Topic: Film scanning for dummies

[chris667]

Hello

My new (old) love of photography is coming back. I am keeping my eye on eBay for inexpensive equipment to make up my new darkroom. In the meantime, I am posting films off to Filmdev. I'm really enjoying the process although I know I'm only halfway there.

It's going quite well, but with the negs coming back as a download I never envisaged how much computers would be involved. I think I need to find a way to scan the negatives when I am developing film. My eyesight is not what it was twenty years ago, and as a replacement for contact prints computer images take some beating.

I've seen a lot of reasonably inexpensive scanners available. Are they any good? Or am I better with a flatbed type scanner secondhand? There is an Epson V300 available locally for not too much.

Failing that, I have access to a DSLR. But I don't want to use it if I can avoid it, because it's my other half's and she depends on it for her product photography.

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else.

[02Pilot]

I can only speak for my own experience, but here it is.

I started with a Canon 8800F flatbed, which I still have. Pros: cheap, reasonably fast (I've heard more recent models are faster), relatively simple software (though limited; many prefer VueScan); Cons: B&W images require lots of massaging to get where I'm happy with them, 35mm color results are unacceptable to me, 120 color is marginal. If all you're shooting is B&W, not a bad choice as long as you don't mind some post-processing.

Recently I added a PrimeFilm XA (Reflecta RPS 10 M). Pros: generally much better results straight out of the scanner, especially with color (colors are often flat but easily adjusted later), automatic feed (which is great when it works, which is not always); Cons: slow, lousy software (both the in-house software and the included SilverFast, both of which were designed by sadists), 35mm only, noisy, and of apparently dubious quality (it makes strange noises and I'm always expecting it to grind to a halt or try to consume itself).

I use the Canon for B&W, since I've worked out a post-processing routine that gets me grain-sharpness, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, even with 35mm (this is for traditional grain films; I have little experience with T-grain emulsions). 120 obviously goes in the flatbed as well; color can be made acceptable, but it takes some doing. Good results from 35mm color are easy in the PrimeFilm; I could use it for B&W as well, but I know how to get good results from the Canon at this point and it's faster.

It's taken years to learn as much as I have, and there's still a lot I'm missing, I'm sure. A dedicated film scanner will, all things considered, get you far closer to a finished product than a flatbed. They cost more, of course, and they have their own drawbacks as well (especially speed).

[Bryan]

I only develop Black and White film at home so that is the only thing I scan.  I can't touch the quality of the color scans I get from the lab, they have much better equipment than I could ever afford.  I use a camera to scan my film and right now I'm in the process of changing my setup.  This link is a description of it but I am going to make modifications:

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg121179#msg121179

Before I made the contraption I used a tripod, iPad, translucent plastic and a piece of glass.  I later got the negative holders to eliminate the glass, it was causing newton rings.  The iPad has a film scanning app that turns it into a light table.  The translucent plastic makes scatters the light so you don't see the pixels thru the negative. 

This is 127 film scanned using the tripod method with a negative holder, no glass.

Horse Stables by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

This is 35mm film using a tripod, glass and no negative holder.

Half Dome by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

[Late Developer]

When I first started scanning negatives with a view to tweaking them in PP software (PS, LR, Silver Efex Pro, etc) I bought (and still have) an Epson V750 Pro.  I don't use the liquid mount scanning as, frankly, I'm too lazy and never acquired the kit - though I understand it produces good results. For 35mm it's just about acceptable for B&W but I've given up scanning colour altogether as I just cannot seem to get the colour balance "right" (at least to my eye).  No big deal as I am much more of a fan of B&W than colour.

The results I get from 120 are mostly good enough for my requirements but I must admit that I am seriously considering buying a dedicated 35mm and 120 film scanner at some point in the not too distant future.  They don't come cheap but I want to get back into colour a bit more - particularly slide film - and, as good as the V750 is, I don't think I'm able to get what I want out of it.  I will keep it, though, as I need something to scan documents and I will also be doing some 5x4 and, for that, it will probably be all I'll ever need.

I've never tried scanning using a digital camera.  I don't see why that wouldn't be a good option, assuming a good light source and a steady set up.

[Ed Wenn]

Hi Chris, I've had the same Epson Perfection 3200 for what seems like forever; certainly since 2003. It's a flatbed scanner which can do prints and transparencies and I've been very, very happy with it. Unfortunately, this also means that I know next to nothing about other scanners, because I've not needed to look for another one 

A friend has recently offered me his Epson Perfection 3950 and I'll probably be upgrading to that model and throwing away/donating the 3200. If you're interested in second hand scanners then this family of scanners - while old - are worth considering as I'm sure they'd be very cheap to buy.

[thatguychad]

I refuse to use a flatbed to scan 35mm after using a Pakon. I started with an F-135+, then picked up an F-335 when one came along for a good price ($700). Now, F-135+ scanners are fetching near that (sometimes more) and I've contemplated selling my 135, but then I think back to what it was like scanning 35mm with a flatbed and I quickly put the thought out of my head. If my 335 goes down, 35mm is over for me.

For scanning 120 and 4x5, a flatbed works very nicely. I use an Epson Perfection 4990 or a V500. The V500 is ready much quicker (I think it has an LED light source), but the scanning area isn't as large (can't do 4x5 in a single pass).

So, if you're scanning a lot of medium and large format, a flatbed is fine. If you're scanning 35mm, it's a nightmare trying to avoid Newton rings due to negatives that aren't perfectly flat and slow scan times. My Pakon can scan an entire roll of 36 frames in the time that a flatbed can scan three frames. The one down side to scanning on a Pakon is that you can't make large prints. If I need that ability, I can fall back to one of the flatbeds or, better yet, send it off for a drum scan.

[Francois]

Ive been running an Epson 4490 Photo for what seems like forever. The machine is good and the software easy to use.
For scanning 35mm, it's not too bad as it scans two strips at a time (well, frame by frame really but the holder holds two strips). The only drawback is that it gets really slow when you begin cranking the resolution. Then, there's the 120 holder... that's a whole other thing. While I appreciate the hinged design, I still wonder who's the idiot that made the opening so that it can only scan 2 frames of 6x6 at a time? Especially since the Printfile sleeves require you to cut them in strips of 3!
Lets just say scanning 120 is a drag...

Then, I have one of those cheap 35mm instant film scanners like they sell at Staples. Mine is by Innovative Technologies. It's just a little box with a fix focus lens, back illuminating panel, an LCD screen and a slot for an SD card. Paid mine 5$ at a charity shop, so you won't hear me complain here.
This thing is fast, so I can go through a roll of film almost as fast as I can shove it in. But you can't control anything other than pressing the button. But I surprisingly find myself using it most of the time even with those flaws. I use it almost exclusively to do index prints. But since it gives me fairly big images (5 megapixels) I find myself doctoring the scans it produces so I can put them on the web most of the time. The only time I will re-scan with the Epson is when either the original scan is really crappy or I'm dealing with negatives that are bigger than a regular 35mm frame (like those from the sprocket rocket).

I even made a batch script that uses imagemagick to generate my index prints.

[thatguychad]

Ive been running an Epson 4490 Photo for what seems like forever. The machine is good and the software easy to use.
For scanning 35mm, it's not too bad as it scans two strips at a time (well, frame by frame really but the holder holds two strips). The only drawback is that it gets really slow when you begin cranking the resolution. Then, there's the 120 holder... that's a whole other thing. While I appreciate the hinged design, I still wonder who's the idiot that made the opening so that it can only scan 2 frames of 6x6 at a time? Especially since the Printfile sleeves require you to cut them in strips of 3!
Lets just say scanning 120 is a drag...

This reminds me....I don't use the garbage film holders that come with the flatbeds. I use the 120 and 35mm Digitaliza from Lomography. There are other film holders of varying price, but these were a nice compromise (and one of the steps along the way to despising 35mm on a flatbed.)

[02Pilot]

I refuse to use a flatbed to scan 35mm after using a Pakon. I started with an F-135+, then picked up an F-335 when one came along for a good price ($700). Now, F-135+ scanners are fetching near that (sometimes more) and I've contemplated selling my 135, but then I think back to what it was like scanning 35mm with a flatbed and I quickly put the thought out of my head. If my 335 goes down, 35mm is over for me.

For scanning 120 and 4x5, a flatbed works very nicely. I use an Epson Perfection 4990 or a V500. The V500 is ready much quicker (I think it has an LED light source), but the scanning area isn't as large (can't do 4x5 in a single pass).

So, if you're scanning a lot of medium and large format, a flatbed is fine. If you're scanning 35mm, it's a nightmare trying to avoid Newton rings due to negatives that aren't perfectly flat and slow scan times. My Pakon can scan an entire roll of 36 frames in the time that a flatbed can scan three frames. The one down side to scanning on a Pakon is that you can't make large prints. If I need that ability, I can fall back to one of the flatbeds or, better yet, send it off for a drum scan.

What sort of resolution is the Pakon capable of? I'm normally scanning my 35mm at 2400dpi, which is enough to produce 11x17 prints, assuming the negative is good.

[thatguychad]

What sort of resolution is the Pakon capable of? I'm normally scanning my 35mm at 2400dpi, which is enough to produce 11x17 prints, assuming the negative is good.

3000x2000 pixels at 300dpi. Some people use software interpolation (I forget the name of the software) to print larger than about 8x10, but I haven't had the need to.

tkmedia has an awesome guide here.

[MacArron]

For colour negatives, the old Pakon is still the king. With up to 6 megapixels and a fantastic White Balance, the scanned photos can be used straight. It scans a film strip in less that 5 min, but the transfer to the computer is sloooow (USB 1) But who cares? You get the whole work done

Unfortunately, if it fails there's no warranty.

I also have an Epson V500 and to me it is fine for Medium Format but too weak for 135. And much better in B&W than colour or slides.

[Francois]

What sort of resolution is the Pakon capable of? I'm normally scanning my 35mm at 2400dpi, which is enough to produce 11x17 prints, assuming the negative is good.

 Some people use software interpolation (I forget the name of the software) to print larger than about 8x10, but I haven't had the need to.

You're probably talking about Alien Skin Blowup.
There's also another program which is free called A better scaling. I tried it and it's not that bad.

[Jeff Warden]

Scanning, especially color, is hard.  At least for me.  I use a Nikon Coolscan IV for 35mm and an Epson V700 for medium format.  Both are good enough for me, but I'm no pro and I print small for what it's worth.

My results with color film scanning are frustrating and are still poor to my eye, despite trying multiple techniques and different scanner software (Vue Scan, Epson, Silverfast).  When I photograph with color film I try to remember to capture the scene with my phone to have a record of the color as I remember it, because despite my efforts what comes out of the scanner is sometimes pretty lousy.

[thatguychad]

You're probably talking about Alien Skin Blowup.
There's also another program which is free called A better scaling. I tried it and it's not that bad.

That sounds right, I should look into the second option, just for fun.

[02Pilot]

You're probably talking about Alien Skin Blowup.
There's also another program which is free called A better scaling. I tried it and it's not that bad.

I just looked up the free one. It's actually called A Sharper Scaling. Its own website refers to the software as A.S.S., which suggests that A Better Scaling might have been a more well-thought-out choice.

[Francois]

Yeah, you're right. It is A Sharper Scaling.
One of the things I like about the program is that it's completely portable, so I created a portableapps launcher for it and stuck it on a USB stick.
The only drawback I find is that it tops at 400%... though in reality that isn't much of a problem since anything over that is essentially ludicrous.

[Lee Rust]

For years I had a nice multi-format Coolscan 8000 that worked very well, but one day it stopped working and since these types of devices are no longer supported or repaired by Nikon, I decided to look for another method.

I settled on the DSLR+copy stand+lightbox method and currently use a D700 (full-frame, 12mp) with a Micro Nikkor 55mm macro lens. A set of extension tubes allow for several levels of magnification. Film is held in a glassless carrier from the old scanner and thoroughly cleaned with antistatic brush and Rocket air blower. The light-box is masked off so that excess light is not reflected off the camera body back onto the film being copied. Alignment is aided by a wooden guide that allows the film carrier to slide along in a straight line from frame to frame. Typical camera setting is iso 200, 1/15 sec, f11, raw file format.

Once everything is set up, throughput can be much faster than with the scanner, but always requires full attention to the process details. Resolution is enough for my purposes but color inversion was a big headache until I found out about the ColorPerfect plug-in for PhotoShop. That eliminated color negative reversal problems, but final color balance is still fussy and subjective. So far I've only used this setup for 35mm full-frame & half-frame, but will eventually try stitching several shots together for larger format negatives.

[Francois]

When I tried a similar trick, I discovered how to do it simply with Photoshop.
Invert the image, open the levels, select the white eyedropper, select your whites. That's it.

[chris667]

I think I will stick with black and white mostly.

filmdev.co.uk sends back really good scans when I take my pictures on colour film. The temperature control on C41 developing makes it hard enough to be happy to pay someone else.

[Francois]

I know some do room temperature c41 with good results.

[chris667]

This sounds a bit lazy, but at £3 a roll with scanning, I don't think it's worth my time!

[Francois]

If I could just get prices like that here... last time it was 18$ with prints... 1 week waiting period.

[Lee Rust]

Color negative is certainly a lot more work than B&W. I used to use the Photoshop eyedropper method for white balance, but ColorPerfect and the like are much faster. Anything to minimize the number of mouse clicks it takes to process each image.

[Francois]

And if you can make an action set for it, it's even faster with the automate function

[chris667]

If I could just get prices like that here... last time it was 18$ with prints... 1 week waiting period.

Whereabouts do you live, Francois? They invoice you with Paypal, and I don't think international postage is expensive.... worth a look?

[Francois]

I'm in Canada, so everything related to the postal service is both expensive and unreliable (they managed to loose not one but two ebay orders from two different companies ordered at different times in the same month from China... I'm still waiting for last October's orders!)

[Iaeaix]

I agree that a Pakon is the easiest one in this case.
Don't go the flatbed ones if you are only doing 35mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpmdrd]

Currently, using the DSLR + light box method. Post Process in Lightroom. Images so far are acceptable to my eye. Need more tweaking to find correct color profile for photos to my liking. Getting tips from the net. Check Mastin Labs for "Film" and "BW" presets.

This save me on costs for scanning that is an additional P150 ($3) per roll. Developing costs here are around P65-P95 ($1.20 to $2).

[Late Developer]

Currently, using the DSLR + light box method. Post Process in Lightroom. Images so far are acceptable to my eye. Need more tweaking to find correct color profile for photos to my liking. Getting tips from the net. Check Mastin Labs for "Film" and "BW" presets.

This save me on costs for scanning that is an additional P150 ($3) per roll. Developing costs here are around P65-P95 ($1.20 to $2).

Assuming you process via PS or LR once you have the digital file, I suggest you photograph a grey card and then use the "eye dropper" tool to get a reading, save the settings and apply them to subsequent photos. You may need to tweak, hue, saturation, warmth, etc to taste but at least you'd always be starting from a neutral base.

[Francois]

Or just get the valued directly from a part of the negative that is not exposed. That will give you the pure base color.

[rpmdrd]

thanks guys, would keep that in mind. just scanned a few more rolls and comparing which PS or LR does better in tweaking the photos.

CS4:
- with Auto Tone / Auto Color it provides passable results
- however some photos have an purple or orange tinge

LR4:
- its easier to import files and organizing photos for extract
- its easier to crop and straighten photos
- could not achieve colors the same as PS

I have check tutorials on both programs and would tweak more to get the look that I want.

[thatguychad]

I've only used LR since version 5, but found it fit my workflow much better. If the Photography bundle wasn't $99/year (less with discounts), I wouldn't have PS at all. The spot heal brush in LR6 completely eliminates any need for photoshop for me.

[Late Developer]

I have the on-line Adobe PS and LR bundle but I seldom use PS - partly because LR does everything (I know) that I need and partly because I really don't know my way around PS at all, and usually end up having to back out changes that don't go according to plan.

I must get some tuition on PS as it would probably make a significant difference.  LR is great for presets and quicker / global changes, I find....

[rpmdrd]

Finally decided to just use LR to resize, straighten and crop scans. Use PS to compress the tone and use LR again for any other adjustments.