Do a bit more research to make sure you are using the right developer/film combination for scanning. There are some specific combinations that are tailored for film that is to be scanned.
Get the best scanner you can get. The V700's are decent for MF and LF, and just ok for 35mm. If you can swing a Nikon V/5000 for 35, or 9000 for 120 + 35, then you are getting somewhere. There is better quality to be had, but I can't afford it (Imacon, then drum scanners).
I wet print and scan, and have no problems using my normally developed B&W negs in my scanner (nikon V). Slides can be a bit tough though. Normal color and B&W neg really don't have that much in terms of dmax, so you should be fine.
Get to know your scanning software, and learn how to get the best from Photoshop. You'll save yourself A LOT of time if you get your development procedure down to the point where you have little in dust.
If you have a flatbed and a tiny 135 (35mm) negative try the highest rez for images you treasure. But be sure to buy KAMI wetscan liquid (mylar etc from Aztek). It takes a while but you save time in PP. You get flat, clean scans, better "D" and higher rez too. KAMI evaporates leaving a clean negative ready for storage. Don't worry about holders wet mount right to the platen but take, great, care that KAMI doesn't leak below.
I only scan images that I am enlarging and printing... otherwise I just look at the crappy machine proof prints I get from the lab (I shoot C-41 b&w almost exclusively).
When I develop my own traditional b&w I might throw my negatives on the flatbed for a quick and crappy contact sheet.
IMO if you are only interested in looking at something on the computer you might as well just shoot digital.
No way. I enjoy using my film cameras much more than my 5D. Regardless of the output.
There's a movie out where some guitar gods get together to talk about their approach to making music. One of them says he wants the guitar to fight him. Comparing my 5D to my Mamiya, I get that now. The Mamiya is a much more participatory experience.
So there are virtues to vintage cameras besides the output.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
For the folks scanning their negatives; I'm curious to know how your final images are viwed; Print or Monitor. If both, what %?
Maybe some of you can anticipate my next question.
thanx
Both
I have no idea what the percentage is. Online I can track the views, but I don't have a good reference for the number of people viewing my prints where they are on display.
As for the images themselves, I typically do not scan an image if I'm not interested in printing though some images don't make the cut after scanning. At a minimum, I've scanned an image to make a 4X6 print of it for our snapshot album. I would say that at least 50% and probably closer to 75% of the frames I scan will be made into a print.
I have my labs process only on all my film so I don't get any print unless I scan and order the print myself. I think my manual scanning is much better than their auto scanning and its worthwhile to me for my own prints. Its no different than shooting raw on a digital camera and processing for print. It just takes a little more effort.
The V700 does a decent job for larger negatives than what you are using (4x5 and larger), but for 645, just rent a Supercoolscan 9000 for a couple days. It's going to blow away the 700. If, you absolutely must use the 700, get a BetterScanning holder so you can adjust the height for better focusing on the scanner. The Epson film holder does not hold the negatives at the ideal distance from the glass.
Also, if you are scanning slides, be sure to get an IT8 calibration target.
joekraft wrote:
No way. I enjoy using my film cameras much more than my 5D. Regardless of the output.
There's a movie out where some guitar gods get together to talk about their approach to making music. One of them says he wants the guitar to fight him.
Kinda like making music in this maner?
Comparing my 5D to my Mamiya, I get that now. The Mamiya is a much more participatory experience.
So there are virtues to vintage cameras besides the output.
Indeed. There is so much less "driving (fighting) the camera." IMO, every time you have to 'pull out' of the viewfinder and wade into the digital swamp of endless menus, you are distracting yourself and losing the feel for the photo you're trying to make.
Well played Greg. I think I was a freshman in HS reading guitar world when I read this spoof band was going to be coming to the theater in town. That was before DVD and VHS was widespread, so it took me a couple of years before I saw it for the first time.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
For the folks scanning their negatives; I'm curious to know how your final images are viwed; Print or Monitor. If both, what %?
Print, computer (flickr), darkroom. All three. I scan most of my semi interesting frames at low res for flickr and such. Enough for a good 4x6 print. Some I scan at 4000dpi for large prints, up to about 18x24. I also print in the darkroom. Who knows what % I view at on the computer.
Printing is the great equalizer. As long as you aren't doing 30x40s all the time (who has the space or money for that?), 35mm DOES look pretty good, whether wet print or scan, provided a decent scanner. Personally, I find a good 11x14 a lot more intimate than some huge print. And as far as the web goes, at 900px wide, anything can look sharp.
I'm pretty much the same. Although I've recently just been using a digital camera to "scan" the negs and transparencies. Probably only because i made the duplicator myself and I want to use that though. Here's a shot from my latest roll.
Duplicating on an 8.1 MP camera as I did here, I get approximately 2360 dpi resolution at 12bit depths (RAW) if I don't zoom in for a crop. Not the best possible I suppose but as you can see not too shabby! And the 100% looks just as clean as this scaled version - to me.
I display them on-line in sizes like this or I print. Truth be told 35mm film (or most digital camera captures) can be enlarged to near infinite sizes without loosing any detail because of the viewing distance that no one ever seems to take in to account. A poster is typically best viewed from 4 to 6 meters away and that's about where we will place ourselves given the space to do so. A freeway billboard is viewed from what, 40 to 100 meters (yards) away? If you can print it to look good at 8x10 from about 35 cm to 45 cm away from your nose you can print it at any size.The perfect human eye in the most optimal environment can not detect resolutions higher than 75 dpi at 1 meter away - or so say the scientists. Although I too like 8x10 or 11x14 the best by far! As Kid Texas says it's more intimate than some huge print! I print using ink-jet printers and unless it's a gallery submission or something I use 5-color printers because they're twice as fast, cost about 40% less, and I can't usually tell the difference. I still have my color dark-room equipment but I haven't set it up in a very long time.
