S-Jones
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.1 #1 · Scanner for 35mm B&W… | |
I became involved in photography about three years ago, dealing only with digital. I still plan to use a dslr (awaiting the 5D's successor), but a burgeoning interest in rangefinders has forced me to consider film. Currently, I use manual focus-only primes on a Canon 350D, which I only use in manual mode just for the love of the experience. I convert all shots to monochrome.
I cannot afford the Leica M8, and even the Epson RD-1s, which is still available here in Tokyo, is a bit pricey. More than this, however, I primarily do street and urban photography, and I would like to produce some of the graininess (T-Max pushed a few stops, I think) that digital just cannot replicate.
I do not have the time or space to set up a darkroom, so I planned on having the film developed professionally, and then sending the negatives through a scanner, using my Epson 2400 to print them out after some post processing (dodging/burning effects, etc). I realize and appreciate that all of this is heresy for silver halide lovers, but it is just one of those insurmountable logistical constraints that I must face alone.
When I checked scanners around or under US$1,000, I first looked at the Nikon Coolscan V ED, but some folks said that in the case of silver B&W negatives, the scanner's light was allegedly too harsh---not diffuse enough---to effectively capture shadow detail or control blown highlights in dense films. Others claimed that it also pronounced grain, which in my case, might be a benefit, unless its rendering becomes excessive (comparisons to point-source enlargers occasionally popped up). Minolta is supposedly better, but discontinued….
Then I checked out the flatbed scanners, the Epson 750-Pro scanner and the recently released Microtek ArtixScan MI/F1. These seemed attractive, because they also accepted medium and large format films, allowing me to pick up a Holga on the side. Yet, there were several arguments that with 35mm films in particular, because of their small size, no flatbed could currently compete with a dedicated film scanner.
So back to the Nikon, although now checking out the Nikon Coolscan 5000. Yet, I did not find anything stating that it handled silver B&W negatives any better than the V ED, assuming that any actual problems exists. Others countered that misuse of the machines caused poor quality scans.
I've read a number of reviews and forums on the matter, which can be as detrimental as beneficial, given the inevitable disparity of views. Not helping matters was that much of the discussion focused on color slides.
I already use curves to post process my digital shots, so I don't mind going into Photoshop to work on any scanned images. Yet, I'm still walking away from all this somewhat feeling that if I want acceptable scanned prints capable of reproducing the film's high dynamic range (latitude) and sharpness, I'll need a US$10,000 to US$20,000 drum scanner. But then I'll see what I think is a great scan from a Coolscan V, at least for a web-based photo, ultimately leaving me fried.
Finally, the inquiry. For people who shoot and scan potentially high grain, high contrast B&W negatives, what has been your experience using a flatbed or dedicated scanner? To be sure, assuming you folks respond (which I appreciate), this will generate another set of divergent views, but at least hopefully within the scope of B&W film, scanners, and my budget.
Also, "acceptable" is subjective, and I realize that the best way is to test the products out for myself. Yet, for various reasons, including potential language barriers, I'm not sure if that is an option here, especially since I don't have any negatives to use. So I'm flying a little blind here, but hopefully some additional guidance will get me going the right direction.
I'm excited to get going with a Bessa RF and a 35mm Color Skopar f2.5, but I've hit an impasse with this scanner dilemma.
Thanks for any comments,
Steve
|
