Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-25-2018, 04:34 PM - 1 Like   #7531
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 408
untitled-0642 by Chris Trouten

Ilford Delta 400
Canon EOS 3, 24-105L
"Scanned" with EOS 5D4, Pentax bellows, SMC Super macro Takumar 50mm


Last edited by ctrout; 08-25-2018 at 04:42 PM.
08-25-2018, 08:33 PM   #7532
Pentaxian
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 968
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Don't be fooled - negative scanners will do a substantially poorer job than a negative photographed with a good digital camera and processed well. I underlined that last part because this is not easy to do, even with some B&W negatives. Colour ones are at least an order of magnitude harder due to the orange mask. But if you can get the tones/colours right then a photographed negative will provide far sharper, more detailed images than a negative scanner.

I need to get my act together and work on doing this better but mostly what I'm missing are the skills and knowledge in post-processing the raw files using the software I have as most of what's out there is for photoshop.
I've been duping my 35mm slides and negatives for years now. And you're right -- scanners can't compete. Even top end scanners like the expensive Epsons scarcely provide more than about 2200 to 2300 ppi. My old NEX 7, which is what I use now, dupes images at over 4000 ppi. Big difference, obviously.

I've not done medium format yet, though. I should give it a try -- I have a light box I can use, and I guess I can just tape the negatives or slides down to the light box. But mostly the reason why I haven't duped medium format yet is because I haven't felt the need. I set my scanner to 2400 ppi -- to minimize file bloat -- and scan away. The images contain lots of detail and are good enough for most purposes.

Slides and B&W negs are very easy to dupe, but color negatives can often be an issue. I've found that I can usually get very close using the negative or invert command in my processing software, and then tweaking the color some. Except with Ektar. Ektar ends up with too much cyan and I haven't yet figured out how to get rid of it. Maybe taking a reading of the orange mask then subtracting it out might work, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. I know it's possible, I just haven't put the necessary commands together yet. I prefer Portra anyway, and it scans easily.
08-25-2018, 11:34 PM   #7533
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 7,081
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
I've been duping my 35mm slides and negatives for years now. And you're right -- scanners can't compete. Even top end scanners like the expensive Epsons scarcely provide more than about 2200 to 2300 ppi. My old NEX 7, which is what I use now, dupes images at over 4000 ppi. Big difference, obviously.

I've not done medium format yet, though. I should give it a try -- I have a light box I can use, and I guess I can just tape the negatives or slides down to the light box. But mostly the reason why I haven't duped medium format yet is because I haven't felt the need. I set my scanner to 2400 ppi -- to minimize file bloat -- and scan away. The images contain lots of detail and are good enough for most purposes.

Slides and B&W negs are very easy to dupe, but color negatives can often be an issue. I've found that I can usually get very close using the negative or invert command in my processing software, and then tweaking the color some. Except with Ektar. Ektar ends up with too much cyan and I haven't yet figured out how to get rid of it. Maybe taking a reading of the orange mask then subtracting it out might work, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. I know it's possible, I just haven't put the necessary commands together yet. I prefer Portra anyway, and it scans easily.
I don't think my Epson V500 even gets close to 2200 but sharpness isn't the only problem. I only get good colour from about 10% (if I'm lucky) of my colour images so getting really good results with decent sharpness and good colour is almost impossible.

I am a member of a FB group called "Digitising Film with a digital camera" and I need to find time and go through the advice and tips in there to find a process that works for me. I've had some success with B&W but none with colour due to the orange mask but I've seen superb results from people who've invested the necessary time and effort.

Some people (Colton/Swift1 comes to mind) on this forum are capable of getting amazing colour from a scanner, even a basic flatbed like mine, but I suspect if viewed large the resolution would never compete with a good DSLR scan.

For resolution beyond what a single camera shot can get it's also possible to take multiple photos and stitch them, theoretically allowing resolution to the level provided by the film with no limitation from the gear used to scan.
08-26-2018, 02:50 AM   #7534
Senior Member
Russell W. Barnes's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Near Penrith, Cumbria, England UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 240
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
'... and I guess I can just tape the negatives or slides down to the light box.'
I have a small sheet of non-reflective glass (allegedly) that you get from picture framers' shops. If the neg insists on buckling I place the glass on top, but you still have to watch out for errant reflections: OK if you lean over the camera on the end of the tripod and shield them out.

Generally, the stiff card mask I cut out holds them flat. Talking of scanners, I use my ancient Acer Scanwit 2720S driven by an equally ancient Compaq Presario running WinME to drive the SCSI interface. But I've had satisfactory slide copies with a Sony Ixus 750 plonked on top of an optical 'hold-up-to-the-light' slide viewer sitting on the light box. Perhaps a few chromatic aberrations, but only to be expected.

08-26-2018, 10:40 AM - 1 Like   #7535
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,874
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Don't be fooled - negative scanners will do a substantially poorer job than a negative photographed with a good digital camera and processed well.
That is an interesting statement and one that I won't argue over except to point out that not all negative scanners are created equal and that for both approaches, technique for capture and quality of the optical path for copy/scan are critical.


Steve

(...have seen both dog poor and fairly impressive digital copy work...)

Last edited by stevebrot; 08-26-2018 at 04:40 PM.
08-26-2018, 02:34 PM   #7536
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Driving a Mirage
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Don't be fooled - negative scanners will do a substantially poorer job than a negative photographed with a good digital camera and processed well. I underlined that last part because this is not easy to do, even with some B&W negatives. Colour ones are at least an order of magnitude harder due to the orange mask. But if you can get the tones/colours right then a photographed negative will provide far sharper, more detailed images than a negative scanner.
That's enough ifs to make my negative scanner seem like a better idea.
08-26-2018, 06:49 PM - 8 Likes   #7537
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 13
Hello, Iím new here and just wanted to post some of my recent B&W photos. Iíve posed some color ones on the other thread. These were shot with my Pentax K1000 50mm 2 lens on Kodak Tri-X 400. Enjoy!
Attached Images
             
08-26-2018, 07:44 PM   #7538
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,894
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I don't think my Epson V500 even gets close to 2200 but sharpness isn't the only problem. I only get good colour from about 10% (if I'm lucky) of my colour images so getting really good results with decent sharpness and good colour is almost impossible.

I am a member of a FB group called "Digitising Film with a digital camera" and I need to find time and go through the advice and tips in there to find a process that works for me. I've had some success with B&W but none with colour due to the orange mask but I've seen superb results from people who've invested the necessary time and effort.

Some people (Colton/Swift1 comes to mind) on this forum are capable of getting amazing colour from a scanner, even a basic flatbed like mine, but I suspect if viewed large the resolution would never compete with a good DSLR scan.

For resolution beyond what a single camera shot can get it's also possible to take multiple photos and stitch them, theoretically allowing resolution to the level provided by the film with no limitation from the gear used to scan.
I have 2 flatbed scanners and a Nikon Coolscan V. I've played around with DSLR scanning, and given the choice, I'd take my V500 over DSLR scanning any day. I think it's important to realize that resolution isn't everything, and to think of resolution based on requirements.
How many 35mm photos are you likely to print larger than 8x12?
The color photos in the photozine I just published were all scanned with my V750.

Given the choice of scanning an entire 36 frame roll with a DSLR, then inverting and color correcting in PS, I'll take the V500, then maybe scan very select frames with a DSLR . Or better yet, get a Nikon Coolscan V for select frames

My current 35mm scanning workflow is,

I scan every frame of every roll with my V750 at 2400dpi. This gives me a useable database of every frame I shoot, plus Epson Scan gives me the most control to get proper color. These scans will usually print great up to 8x12, and are a very useful reference for color if I need to scan the negative on my Coolscan, which doesn't give me complete control over colors.

For medium format, I think that (depending on your method) a V500 will give equal results to DSLR scanning. If you shoot 1:1 and stitch, you get more resolution, but that method is very tricky and problematic. If you shoot the medium format negative with a DSLR in a single shot, I think a V500 will give equal or better results.

In my experience, getting good colors is way easier with Epson Scan than with DSLR scanning. I have seen some very good DSLR scans, but more often (with color negative film) I find the colors are terrible.
I'm not really against DSLR scanning, but it seems like a lot more work.

08-26-2018, 08:43 PM   #7539
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,874
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I don't think my Epson V500 even gets close to 2200...
You would be correct. ScanDig measured the V600 (equivalent hardware) at 1560 dpi. My V700 does somewhat better at about 2300 dpi, but I don't use it for 35mm. That task falls to a Nikon 5000 ED.


Steve
08-26-2018, 10:32 PM - 8 Likes   #7540
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 746
A few test shots with my new (to me) Kodak Retina IIIC:







When I finish going over the test shots from my new Canonet QL17, I'll post them up.
08-27-2018, 01:18 AM   #7541
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 7,081
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
That is an interesting statement and one that I won't argue over except to point out that not all negative scanners are created equal and that for both approaches, technique for capture and quality of the optical path for copy/scan are critical.


Steve

(...have seen both dog poor and fairly impressive digital copy work...)
I agree entirely. Scanning is an art, whichever equipment you use to do it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Summer25 Quote
Hello, Iím new here and just wanted to post some of my recent B&W photos. Iíve posed some color ones on the other thread. These were shot with my Pentax K1000 50mm 2 lens on Kodak Tri-X 400. Enjoy!
Welcome to the forum - always great to see film shooters and especially those with good B&W pics of NY.

QuoteOriginally posted by Swift1 Quote
I have 2 flatbed scanners and a Nikon Coolscan V. I've played around with DSLR scanning, and given the choice, I'd take my V500 over DSLR scanning any day. I think it's important to realize that resolution isn't everything, and to think of resolution based on requirements.
How many 35mm photos are you likely to print larger than 8x12?
The color photos in the photozine I just published were all scanned with my V750.

Given the choice of scanning an entire 36 frame roll with a DSLR, then inverting and color correcting in PS, I'll take the V500, then maybe scan very select frames with a DSLR . Or better yet, get a Nikon Coolscan V for select frames

My current 35mm scanning workflow is,

I scan every frame of every roll with my V750 at 2400dpi. This gives me a useable database of every frame I shoot, plus Epson Scan gives me the most control to get proper color. These scans will usually print great up to 8x12, and are a very useful reference for color if I need to scan the negative on my Coolscan, which doesn't give me complete control over colors.

For medium format, I think that (depending on your method) a V500 will give equal results to DSLR scanning. If you shoot 1:1 and stitch, you get more resolution, but that method is very tricky and problematic. If you shoot the medium format negative with a DSLR in a single shot, I think a V500 will give equal or better results.

In my experience, getting good colors is way easier with Epson Scan than with DSLR scanning. I have seen some very good DSLR scans, but more often (with color negative film) I find the colors are terrible.
I'm not really against DSLR scanning, but it seems like a lot more work.
I suspect you're right about it being a lot more work, though I know some people have automated a series of actions in Photoshop to run through much of it in a flash, leaving just the manual work and at the beginning and tweaking at the end.

You're right of course that resolution should be considered with respect to the requirements of displaying the results, but as a general rule it'd be nice to be able to always get a result good enough to go beyond basic printing or web use so that you can print or display something larger at will without exposing holes in the resolution. I think my note below is also pertinent here.

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
You would be correct. ScanDig measured the V600 (equivalent hardware) at 1560 dpi. My V700 does somewhat better at about 2300 dpi, but I don't use it for 35mm. That task falls to a Nikon 5000 ED.

Steve
I should add that, like all optical assemblies, scanners are subject to sample variation. We're familiar with this in discussing the pros and cons of lenses but the same applies equally to scanners and I've seen results from the Epson Vxxx scanners that I could never get from my V500. I suspect it's a dud and if I'd known more about scanners, scanning and the whole process when I first bought it I would have packaged it up and sent it back to Amazon. Maybe I could get better results if I had a free day (ha!!) to experiment to see if shimming the negative holders helps any, but there are so many variables involved (the negative itself including the sharpness of the recorded image, the film used, the curvature of it etc) that it'd be a very time-consuming process.
08-27-2018, 01:28 AM - 4 Likes   #7542
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,098
Another version of the Bison Bar sign
GSW690III, 400TMY




Miles City, MT

Last edited by tuco; 09-01-2018 at 11:35 AM. Reason: Link
08-27-2018, 06:51 AM   #7543
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,665
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I agree entirely. Scanning is an art, whichever equipment you use to do it.



Welcome to the forum - always great to see film shooters and especially those with good B&W pics of NY.



I suspect you're right about it being a lot more work, though I know some people have automated a series of actions in Photoshop to run through much of it in a flash, leaving just the manual work and at the beginning and tweaking at the end.

You're right of course that resolution should be considered with respect to the requirements of displaying the results, but as a general rule it'd be nice to be able to always get a result good enough to go beyond basic printing or web use so that you can print or display something larger at will without exposing holes in the resolution. I think my note below is also pertinent here.



I should add that, like all optical assemblies, scanners are subject to sample variation. We're familiar with this in discussing the pros and cons of lenses but the same applies equally to scanners and I've seen results from the Epson Vxxx scanners that I could never get from my V500. I suspect it's a dud and if I'd known more about scanners, scanning and the whole process when I first bought it I would have packaged it up and sent it back to Amazon. Maybe I could get better results if I had a free day (ha!!) to experiment to see if shimming the negative holders helps any, but there are so many variables involved (the negative itself including the sharpness of the recorded image, the film used, the curvature of it etc) that it'd be a very time-consuming process.
I think the weak link of flatbed scanners is film curvature which, IME varies wildly from week to week and roll to roll (of the same film). Very curved film is very difficult to get a good scan from for obvious reasons, unless you introduce various workarounds that, well, add more work of the unpleasantly fastidious variety. (maybe some folks enjoy it). However with flat negatives, you can obtain surprisingly good results consistently, at least for web resolution with surprisingly low-end gear. I have a refurb V600 bought directly from Epson Canada for ~$160.


I would describe the bundled Epson software as reasonably adequate, provided you are willing to adjust levels frame-by-frame (unfortunately it offers little meaningful curve control that I've been able to find), though I defer to Swift1's great expertise in extracting very good images indeed -- for me it gives 'good enough' color @ 48-bit to allow for considerable fine tuning in PP (I use both Photoshop and GIMP).
08-27-2018, 08:24 AM   #7544
Pentaxian
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 968
Regarding duping negatives instead of scanning them, I use two different pieces of software for this, and they deliver very close results -- Photoshop v6 and Paint Shop Pro 2018 (although it was an earlier version of PSP that I used for the following shots). The first couple of shots were dupes -- no scans -- of a Fuji Superia 400 negative. You can see slight variations in color, but they are quite minor.

Duped then reversed and massaged in Photoshop:


Duped the reversed and massaged in Paint Shop Pro -- probably v. x6 or so:


Slightly more yellow with PS and slightly more blue with PSP -- but these differences are minor and can be adjusted so they match.

Now here are a couple of dupes of Ektar -- which gives me fits. I can't get rid of the excess cyan. I got pretty close, but still not acceptable to me. First is a scan of the negative using my Epson 4990 and Epson Scan software. Resolution was probably set to 2400 ppi, since anything higher than that, with that scanner, is just file bloat:

Nikon F2, Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 @ f/8, Ektar 100, Epson 4990 @ 2400 ppi:


Dupe, cropped then reversed and massaged in Photoshop:


Dupe, cropped then reversed and massaged in Paint Shop Pro:


Actually, to my eye, Paint Shop Pro removed more cyan than Photoshop, but it's still too much.

So, to sum things up, I find the color quality depends on the color negative emulsion you're duping. I've had good luck so far with Fuji and with regular Kodak and Kodak Portra. I have a couple of rolls left of Ektar, and once I've shot them, I'm not buying any more until I've licked this problem.

---------- Post added 08-27-18 at 10:26 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Russell W. Barnes Quote
Generally, the stiff card mask I cut out holds them flat.
Of course! Duh! That's what I should do.
08-28-2018, 09:07 PM - 4 Likes   #7545
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 143
Pentax ME, K 35mm f/3.5, Ilford FP4+
Attached Images
 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
autofocus, camera, d-76, dog, doubt, exposure, film, flickr, fp4, kiev, leak, lens, love, mine, minutes, nikkormat, pentax, phil, photography, pm, post, quality, roll, shot, shots, smc, sp500, station, steve, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Travel Some B&W film shots from the Gulf of Gaeta, Italy Rense Post Your Photos! 3 04-23-2011 12:22 AM
First post - few b&w shots sealisthenewbeaver Photo Critique 2 09-22-2008 06:40 PM
My Pentax shots in print & film. blwnhr Photographic Technique 5 03-18-2008 05:13 PM
First shots with a zx-5 film camera (c&c welcome) jbrowning Post Your Photos! 2 12-23-2007 08:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top