awilder
Alan Wilder
For film users, is there a loss of it's unique character when scanned to digital for viewing on a screen or for printing purposes? Is it less of a problem for B&W film than color negative or reversal film? To me the advantage of shooting digital is the ability to adjust highlights, shadows, color, etc. but I'm willing to give film a second look if I know what advantages it provides.
JohnBeeching
Well-known
Hi,
I scan B&W film and work on them in LightRoom or Photoshop before printing them at A3 or even A2. I find the results excellent; but, as with anything, there is a learning curve.
I scan B&W film and work on them in LightRoom or Photoshop before printing them at A3 or even A2. I find the results excellent; but, as with anything, there is a learning curve.
JohnBeeching
Well-known
A couple of examples for you:
Barcelona.
Couple. Barcelona, 2003. by John Beeching, on Flickr
Sahagún
Sahagún by John Beeching, on Flickr
Barcelona.
Couple. Barcelona, 2003. by John Beeching, on FlickrSahagún
Sahagún by John Beeching, on FlickrGeorge Mann
Member
As no digital scanner can capture the true look, feel or resolution of film, there will always be a significant difference between the scan, and what it looks like when viewed directly with a high quality loop.
However, film scans do have unique qualities that make look it different (which many of us prefer) than images produced by digital cameras.
This is true regardless of the type of film used.
bjolester
Well-known
I find your question very interesting, because this aspect of scanning film oftentimes is not discussed. Especially with DSLR scanning, most practioneers are IMO preoccupied with resolution more than striving for producing a scan with an "analogue character ".
Drum scanning uses a different technology than CCD film scanners or CMOS "dslr scanners", and proper drum scans are able to preserve the unique analogue character of film when scanned. Take a look at his thread with many fine examples of drum scanned film:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187
olifaunt
Well-known
My experience comparing B&W scans versus prints.
The scans look nice and certainly capture the look of the film for screen display. But the scans never look as good as wet prints.
The scans look nice and certainly capture the look of the film for screen display. But the scans never look as good as wet prints.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Scanned correctly, and rendered/printed correctly, the images look even better than wet lab results ... unless you happen to be John Sexton or some other famous darkroom printer with a half a century of experience in darkroom printing, and the equipment to make it shine.
The trick, of course, is in the word "correctly" ...
G
The trick, of course, is in the word "correctly" ...
G
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
All this is interesting. I'm currently scanning a few thousand old slides on a fairly new 35mm Plustek. My results so far tend to be, well, somewhat all over the place. All of which I'm finding to be extremely frustrating, in terms of time spent (wasted), effort made, and so much variation in results.
In a nutshell, what I've discovered is -
Kodachrome scanned looks a lot like the original Kodachrome slide. Vibrant colors, great sharpness.
Ektachrome, not so much, but not really as good as Kodachrome.
Fujichrome veers to green but tends to "pastelise" (I've just invented a new word here, I think, sorry!!) all the other colors.
Agfachrome and other brands of slide film can be wildly (and frustratingly) unpredictable.
Of all my slides, the Agfachromes and Ektachromes show the most fading. Fujichrome holds up well. Kodachrome are mostly like new.
Unusually, when I was in the then Soviet Union in 1973, I shot a fair amount of a color slide film then available from the GUM department stores in Moscow and Leningrad (now St Petersburg). Had it processed there as it couldn't be done outside the country. Amazingly, the colors have stayed much as they were, tho' here I have to say they weren't great in the first place. But there wasn't much by way of bright color to photograph or even look at in Moscow in December...
A few thoughts about what I've done so far.
Most often when my initial (the first) scan isn't quite what I want, I tag it as 'A', adjust the scanner as I think is required for this image, and rescan as 'B'. Now and then I have to do a 'C'. All at 2400 dpi with just about everything on the scanner turned off, which means an endless amount of post processing to be done in future, but I won't be working on every slide anyway, only the best ones. Storage space is cheap. I would rather do the lot correctly now and not have to return to this damn ordeal (which is what scanning is, let's face it) in future.
Does age-related color shift in slides really affect the end result that much?? Even after post processing, while I'm finding I can remove but not entirely eliminate the color casts to a degree, often as not the end results tend to look nothing much like the original slides do or did. Three slides photographed in sequence and still looking entirely the same on a viewer, scan entirely differently. Is it me, the scanner, the software, a combination of all three, or the gremlins on overtime duty??
Of the varied lot of my slides, the Ektachromes aren't too difficult to work with. As for the Kodachrome, wow!!
How I wish I had discovered this last "revelation" in 1972 when I bought my first '35' and seriously got into color slide photography.
At other times I find myself wishing I had stayed with B&W film...
In a nutshell, what I've discovered is -
Kodachrome scanned looks a lot like the original Kodachrome slide. Vibrant colors, great sharpness.
Ektachrome, not so much, but not really as good as Kodachrome.
Fujichrome veers to green but tends to "pastelise" (I've just invented a new word here, I think, sorry!!) all the other colors.
Agfachrome and other brands of slide film can be wildly (and frustratingly) unpredictable.
Of all my slides, the Agfachromes and Ektachromes show the most fading. Fujichrome holds up well. Kodachrome are mostly like new.
Unusually, when I was in the then Soviet Union in 1973, I shot a fair amount of a color slide film then available from the GUM department stores in Moscow and Leningrad (now St Petersburg). Had it processed there as it couldn't be done outside the country. Amazingly, the colors have stayed much as they were, tho' here I have to say they weren't great in the first place. But there wasn't much by way of bright color to photograph or even look at in Moscow in December...
A few thoughts about what I've done so far.
Most often when my initial (the first) scan isn't quite what I want, I tag it as 'A', adjust the scanner as I think is required for this image, and rescan as 'B'. Now and then I have to do a 'C'. All at 2400 dpi with just about everything on the scanner turned off, which means an endless amount of post processing to be done in future, but I won't be working on every slide anyway, only the best ones. Storage space is cheap. I would rather do the lot correctly now and not have to return to this damn ordeal (which is what scanning is, let's face it) in future.
Does age-related color shift in slides really affect the end result that much?? Even after post processing, while I'm finding I can remove but not entirely eliminate the color casts to a degree, often as not the end results tend to look nothing much like the original slides do or did. Three slides photographed in sequence and still looking entirely the same on a viewer, scan entirely differently. Is it me, the scanner, the software, a combination of all three, or the gremlins on overtime duty??
Of the varied lot of my slides, the Ektachromes aren't too difficult to work with. As for the Kodachrome, wow!!
How I wish I had discovered this last "revelation" in 1972 when I bought my first '35' and seriously got into color slide photography.
At other times I find myself wishing I had stayed with B&W film...
santino
FSU gear head
Wet prints are finished products. Scans always depend on the device you are viewing, printing etc them. No easy answer here.
Nitroplait
Well-known
It is subjective.
If you don't appreciate the workflow and tactile elements or see any IQ advantages, they are likely not there for you.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Film is different from digital. Qualities are different as well. And even film has different qualities.
One very technical dude wrote once how it should be no difference between scan and print for bw.
I mentioned once to Boris Kireev (he was everyday Moscow streets, mostly bw film photog) what it feels more traditional if bw film is printed under enlarger and print is scanned for online presentation. He told me what his everyday, year after year bw photos were often printed.
I started with scans and have them printed on inkjets. It was film photography, no doubt, visually.
But later on I almost stopped to scan for prints and went darkroom printing. I like old (50+ yo) FB SG papers.
I got often asked how old photos are
Technical quality of film is no different from digital. Wanna more quality - get it larger. MF, LF.
But comparing to digital, larger film formats are often adding more bulk or just not good ergonomically.
This is why HCB, Jane Bown went 135 film format.
Color film is on the lost state by now, IMO. It is next to impossible to get optical prints and nobody is viewing slides via projectors. Color film has it unique quirkiness on scans, but is it worth it, I'm not sure anymore.
Those who doesn't know how old optical color prints looks like and seen it on the wall from projector, they don't know how good it is. And it might be better for enjoying color film these days. It is like drinking pepsi and coca-colla now, if you remember its taste before too many cuts for profit were done....
One very technical dude wrote once how it should be no difference between scan and print for bw.
I mentioned once to Boris Kireev (he was everyday Moscow streets, mostly bw film photog) what it feels more traditional if bw film is printed under enlarger and print is scanned for online presentation. He told me what his everyday, year after year bw photos were often printed.
I started with scans and have them printed on inkjets. It was film photography, no doubt, visually.
But later on I almost stopped to scan for prints and went darkroom printing. I like old (50+ yo) FB SG papers.
I got often asked how old photos are
Technical quality of film is no different from digital. Wanna more quality - get it larger. MF, LF.
But comparing to digital, larger film formats are often adding more bulk or just not good ergonomically.
This is why HCB, Jane Bown went 135 film format.
Color film is on the lost state by now, IMO. It is next to impossible to get optical prints and nobody is viewing slides via projectors. Color film has it unique quirkiness on scans, but is it worth it, I'm not sure anymore.
Those who doesn't know how old optical color prints looks like and seen it on the wall from projector, they don't know how good it is. And it might be better for enjoying color film these days. It is like drinking pepsi and coca-colla now, if you remember its taste before too many cuts for profit were done....
JohnWolf
Well-known
I find it interesting, too, particularly the DSLR factor.
It seems to me that the entire CCD film scanner imaging chain is optimized to digititze what's on the film, without introducing capture-specific rendering. I mean the rendering characteristics over which DSLR OEMs are so keen to distinguish themselves.
DSLRs are designed for making appealing photographs. The imagining chain is way more complex and unique to the vendor and gear. There's the distinctive lens rendering, the CMOS sensor characteristics, anti-aliasing (if used), etc., and all the processing that goes into making what the DSLR engineers consider an ideal image file.
I don't DSLR scan, but it seems to me, at least intuitively, that with DSLR scanning you're introducing way more digital and vendor-specific processing and thus getting farther away from the native characteristics of your film.
Admittedly, an entirely non-technical opinion from one who does not DSLR scan.
John
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Doesn't sound much different than the sensor and optics in a scanner, and the scanning software.
Doug A
Established
Film scanners and digital cameras both have to manipulate the RGB information from the sensor(s) to produce a virtual image. This is even true if they are set to produce a RAW output. There is no generally accepted standard for this data manipulation. There is at least as much difference from manufacturer to manufacturer and model to model for scanners as there is for digital cameras. If a film scanner and a digital camera are both set to produce RAW files with all user accessible image manipulation turned off the results should differ almost only in the resolution os the scan and the optical characteristics of the lens. And a really good macro lens or enlarging lens on the camera is very likely a match for the lens on a scanner, even a drum scanner.
I have 35mm B&W scans produced by a Plustek 8100, a CanoScan 8800f, an Epson V600, an Epson V700 and a Fuji X-T20 mirrorless camera. All were scanned as RAW files and received basically the same post processing. Inkjet prints from all of them are virtually indistinguishable except that on close examination the Fuji prints are the sharpest, with the Plustek prints a close second.
Of course, if the film scanner or the digital camera is set to produce a JPG, TIFF or other manipulated image all bets are off.
I have 35mm B&W scans produced by a Plustek 8100, a CanoScan 8800f, an Epson V600, an Epson V700 and a Fuji X-T20 mirrorless camera. All were scanned as RAW files and received basically the same post processing. Inkjet prints from all of them are virtually indistinguishable except that on close examination the Fuji prints are the sharpest, with the Plustek prints a close second.
Of course, if the film scanner or the digital camera is set to produce a JPG, TIFF or other manipulated image all bets are off.
Mos6502
Well-known
I've not yet seen a print made from a digital file that could hold a candle to a one-hour optical print of two decades ago. Even if it is scanned from film, there is no comparison. Film scanning today is much better than it was 10-15 years ago, and perfectly fine if you want to view the images on a screen. But if you want to take a photo from film and make it into a print, then using an enlarger is really the best way to do it. The exception (that I can think of) would be if you need to make a poster size print, in which case the clarity/resolution is much less important than things like getting the tones, shades, etc. correct. It will be far easier to do with printing digitally.
Dan
Let's Sway
Utter nonsense. Perhaps you just don't know where to look.
ogosh
Newbie
I am not sure where the original poster here is coming from...But I've not been on a thread on this topic before and personally I feel there have been a lot of good options since printing (magazines, etc.)have gone digital or with digital scans. What bothers me is the post production necessary to deal with the weird bright color pixels that pop up here and there. Sometimes stuff ends up printed that you can't imagine the shooter was happy about it, or had put his stamp on it. It's just the craziness of the biz and often not enough time I think.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I doubt it was optical for one hour in 2002... We have family pictures from this time from not one hour develop and print service. Just regular few days service. Every time I look at them it hurts to realize how scans and modern printing are so primitive.
bluesun267
Well-known
I agree. Though as KoFe said, most labs had gone film>scan>print by 2002 (but not all). I've got a box of color prints from a place called Photoworks in SF from the 1990s. They were an Agfa lab (as Robin Williams said in One Hour Photo, Agfa was the Mercedes of Minilabs). And that incredible Agfa Prestige Paper (color is still as rich as ever). They even did full frame sloppy borders if you wanted them. Photoworks were all optical until about 2004-05 when Agfa went under. They never got a dollar of my business after that.
It makes me sick to even look at these prints now, thinking how much we film photogs had to sacrifice to the premature onslaught of digital.
Now I shoot slides (and project them!) Recently I have had good luck with slide scans from a 2004 Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV, at least on screen. Printing is another matter though.
Alex Webb has done pretty well with digital printing from Kodachrome. I've seen his 30x40" prints in person and they are nice. But to say that they're equal (or superior) to Ilfochrome, well that is just fantasy.
Mos6502
Well-known
Don't even get me started on how sad it is to look through the family album, and see the ridiculous reduction in quality of prints when photolabs switched to digital enlargements. It breaks my heart. The worst part is the best current ones still aren't as good as the real optical enlargements from 20 years ago.