Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality

  
 
mikelax
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


Hi all, Well after almost 15 years (since high school) I have shot, developed and scanned my first roll of Film. After reviewing the scans in lightroom I am questioning the quality of the pictures, I am trying to figure out if there is a problem (at all). As this is my first roll of film in a long time after shooting Canon 5D M2 and now Fuji XT1, obviously the look is different. I am totally new to scanning negatives so forgive me if this is obvious.

The details are as follows:

  1. Leica M6
  2. Leica Summicron 50mm f2 / Dual Range
  3. Kodak 400TX
  4. Developed at Local NYC Store in SoHo (dip dunk processing)
  5. Scans were the "medium" quality, 3088x2048, not sure on DPI. ~3MB per file


Most of the shots were done around NYC, after weeding through the OOF and poor exposure ones, I have a few that I dropped in a Google Drive Folder For Review. These are the scans with no PP work.

I think there is great contrast and tone in these images. My issue is that they don't seem that sharp. Is this just a function of the scan actually not that great. If I was to do a higher quality scan would that that give me the sharpness / extra resolution I would normally be expecting? Should I be expecting to have to sharpen the photos in LR after scanning?

I appreciate any advice or help. As I am starting to shot more film I want to make sure that I know what to expect from the scanning process, and what would be needed to post photos to 500px portfolio, making prints, etc.



Jun 24, 2015 at 05:46 PM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


I'm no expert at scanning as mine are done by my lab. I would think that 3mb files is quite low in size and so your ultimate resolution is low. I would definitely expect better sharpness with a high resolution scan and yes, you will need to sharpen a bit with any scan.




Jun 24, 2015 at 06:01 PM
Desmolicious
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


My regular scans are 3088 by 2048, just like yours. And they look very similar to yours unless I am in bright sunshine, stopped down, with a fast shutter speed. Technique ( I am guilty of this too) really matters. Any amount of camera shake will show at the 100% level, and it is possible that it just shows enough to prevent the picture from being super crisp.
If your rangefinder calibration is slightly off, that too will prevent max sharpness.
I would shoot a couple with the camera on a tripod (no need to shoot a whole roll) just to see the potential at that resolution.
You are also dealing with Tri-X, which is a grainy film. Try a roll of slower, finer grain film.



Jun 24, 2015 at 07:08 PM
mikelax
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


Thanks, that is good to know. The tripod test shots is a good idea, I'l try a few frames with that set up. For the first roll I was mainly around f8 (sometimes 5.6) and at least 1/60, most were probably 1/1/25 or 1/250. Sounds like I just need a bit more light.

For the actual scans, do people start with these "medium" quality scans and kind of treat them as a contact sheet. Then get hi-res scans of any keepers? I tried doing some research for film processing, but if there is a place in the city that can process and do hi-res scans for a reasonable price, ~ $20?



Jun 24, 2015 at 07:30 PM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


Desmolicious wrote:
My regular scans are 3088 by 2048, just like yours. And they look very similar to yours unless I am in bright sunshine, stopped down, with a fast shutter speed. Technique ( I am guilty of this too) really matters. Any amount of camera shake will show at the 100% level, and it is possible that it just shows enough to prevent the picture from being super crisp.
If your rangefinder calibration is slightly off, that too will prevent max sharpness.
I would shoot a couple with the camera on a tripod (no need to shoot a whole roll) just to see
...Show more

Very good point. ISO400 speed film is always much less sharper than 100.

Shoot a roll of Fuji Neopan Acros for the ultimate in sharpness. That's my go to film, used in 80% or more of my shooting.



Jun 24, 2015 at 07:44 PM
DougVaughn
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


I recently started playing with film also and having the lab do large scans (Noritsu scanner). I've tried two labs, and in both cases the scans don't begin to compare to what comes out of a digital camera. Both labs take about two weeks, which feels like forever. This is with 120 film, so I was expecting a little more. However, it's still worth it for the fun factor, and I'm sure the scans would produce very nice 8x8 or 10x10 prints. Maybe even 12x12.

I really didn't (and still don't) know how an absolutely great scan should look. I did a small amount of post processing on my favorites and made them quite presentable. My next question is whether I would get equal, better, or worse quality scanning them myself on an Epson V800 (assuming I dropped the cash to purchase one). I'd like to learn how to develop my own film, but it would defeat the purpose if I still had to send it out for scanning.



Jun 24, 2015 at 07:57 PM
mikelax
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


rattymouse wrote:
Very good point. ISO400 speed film is always much less sharper than 100.

Shoot a roll of Fuji Neopan Acros for the ultimate in sharpness. That's my go to film, used in 80% or more of my shooting.


Thanks for the recommendation. I mean to try different rolls of film, that Fuji is on my list. I expect 400 to have more grain than 100, but I didn't realize sharpness could be that different as well.




Jun 24, 2015 at 08:16 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


I'd say that these scans rate as sort of mediocre. They're not bad but they're not great either. The two big things they have against them are that they are losing detail at both ends of the tonal range - detail that is certainly there in your negs, and they they just aren't very sharp. The grain and the image looks mushy. There's nothing wrong with having lower quality scans done to help in your selection process, but these might have you overlooking good frames because you can't tell from these whether it's worth it to go to a higher quality scan for a premier image.

For the record, if you shoot a fine grained film and have it drum scanned on a good drum scanner, the results can be stunning, even at large print sizes. There's more information on a piece of T-Max 100 than most scanners can capture. Hell, even on a Velvia 50 slide that I once scanned at 8000 dpi on my drum scanner, I could still see more detail with my own eyes by putting in an enlarger, racking it all the way up and viewing the image through an Omega grain focuser. The sharpest print would still be from the drum scan as there's more loss in the optical enlargement than in the scan.



Jun 24, 2015 at 08:22 PM
mikelax
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


DougVaughn wrote:
I recently started playing with film also and having the lab do large scans (Noritsu scanner). I've tried two labs, and in both cases the scans don't begin to compare to what comes out of a digital camera. Both labs take about two weeks, which feels like forever. This is with 120 film, so I was expecting a little more. However, it's still worth it for the fun factor, and I'm sure the scans would produce very nice 8x8 or 10x10 prints. Maybe even 12x12.

I really didn't (and still don't) know how an absolutely great scan should look. I did
...Show more

I have gone through pretty much the same exact thought process. I was even looking at that same scanner line. As I am just getting back into Film I am trying not to jump in "head first" with at-home developing, buying scanners, etc. I may get there eventually but to start I want to use labs to do the processing and scans.



Jun 24, 2015 at 08:44 PM
mikelax
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


Peter Figen wrote:
I'd say that these scans rate as sort of mediocre. They're not bad but they're not great either. The two big things they have against them are that they are losing detail at both ends of the tonal range - detail that is certainly there in your negs, and they they just aren't very sharp. The grain and the image looks mushy. There's nothing wrong with having lower quality scans done to help in your selection process, but these might have you overlooking good frames because you can't tell from these whether it's worth it to go to a
...Show more

Thanks Peter, this advice is very helpful. This is what I was trying to figure out, is the issue my equipment, my technique (first time using a rangefinder), or the scans. In my head I was hoping for a workflow where I get the film processed and negatives scanned. The scans are high enough quality to do a critical review of them, and to do light processing and post to online sites like 500px, portfolio, etc, and make up to 8" or 10" prints. If I want to print larger than I would have a higher quality scan made.

Does this workflow sound reasonable with film? What type of scan sizes should I be looking for in that "first pass"? Anyone have a recommendations for labs in NYC? I am open to mailing out film but with a low volume of rolls I will be shooting I am not sure the extra shipping costs makes sense.



Jun 24, 2015 at 08:56 PM
JonPB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


My first recommendation is to compare the scans against your intended purposes rather than against digital images. Digital shots have an inherently high per-pixel sharpness that film scans lack; on the other hand, film scans lack the harshness and artifacts that are inherent in digital capture. At the pixel level, they will look very different, if only because getting the same image resolution from a film (or, at least, small format film) image requires a greater number of pixels to capture. Comparing film scans to digital captures at 1:1 magnification will strongly favor the digital images, even if the film scans actually make for a more pleasing image.

My second recommendation is to talk to the folks at the shop about the scans and what options are available. To my eye, those images are significantly over-sharpened; the primary problem is that this gives the grain a bubbly look that I don't like, and secondarily it causes halos and artifacts. They also have visible compression artifacts. Together, this means that they won't withstand significant post processing. I suspect, though, that these are based on automatic settings, and adjusting those default settings for your own purposes will always cost more money. Doesn't hurt to ask, though. They might be happy to run standard scans, standard resolution but unprocessed scans, high quality scans with standard settings, and high quality and unprocessed scans for you to review in the store and decide which price point makes the most sense for you. Best case scenario, they could give you the unprocessed (and rather dull, without processing) 16-bit TIF files at no extra cost.

Personally, I found the cost of having other people scan my negs to be prohibitive, so I mess about with my own scanner. Scanning yourself doesn't take much money--relative to scanning a roll per week--but it does take a lot of time, and the software isn't nearly as capable as it would be if film were as popular as digital. (I'd love to see what Adobe or Phase One would come up with if they put the same resources as they put into Camera Raw and Capture One into a film scanning program.) My current favorite is VueScan, although I still haven't found a good way to tap into the extended dynamic range that the negatives theoretically offer.

That said, those images look great at web resolution and would probably make fine 8x12 prints, perhaps smaller if you find yourself tweaking them quite a bit. I suspect that to get significantly better scans will require a technician who is willing to dedicate time and effort into the process, which will not be cheap unless you do it yourself. And it is always possible that, even though the per-pixel appearance of these images is poorer than what you'd get out of your Canon or Fuji, this level of scan would still be capable of revealing the characteristics of film that produce a superior print on the wall. Which, at least for me, is what this is all about.

Cheers,
Jon



Jun 24, 2015 at 09:15 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


I disagree about these looking good at even web resolution. They look to me like they're out of focus and that's what's making the grain look so soft and big, but more importantly, the tonal range isn't great, and that can only be improved slightly in these. You can't add detail where it's already been crushed.

If you want your images to look their best, even at web rez, then you need to make the best quality scans from the original negs, process them and then prep them for whatever the intended output might be.

I always start with the highest quality highest resolution scan that the film supports and then make copies as needed at the rez that's needed. There's no need in scanning color neg or Tri-X at 8000 ppi, but 4000 usually makes sense.



Jun 24, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · First Roll of Film Scans - Question on Scan Quality


Desmolicious wrote:
My regular scans are 3088 by 2048, just like yours. And they look very similar to yours unless I am in bright sunshine, stopped down, with a fast shutter speed. Technique ( I am guilty of this too) really matters..


Good post.

Generational quality loss can also be a factor. I would try a different place at higher res. - if I didn't own my own scanner. You have to get the film dead flat - it is crucial - but 35mm can be tricky. Beyond that everything needs to be as clean as possible. Try and find a craftsman who understands what you want.

Scanning and enlarging show up technique and OOF shots like crazy.



Jun 25, 2015 at 04:01 AM





FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.