 15 f-stop neg!

Ben

Yeah I doubt I have either, and I've never printed optically, so I can't comment on that. I've just read about some pyro developers capturing 14+ stops on some films. Realy, I'm just playing arm chair developer here. I've just always thought SBR was not entirely related to the actual D-range of the negative.

Oops make that 13+ stops... Link

[stevebrot]

...My limit was around 12 f-stops...

12-stops is the high limit I have always heard tossed around. Heck, it is hard enough managing 6-8 stops.


Steve

[Vertex Ninja]

I don't have a spot meter to accurately measure SBR, but I've been using two bath pyrocat and getting some really flat negatives from high contrast scenes; very nice for scanning. Search over this thread. If these guys are to be believed, and I have no reason not to, they're getting 14+.

Anyway, sorry OP for derailing.

[Ben_Edict]

I don't have a spot meter to accurately measure SBR, but I've been using two bath pyrocat and getting some really flat negatives from high contrast scenes; very nice for scanning. Search over this thread. If these guys are to be believed, and I have no reason not to, they're getting 14+.

Anyway, sorry OP for derailing.

Let's continue the derailing a bit - as this is also important for scanning. I think, that a neg with such a high contrast range will be very hard to print, unless you are going to use all these very sophisticated and demanding fine print techniques, which involves a lot of time and knowledge and a good lab at home.

In all standard print processes, you would have to decide to either omitt some of the shadow or some of the highlight details in the print, unless you go for a completely flat print, which is very undesirable, because the usually more important midtones will be a muddle.

Scanning such a neg would involve a multipass scan with different exposures. A "poor man's HDR". You will also get finally the same problems with the print's tonal range, but tone mapping on a computer is much easier to do (and several tries just cost the time of a few mouse clicks) than in the lab.

Honestly, I would not invest that much effort for 35mm film, as larger formats provide a much better tonal differentation anyway. I think, all these elaborate measures to increase the recorded contrast range, make much more sense with at least medium format, better large format films, where you would develop each sheet individually and can make the best out of it.

12 f-stops in 35mm are comparetively easy to realize, by using a simple two-step developer. My own preference is Tetenal Emofin, but Kodak Diafine should do the same.

Ben

[Vertex Ninja]

...
Scanning such a neg would involve a multipass scan with different exposures. A "poor man's HDR".

I think this is where I'm confused. A negative has a maximum density. It is finite, and in the case of color it does not exceed most scanner's D-Max. You don't have to do multipass to scan everything on Portra NC and it contains far more stops than RVP50, for example. The scanner doesn't understand stops, only values of 0-1. We can also apply the same thinking to B&W negatives. I don't know what the maximum density of any given B&W negative is, but lets say 3.0-3.5d. So we could say the negative needs a capture range of B+F to ~3.0d to get everything off it, regardless of how many stops the scene had. If your scanner has a true D-max of 3.5 and a D-range of ~3.2, then it should in theory, be able to capture everything on the negative in a single go.

In all standard print processes, you would have to decide to either omitt some of the shadow or some of the highlight details in the print, unless you go for a completely flat print, which is very undesirable, because the usually more important midtones will be a muddle

...You will also get finally the same problems with the print's tonal range, but tone mapping on a computer is much easier to do (and several tries just cost the time of a few mouse clicks) than in the lab...

You are exactly right about having a flat image once scanned in. However, since you are now digitized and assuming 14/16-bit capture, you make tone decisions in software. The "hdr" happened at developing time.

As far as developing, a 2-bath solution for roll film is pretty nice. Multiple images on a single roll make doing something like Zone or BTZS much harder... in my limited experience anyway.

[stevebrot]

Ben and Ninja...

My understanding is that there is a difference between subject range, negative range, and range of viewing medium (film, crt, lcd, etc.). Here is my understanding:

• Subject range can be huge...probably up to 20 stops
• Conventional wisdom regarding negative range is about 12 stops, though more may be possible with some films
• There is more to dynamic range than simply dMax...tonal differentiation at the extremes is the key
• Viewing medium is the biggest limitation

The last point is probably the most important. Just how many stops does even the best monitor support. How about the best silver-based paper or ink-jet/paper combination? Lithography?

The limitations of viewing medium has traditionally been a huge sticking point that requires curve modification in the darkroom (compensating, stand, or other development combined with skilled printing) or PP for digital images to bring the subject range into something workable. Even the best monitors have trouble accurately displaying a true zone IX (can't go that bright) and forget about zone I or II (no true blacks and poor response for low values). Similar issues are present for prints, both silver and ink.

Consider that Ansel Adams had strong reservations about publishing his images in book form due to the limitations of conventional lithography and took special care to work directly with the printers during production to make sure that detail was preserved by using high end multi-color presses and master pressmen. Even then, he was only moderately happy with the results.

14+ stops on the negative sounds great, but you still have to cook it down at some point. It is almost better to use darkroom development technique to bring the subject range down to a more workable 9 or 10 stops.


Steve

[Ben_Edict]

I think this is where I'm confused. A negative has a maximum density. It is finite, and in the case of color it does not exceed most scanner's D-Max. You don't have to do multipass to scan everything on Portra NC and it contains far more stops than RVP50, for example. The scanner doesn't understand stops, only values of 0-1. We can also apply the same thinking to B&W negatives. I don't know what the maximum density of any given B&W negative is, but lets say 3.0-3.5d. So we could say the negative needs a capture range of B+F to ~3.0d to get everything off it, regardless of how many stops the scene had. If your scanner has a true D-max of 3.5 and a D-range of ~3.2, then it should in theory, be able to capture everything on the negative in a single go.

None of the amateur scanners reaches the advertised specs, be it the resolution or be it things like Dmax and dynamic range. I think, this is something we unfortunately have to agree upon. Than we must realize, that the deltaD a scanner gives is includes the maximum range, he is capable of capturing by adjusting its light source brightness or gain. I am not convinced, that the usual cheap scanners actually cover the advertised range in one single scan pass.. An indicator for this might be, that Silverfast and Vuescan both include Multiscanning features and that in my experience these produce very visibly wider contrast ranges than any single scan pass.

I am not a big fan of Ken Rockwell, but he sums quite nicely the confusion about Dmax and dynamic range:
"D range is a more meaningful spec than D max, and here's why: Remember that marketing departments may choose to measure Dmax with the analog gain or the light bulb turned all the way up, in which case you can see into deeper blacks, but will lose the highlights. You have to read and ask carefully, everyone lies differently. If you see a spec of Dmax 4.2 and D range 3.9 that means that the D max of 4.2 is really a hoax. It means you really can't get to D max of 4.2 unless your highlights are dull gray at 0.3D. The only way a scanner like that gets to see 4.2D is by turning up the light bulb a stop and blowing out highlights at less than 0.3 D. With a decent transparency this hypothetical scanner really only has an effective D max of 3.95, with a D min of the good transparency probably 0.05D. " (quoted from: Scanner Technology)

The conclusion is, that a scanner needs multiple expsoures to cover the whole range and than automatically merges these exposures to an DRI image.

I see the Dmax quoted everywhere, where a discussion about scanners evolves - but it is really only half of the story. The dynamic range is much more important.

You are exactly right about having a flat image once scanned in. However, since you are now digitized and assuming 14/16-bit capture, you make tone decisions in software. The "hdr" happened at developing time.

That's true. You do the tone mapping with the final scan, as its deltaD is much higher, than any print medium would cover. But it is basicvally the same thing, you did in the wet darkroom with doging/burning and split epossure.

As far as developing, a 2-bath solution for roll film is pretty nice. Multiple images on a single roll make doing something like Zone or BTZS much harder... in my limited experience anyway.

That's true. And AA developped the zone system from out of his LF experience. Working with that on roll film is a pain - I never did. I know some people do that, by marking film parts with stickers for different developping times etc. But I really think a 35mm neg is not worth that much effort. That's probably a purely personal thing, though.

Ben