Transparency or Negs for web scanning?

Ira · 03-06-2009, 08:46 AM

Just getting back into the hobby now, but I've always been a Kodachrome nut, and I don't care about prints.

Since it's now 2009 but I still live in a 1979 film world, am I okay shooting Kodachrome for desktop scanning for best internet use, or do I have to go neg? I understand that for the stuff I need high-quality, I'll pay for a professional transparency scan. But on a day to day web basis with an inexpensive scanner (Epson Perfection V300), is one format superior to the other?

Thanks!

k100d · 03-06-2009, 09:15 AM

theoretically, positives are easier to scan and w/ chrome you don't have to deal w/ the orange mask

Ira · 03-06-2009, 09:32 AM

THANKS!

I've been out of film for so long that I didn't have a clue.

I know that on the pro level, you'd rather have a chrome, but with a $100 scanner, I thought maybe all the rules were changed, since most people shoot neg.

Wheatfield · 03-06-2009, 09:34 AM

Kodachrome can be difficult to scan because it has a very high D-Max; it's black is quite a bit blacker than most anything else out there.
You also can't use the automatic dust removal routines such as digital ice with Kodachrome.
Other than that, it's just a matter of fiddling with the scanner driver until you get a scan that you are happy with. I have an older Epson 2450 that i sometimes scan film with, and it's fine for web use, and OK for casual pictures, but not up to a standard for professional requirements.

Ira · 03-06-2009, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Kodachrome can be difficult to scan because it has a very high D-Max; it's black is quite a bit blacker than most anything else out there.
You also can't use the automatic dust removal routines such as digital ice with Kodachrome.
Other than that, it's just a matter of fiddling with the scanner driver until you get a scan that you are happy with. I have an older Epson 2450 that i sometimes scan film with, and it's fine for web use, and OK for casual pictures, but not up to a standard for professional requirements.

So are you saying that Ektachrome scans significantly better?

Ira · 03-06-2009, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Ira

So are you saying that Ektachrome scans significantly better?

Man, am I out of it these days:

I see they don't even make 35mm still Ektachrome any more! That it's Elite Chrome.

They make 16mm cine Ekt, hence my confusion.

SOldBear · 03-06-2009, 10:14 AM

Last year, I scanned about 7000 frames, negatives and slides.

The results from negatives have much more details than those from slides.

I don't have explanations for this, just my observation.

The scanner was a Nikon CoolScan V ED.

Ira · 03-06-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by SOldBear

Last year, I scanned about 7000 frames, negatives and slides.

The results from negatives have much more details than those from slides.

I don't have explanations for this, just my observation.

The scanner was a Nikon CoolScan V ED.

But that's a good scanner. I'm talking about a piece of crap.

Stevopedia · 03-06-2009, 03:35 PM

They still do make real still Ektachrome. It's just labeled as pro stuff. It's easily available online from the likes of B&H and Adorama.

Actually, I was planning on shooting some sometime...

artobest · 03-07-2009, 05:29 AM

In my experience with a Konica-Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV film scanner, negatives are much harder to scan than slides. They give a much grainier result and the colours need to be coaxed out.

Ira · 03-07-2009, 06:44 AM

What about b&w work? Is there a significance difference in shooting b&w neg and scanning, or am I just better off doing the Photoshop b&w conversion from transparency?

Although I've worked in PS for years, I doubt I have the talent to get that "great" b&w look, but who knows. Maybe I'll make that one of my goals, doing GOOD color to b&w conversions.

In another thread, I found those two freebie plug-ins for b&w that actually apply filters to your conversion. (Cybia and I can't remember the name of the other one.) I have them both installed in the office, but only Cybia will run on the Mac at home.

artobest · 03-07-2009, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Ira

What about b&w work? Is there a significance difference in shooting b&w neg and scanning, or am I just better off doing the Photoshop b&w conversion from transparency?

It depends on how much importance you attach to film grain. Different black and white emulsions have different qualities of grain that many photographers love. A simple PS conversion (using Lab color, channel mixer or some other method) won't have that quality, no matter how carefully handled. (SilverEfex does have a complex grain algorithim, but it's still fakery).

Shooting film, and developing at home using a simple tank, is both easy and highly addictive! You'll want a good scanner though to pick up that grain.

03-06-2009, 08:46 AM	#1
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Transparency or Negs for web scanning? Just getting back into the hobby now, but I've always been a Kodachrome nut, and I don't care about prints. Since it's now 2009 but I still live in a 1979 film world, am I okay shooting Kodachrome for desktop scanning for best internet use, or do I have to go neg? I understand that for the stuff I need high-quality, I'll pay for a professional transparency scan. But on a day to day web basis with an inexpensive scanner (Epson Perfection V300), is one format superior to the other? Thanks!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Epson V700 doesn't recognise 35 negs.	raymondo	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	1	09-07-2010 03:33 AM
First negs from S1a - Shutter problem, or not...?	tommessenger	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	05-21-2010 09:03 AM
Anyone doing scanning on here?	szk71	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	22	08-03-2009 06:36 PM
Digitise film negs with Reverser?	cosmicap	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	4	03-10-2009 07:21 AM
K10D transparency quality	johnny_rino	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	11-10-2008 03:38 PM

03-06-2009, 09:15 AM	#2
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	theoretically, positives are easier to scan and w/ chrome you don't have to deal w/ the orange mask

03-06-2009, 09:32 AM	#3
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216 Original Poster	THANKS! I've been out of film for so long that I didn't have a clue. I know that on the pro level, you'd rather have a chrome, but with a $100 scanner, I thought maybe all the rules were changed, since most people shoot neg.

03-06-2009, 09:34 AM	#4
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Kodachrome can be difficult to scan because it has a very high D-Max; it's black is quite a bit blacker than most anything else out there. You also can't use the automatic dust removal routines such as digital ice with Kodachrome. Other than that, it's just a matter of fiddling with the scanner driver until you get a scan that you are happy with. I have an older Epson 2450 that i sometimes scan film with, and it's fine for web use, and OK for casual pictures, but not up to a standard for professional requirements.

03-06-2009, 09:37 AM	#5
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield Kodachrome can be difficult to scan because it has a very high D-Max; it's black is quite a bit blacker than most anything else out there. You also can't use the automatic dust removal routines such as digital ice with Kodachrome. Other than that, it's just a matter of fiddling with the scanner driver until you get a scan that you are happy with. I have an older Epson 2450 that i sometimes scan film with, and it's fine for web use, and OK for casual pictures, but not up to a standard for professional requirements. So are you saying that Ektachrome scans significantly better?

03-06-2009, 09:57 AM	#6
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ira So are you saying that Ektachrome scans significantly better? Man, am I out of it these days: I see they don't even make 35mm still Ektachrome any more! That it's Elite Chrome. They make 16mm cine Ekt, hence my confusion.

03-06-2009, 10:14 AM	#7
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	Last year, I scanned about 7000 frames, negatives and slides. The results from negatives have much more details than those from slides. I don't have explanations for this, just my observation. The scanner was a Nikon CoolScan V ED.

03-06-2009, 10:34 AM	#8
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216 Original Poster	Originally posted by SOldBear Last year, I scanned about 7000 frames, negatives and slides. The results from negatives have much more details than those from slides. I don't have explanations for this, just my observation. The scanner was a Nikon CoolScan V ED. But that's a good scanner. I'm talking about a piece of crap.

03-06-2009, 03:35 PM	#9
Stevopedia Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: South Carolina, USA Posts: 273	They still do make real still Ektachrome. It's just labeled as pro stuff. It's easily available online from the likes of B&H and Adorama. Actually, I was planning on shooting some sometime...

03-07-2009, 05:29 AM	#10
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	In my experience with a Konica-Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV film scanner, negatives are much harder to scan than slides. They give a much grainier result and the colours need to be coaxed out.

03-07-2009, 06:44 AM	#11
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216 Original Poster	What about b&w work? Is there a significance difference in shooting b&w neg and scanning, or am I just better off doing the Photoshop b&w conversion from transparency? Although I've worked in PS for years, I doubt I have the talent to get that "great" b&w look, but who knows. Maybe I'll make that one of my goals, doing GOOD color to b&w conversions. In another thread, I found those two freebie plug-ins for b&w that actually apply filters to your conversion. (Cybia and I can't remember the name of the other one.) I have them both installed in the office, but only Cybia will run on the Mac at home.

03-07-2009, 07:06 AM	#12
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	Originally posted by Ira What about b&w work? Is there a significance difference in shooting b&w neg and scanning, or am I just better off doing the Photoshop b&w conversion from transparency? It depends on how much importance you attach to film grain. Different black and white emulsions have different qualities of grain that many photographers love. A simple PS conversion (using Lab color, channel mixer or some other method) won't have that quality, no matter how carefully handled. (SilverEfex does have a complex grain algorithim, but it's still fakery). Shooting film, and developing at home using a simple tank, is both easy and highly addictive! You'll want a good scanner though to pick up that grain.