Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2009, 08:46 AM   #1
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!

03-06-2009, 09:15 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
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
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
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
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
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
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 3,198
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
QuoteOriginally posted by SOldBear Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 276
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
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

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
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
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.
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!
day, kodachrome, transparency, web
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 AM. | 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