Best of both worlds, or is it?

[Rick58]

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but here it goes:
I've been doing my own B&W darkroom work, on and off, since I was a young teen, but I want to play in another arena. I would like to give a go at the film to digital process. I've read many article on workflow in the graphics programs but the actual film scanning is where I'm a little confused. I've never used a negative scanner so I'm a babe in the woods. So here's the questions I'm hoping to find answers to:

1. When scanning, do you scan to a negative or positive to transfer to Photoshop?
2. How much quality is lost providing you're starting with a good scanner
3. Is it worth the extra work compared to just simply starting with a digital image from a digital camera.

My arsenal consists of:
4 Nikon F2A's bodys with MANY AI lenses,
Mamiya RB67
2 Bronica's
Calumet 4x5
3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graphic


I'm not bragging what I have in my closet, but trying to show that I'm really not ready to Ebay off my analog equipment that I spent many years saving for and collecting. My darkroom equipment has been stored since I moved into our current house. I now realize there isn't enough room to set up a full darkroom and I suppose I'm just not willing to settle for a bathroom darkroom after leaving the the dedicated space I had in the past. I figured this MAY give me the best of both worlds, or am I figuring wrong?

 

[KenC]

I scanned film for a few years before I started over with a DSLR system. I had two dedicated film scanners, one of the early Nikon models from about 1997-2003 and then a later Nikon Coolscan V from 2003 that I used until about 2008 when I began to shoot everything digital. I understand that it is difficult to find these scanners now and even if you do the software may not be available for current operating systems. So, I think people are using flat-bed scanners with capability to do film, I believe by back-lighting the film from the scanner cover. I don't know anything about these, but I would be careful about getting good quality. The dedicated film scanners, at least the later ones, were capable of scanning at 4000 dpi, which is more than enough to do with film whatever you could have done in the darkroom, i.e., really enormous prints might be problematic from a 4000 dpi scan, but would be in the darkroom as well just due to grain, etc. A scanner would have to be able to do at least 3000 dpi and have a good configuration for scanning (even lighting, etc.).

 

[Rick58]

Thanks for the info Ken, but it still leaves me confused. What is it exactly that you take from the scanner. Is it a negative or positive file? I guess this 'ol dog just can't get my head around this part. I have a bottom of the line Sony A230. Beautiful pictures, but I guess I just miss the film advance level ; )

BTW, my father bought a new scanner to scan a couple hundred negatives he never printed. He now has no use for it and offered it to me. That's what got my wheels turning. It is a back lit scanner but I have no other spec's until I pick it up.

 

[compur]

You can do it either way -- scan to neg or positive. With most scaning software you tell it that the source is either a negative or a positive. If it's a neg the scanning software will reverse it. Or you can reverse it later with photo editing software such as Photoshop.

 

[Rick58]

Thanks Compur, I'll have to give this a try

 

[Derrel]

I usually scan medium format 120 rollfilm B&W negatives as "Color Positive". I scan them at the highest bit depth my scanner allows, which is called "48-bit Color". For me, this method works the best, and it allows me to scan a wide range of B&W film types and get decent results. A lot of the medium format negatives I have are 80 to 50 years old family negs I inherited, and the lower-cost Epson 3200 Photo flatbed scanner I have, produces pretty good prints actually, up to around 17 inches on the long axis. The 3200 Photo scanner has what is called a "transparency adapter", meaning an illuminated sort of light-panel inside the lid of the scanner, which provides back-lighting for the negative or slide in its negative holder.

This flatbed is NOT the best for small negatives, like 110,126,or 35mm...for that I use a Minolta "film scanner". With 4x5 sheet film, the EPSON 3200 Photo flatbed scanner does a pretty good job! But then, that's to be expected--4x5 sheet film is BIG, and it doesn't take ultra-high-quality optics to make a decent image from a honking piece of film. "Bigger is always bigger!"

I am gonna attach just a very SMALL, heavily scaled-down 689k scan of a SEGMENT of 6x6cm 120 rollfilm. The full scan is a 13.7 megabyte file, and looks even better, but this is a good indication of what a simple 600 ppi half-frame scan looks like, right off the flatbed. This lo-rez medium format scan is from a 35 year-old Kodak B&W negative, shot with a 1958 Ricohflex Super, a $15 TLR, from a moving boat, back when I was 13 years old. This file is right out of the scanner, and was scanned as "B&W Negative" using the stock EPSON scanner software. This has NOT been even touched in Photoshop or LR. Again, this is from a 1958 Ricohflex Super, on 100 ASA Verichrome Pan film--film which was frozen, undeveloped but sealed in a film can, from 1976 until 1984, then developed in '84...and finally, scanned last month, in 2012! "Yeah, I'm on top of my boyhood film archive, uh-huh."
View attachment 14800

 

[Rick58]

Thanks for that Derrel. Curious...why scan BW as color?

EDIT: Just picked up the scanner: Epson 3170
Any comments or experience from any one? good, bad, indifferent?

 

[Derrel]

I am scanning B&W as "Color" because with the Epson Scan version 2.77A software, that setting gives me greater bit depth than the Black & White setting.

If you need to know more about scanning, HelenB here on TPF has probably forgotten more about scanning and scanners than most people will ever know!

 

[Rick58]

Thanks Derrel, maybe HelenB will pick up on this.

 

[greybeard]

I have considered this method myself as I have several B&W negs from the old days. What does shooting B&W film, developing the negatives and then scanning them have over the straight digital process?

 

[Rick58]

For me there are only three reasons to do this:

1. I don't have room for a full fledged darkroom. While I have all the equipment including 2 Omega D2's, but no room...for the moment.

2. I spent years collecting my photograhic arsenal. Much was purchased by scraping by during my younger year.

3. Film just has a character that pixels lack. That's just my sentimental opinion.

 

[Helen B]

Sorry. I've only just noticed this thread.

Scanned film can offer the best of both worlds, though one may miss the pure, connected delight of a completely chemical picture.

There's a new 120-capable scanner coming from Plustek, possibly next month. Their own reports of its performance are very promising, and I'm waiting patiently for independent test results. They are suggesting that it has a true resolution of 5000 ppi or better and a very good density range. Price is expected to be about $2000, but that has not been confirmed. It will scan 6x12, which the Nikon 8000/9000 would not do in one pass.

I scan using a variety of scanners. Most of the time I let the scanning software do the neg-pos inversion, but sometimes it works better inverting later - it's something to experiment with, I think. There is software designed for post-scan inversion: ColorPerfect, ColorNeg and ColorPos from C-F Systems. It works very well, once you have worked out how to get the correct original scan.

I scan most silver-image B&W film as monochrome, unless it has been developed in a staining developer in which case I scan in RGB then blend the channels to give the smoothest/most pleasing result. Chromogenic B&W gets scanned in RGB, because then one can use Digital ICE (hardware/software that compares the infrared scan to the three visible light scans to detect and repair dust and scratches). freshly developed film doesn't always need ICE, which is good because a few of the scanners I use don't have it.

Although one could claim that scanning above say 3600 spi doesn't gain any extra subject detail in most cases, I believe that it does give a better, truer representation of the characteristic film graininess, so I like to scan at up to 8000 spi. Kodachrome looks superb at 8000 spi when enlarged greatly, for example. One of the reasons I'm looking for more studio space is to be able to squeeze in an 8000 spi drum scanner.

Scanners like the V-700 and V-750 can scan up to a true 2200 to maybe 3000 spi if you get them focused correctly. That means that they are good for a 6x to 8x enlargement, or more, depending on your quality criterion. They are, therefore, very good for 4x5. They use different optics for 8x10, but they are still good for a 1200 spi scan of that size. I have both a V-700 and a Microtek M1. Although the M1 is variable focus (the V-700 is fixed focus) it has too many other problems and I believe that the V-700 is superior, except for 8x10, which is what I use the M1 for.

Here's a test shot for dynamic range of TMax 100, 6x6 scanned at 4000 spi by a Nikon 8000, and an enlargement of the aerials just left of centre near the top.

This is a 2000 spi scan of 4x5 Fuji Pro 160S, with an enlargement of a section.

Both sample scans were inverted by the scanning software. No sharpening was applied - these are unmanipulated and could be made to look better.

 

[amolitor]

Do you scan wet or dry, Helen?