Shooting to Scan

[usayit]

I dunno why everyone's always so down on flatbed scanners. I think in the past they might've sucked, but i've been using my Epson 4490 for all my film scans and I haven't had any problems at all with blowouts, so they must be improving. I really, really like the scanner. I don't shoot in any special way for scanning.

I'm in the same boat with my V700. I have yet to experience problems but I am open to the idea that perhaps "I just didn't notice".

 

[Alpha]

I'm in the same boat with my V700. I have yet to experience problems but I am open to the idea that perhaps "I just didn't notice".

This is something where you have to see your flatbed up against a dedicated neg scanner to appreciate the difference. But it's there, and it's big, and once you see it you develop an insatiable desire to purchase the dedicated.

 

[usayit]

I have.... done my "quick" test against the Nikon 5000 and SprintScan. I was dead set on a dedicated scanner but wanted to give a shot with the V700. (newly released at the time.)

You apparently don't think highly of the sprintscan which I had access to at school. My results from the V700 versus Nikon 5000 were pretty darn close. I went with the V700 for the flexibility of MF scans and prints.

Didn't bother comparing against the Nikon 9000 since my usage didn't justify the cost.

 

[bhop]

This is something where you have to see your flatbed up against a dedicated neg scanner to appreciate the difference. But it's there, and it's big, and once you see it you develop an insatiable desire to purchase the dedicated.

I dunno.. when I was researching my scanner, I looked at many examples online. (mostly flickr since it's got tags thus making it easy to find exact scanner models) I didn't see much of a difference..at least not a $500-$1000 difference.

I have had my negatives scanned at photo labs. I'm assuming they're using dedicated scanners and honestly, I don't see much of a difference there either. The 4490 can scan at 12800 dpi if I want it to, but 4800 is way plenty for 8x10 size printout. I've printed a few and all the details are there. Maybe you're using the wrong settings or something on the flatbeds..

 

[bhop]

Sorry to double post, but I just wanted to show this 100% crop from 4800 dpi scan. Epson 4490. IMO it's not bad at all for a $270 scanner. (plus it scans medium format)

This is from the pic below it. I can read the text on the cab and curb relatively clearly for 800 iso (pushed 400)

I'd be interested to see any examples of how much better a dedicated scanner truly is.

 

[Helen B]

Oh, Helen dear. You always seem to have these oh-so-easy be-all-end-all solutions to such common problems. How fortunate for you. You should write a book. I'm sure you'd make a killing solving everyone's problems with simple theoretical propositions. While I admire your scientifically-geared testing, most of your results are not replicable by mere-mortals. You must have a silver halide touch.

Max,

Unless I specifically state that I am theorizing, I avoid 'simple theoretical propositions'. Maybe you are confusing naked theory with theory being used to explain experience. Rather than having a silver halide touch I think things might be down to how much time and effort I have spent on these issues. Maybe that gets lost in my brief posts. I'm not really the book-writing kind, never mind the theoretical kind - I prefer internet forums, because people can present alternative viewpoints.

As for color negative film, I'm well aware of it's general capabilities, including its tolerance for overexposure. Grossly underexposing the film will introduce a lot of grain into the shadows just as you say...not so much with slight underexposure, though the effect of underexposure on grain will multiply in the faster films. Flatbeds especially have a very hard time dealing with fine highlight detail, whatever the film type. Color neg is no exception. I've devised this method precisely because this is a routine problem, not one that rears its head on rare occasions of "extreme lighting conditions."

Anyone with a scanner can do simple tests to find their optimum film speed - exactly as they might do when shooting for traditional printing methods. (But see my final comment) Theoretical discussion is, therefore, a secondary consideration. I'm intrigued by your reference to highlight details being a problem 'whatever the film type'. For reversal film the highlight details are in portions of very low density, for negative film they are likely to have a log density between roughly 1.0 and 2.5 (maybe slightly higher for well exposed colour negative). This suggests to me that you are referring to a problem in the software or method rather than the hardware, as does your next statement. In response to my question about where you placed the white point, you replied:

The Nikon scans are uncorrected TIFF.

OK. That might be why you have lost separation of highlight detail. I always prefer highlights (ie high pixel values) to be handled in the original linear space of the raw sensor data - ie where they have the best separation. In simple terms, I prefer to adjust the white point (low D-max point) in the scanner software.

The Nikon, for all its reliable and excellent general performance, still does have its shortcomings. One need only compare it against a Flextight...

Well, I've done extensive comparisons between the Flextight 949 and both the Nikon 8000 and 9000. I pay $45 an hour for the 949, and the Nikons are mine. I've had the 8000 since it was released many moons ago. The Nikons have a slight edge in terms of true resolution for medium format, but the 949 wins on resolution when used with 35 mm. The 949 does have an advantage in terms of D-max, but this is only significant when scanning the denser reversal films like Kodachrome and Velvia. That doesn't affect reversal film highlight detail, of course, and it isn't relevant for negative film. The 949 is about ten times the price of a 9000. The differences are only important for the very highest quality work - when I would tend to prefer a real drum scan or top-end flatbed scan anyway. (Later: I forgot one other difference I meant to mention. The Nikons have ICE, the Flextights don't. ICE is very useful when scanning old film.)

As for black and white, I can't speak for Minolta as I've never used it.

The original Elite 5400 is an excellent scanner, if slow. I bought mine for $300 each. They were always excellent value, even when new.

(and let me preempt you by noting that judging from your previous posts, your idea of a modest equipment price has a seriously inflated price tag).

Yes, I am fortunate. I can thank my discovery by the fickle, shallow world of fashion back in the mid 70's for starting my preference for decent-ish gear. I do, however, get to use scanners other than my own. As I said above, everyone should find out for themselves what is right for their equipment and their requirement. I'd be a little wary of tailoring my film exposure to low end scanners, however. This was an issue I faced about eleven years ago. "Do I change my still film technique to match the limitations of the scanner I have now, or do I anticipate improvement in the future?" I decided that I would continue to expose film for optimum printing by conventional means until there was an overall gain by changing that scheme. That was just my decision, based on my personal requirements and expectations. In retrospect I'm very glad I made it.

Best,
Helen