HELP! Need to see examples of scans from 35mm negatives, please.

Naboo32

Naboo32

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,278
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I've spent countless hours in the last three days, trawling around the Internet trying to answer a very basic question, but with absolutely no luck whatsoever :'(.

Basically, I am thinking about getting into developing my own (b&w) film, with a view to getting high quality digital scans (roughly on par with the output from a DSLR, in terms of print-able size) to either print or display on a large monitor.

The question is: Which dedicated 35mm negative scanner is capable of doing this :shrug:?

Before I can make that decision, I need to know exactly what kind of results I could expect from whichever scanner I choose. If the image quality is not acceptable, then I can forget about shooting any more film and just go back to the boring world of DSLRs :|.

What is making this decision next to impossible is that every single thread and article that I have managed to Google up has consisted of either; a). nothing but these little black things, called 'words' :bonk: or, b). example scans made with desktop flat-bed scanners (and mostly in threads where the posters are complaining about lack of image quality :shrug:).

So, what I'm asking ... no, begging you for here, is to please post some example scans of (preferably b&w) 35mm negatives made with a purpose-built negative scanner.

As well as that, I would need to know which make and model of scanner was used, which type of film (or just ISO/ASA value, if that's all that is known) it was and any other relevant info about the developing or scanning process (i.e. were the negs developed professionally, did you have to add a lot of tweaks to the 'raw' scan? etc.).

Instead of trying to ask questions about what I want from a scanner, just seeing the results will be enough to enable me to decide whether or not to carrying on my experiments with film. I'm sure that you understand ;). Thanks in advance for any constructive input :thumbs:.

Andy
 
For that kind of quality you need the fabled Nikon (Coolscan V is it?) one. Not cheap.

I have a Plustek OpticFilm 7200. It's the lowest grade model in the series, it's OK, but it does struggle with shadow detail and I swear is exaggerating grain un-necessarily.

Here's a scan of Adox CHS 25 ART, Out of date by a year shot through a Pentax MX with Vivitar 19mm f3.8. This was shot at f5.6, nowhere near the lens' sharpest point. There is no post process sharpening applied. This should take you straight to the full size version. (I now scan larger I would add)

Here's a better one, same setup but on a tripod and at F11.

Here's some Ilford XP2 through a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 @f2.8
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Richard :), this is the kind of info that I was after.

For ASA 25, that first scan does appear rather grainy, I have to agree :|. Mind you, sharpness looks pretty good (given what you said about the lens).

As for the Nikon scanner - yes, I've read about it, but wouldn't entertain spending that kind of money for a scanner. My budget would be sub-£500, but I'd expect a lot from a scanner costing anywhere near that.

To be truthful, I'm not even sure if I'm going along the right route here, with 35mm film photography :(. I think that the kind of 'film' shots (fashion, landscape etc.) that I've seen and admired in the past were probably all made using medium format anyway :shrug:, so I might be asking for the moon ... on a stick :D.
 
For sub £500 you could get yourself a Nikon Coolscan IV, I've got one but don't have access to full resolution scans at work. I'll try and link some up at the weekend. The great thing about the Nikon scanners is if you try it and decide it's not for you won't lose any money as they hold their value very well.
 
Terry Richardson shoots with 35mm film, check out his website.

He shoots alot of Vogue stuff but I've seen him use Nikon DSLRs for that, either D3s or D3X

Edit - Dave Hill does also, check out his website and check his black and white portfolios, the shots are labelled 35mm or 120 if I remember correctly
 
What's wrong with the coolscan IV for sale right here? I use one with Vuescan and it's excellent.

Sample image from a latest batch of scans:
20111107124359_scan-111017-0005.jpg
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I suspect it might be a bit far to travel from Germany to pick it up! :p
Click to expand...

I'm sure Wilbert could be encouraged to post, it's only Germany so shouldn't be too expensive. I sold my LS III to a guy in France, I think it was only about £15 to post.
 
Well, here's a bunch of pics I have on Flickr that's been scanned with my Epson V700. I find it's actually quite good for b/w negs.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=74891768@N00&q=v700

You may also want to check out my thread on using a digital camera instead (although that's more convenient with slides than film strips)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=361528

There's also a lot of examples in photo-i.co.uk's scanner reviews

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/scanners_page.htm

BTW, I've been starting to hear stories of Nikon being unable to repair some of their older film scanners for lack of parts (the Coolscan 8000 in particular).

e2a: http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/super-coolscan-8000ed-r-i-p-2659/
 
Last edited:
Firstly, thanks to all of you who responded (and so quickly too :eek:). I'm very grateful.


Mahoneyd187 said:
Terry Richardson shoots with 35mm film, check out his website.

He shoots alot of Vogue stuff but I've seen him use Nikon DSLRs for that, either D3s or D3X

Edit - Dave Hill does also, check out his website and check his black and white portfolios, the shots are labelled 35mm or 120 if I remember correctly
Click to expand...

Wow! Dave Hill's work is amazing :eek:! The digital stuff is awe inspiring, but his 35mm shots are also fantastic (and much like the kind of stuff that I'd like to use film for, albeit with less attractive models :D).

I'll start checking out the other links ...
 
There's also the minolta 5400. Higher res than the nikon. Problem is all that these decent scanners do is show up every blemish on the negative. You have to spend ages removing dots, hairs and crud from film. I've had a 5400ii for years and barely used it because it takes so long to get any of the images half decent. I've got a neg holder for the flatbed. I should really scan a strip of each to compare...
 
TheBigYin said:
Wondered what he'd been doing since Slade stopped touring...
Click to expand...

actually Mark,,i think Dave Hill and Don Powell ( along with two other geezers ) are still touring as slade 2 ,,,,,
 
donutagain said:
actually Mark,,i think Dave Hill and Don Powell ( along with two other geezers ) are still touring as slade 2 ,,,,,
Click to expand...

They played Vanfest this year and although I'm unfortunately old enough to have been a fan when they first appeared Slade without Noddy just doesn't cut it, they sounded great from a distance though and went down a storm.
 
agree with all that Nick ,,
anyway Andy i will reply with something worthwhile very soon ,regarding the original question , got to talk to someone first tho ,
last year me and shutterman went to london with film cameras ,i developed them myself then scanned them with an epson v500 ,then saved them as tiff files ( they were about 12 / 13 mb files ) we picked one frame and i printed it wet in the darkroom and shutterman tweaked and printed the same pic digitaly ,, but i havent seen his print yet so cant say how they look next to each other ,but when i can get his version i'll let you know how they compare Andy
 
donutagain said:
agree with all that Nick ,,
anyway Andy i will reply with something worthwhile very soon ,regarding the original question , got to talk to someone first tho ,
last year me and shutterman went to london with film cameras ,i developed them myself then scanned them with an epson v500 ,then saved them as tiff files ( they were about 12 / 13 mb files ) we picked one frame and i printed it wet in the darkroom and shutterman tweaked and printed the same pic digitaly ,, but i havent seen his print yet so cant say how they look next to each other ,but when i can get his version i'll let you know how they compare Andy
Click to expand...

Cheers, I look forward to seeing that :thumbs:!
 
Musicman said:
Well, here's a bunch of pics I have on Flickr that's been scanned with my Epson V700. I find it's actually quite good for b/w negs.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=74891768@N00&q=v700

You may also want to check out my thread on using a digital camera instead (although that's more convenient with slides than film strips)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=361528

There's also a lot of examples in photo-i.co.uk's scanner reviews

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/scanners_page.htm

BTW, I've been starting to hear stories of Nikon being unable to repair some of their older film scanners for lack of parts (the Coolscan 8000 in particular).

e2a: http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/super-coolscan-8000ed-r-i-p-2659/
Click to expand...

Hi Rob!

I checked out all of your links (thanks ;)).

I really started to dig the quality of some of your colour scans in Flickr ... until I realised that I was actually looking at shots from your Panasonic :lol:. That does actually make me stop and wonder just what it is that I want from scanned film in the first place :thinking:!?

Anyway, the debate rages on inside my head :bonk:. Thanks again for your post.
 
Image quality is more than just sharpness and micro contrast :) film "quality" is an aesthetic. If you prefer digital stick with it. However, a 6x7 and up negative produces what digital still can't in my opinion,even 645 digital backs. Something about the 3D feel of the images and lenses, I'm not able to describe it very well but it's there lol

Grab a cheap tlr, shoot some 120, get it devved for about a fiver, see if you like it :)

Bosh, job done
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Image quality is more than just sharpness and micro contrast :) film "quality" is an aesthetic. If you prefer digital stick with it. However, a 6x7 and up negative produces what digital still can't in my opinion,even 645 digital backs. Something about the 3D feel of the images and lenses, I'm not able to describe it very well but it's there lol

Grab a cheap tlr, shoot some 120, get it devved for about a fiver, see if you like it :)

Bosh, job done
Click to expand...

Hi Danny,

I know what you mean about the 'quality' of film - it's great when it's clearly present and is far less 'clinical' than digital imagery ;). As you said though, it should (ideally) have more of a 3D feel than a lot of the stuff that I'm seeing (and producing, in my limited exploits with 35mm, so far) :|.

Also, I think that my expectations are too high and that (as I hinted at earlier) a lot of the film shots that I've seen and admired (random stuff from the '70s or '80s, before digital even existed) were probably from 6x7 negs anyway :shrug:.

The idea of buying a twin lens reflex camera and going out and trying medium format is a no-no for me :nono:, as the whole reason for me taking an interest in film is that I was contemplating a move to a 35mm RF camera (Voigtlander, or similar) and using it exclusively for candid (i.e. discreet) street photography and for just having with me in case inspiration strikes ;). In the event that I got any really good captures that way, I would want to be able to display them digitally and this is where the reason for this thread stems from.

Still, I appreciate your point - MF is likely to be the correct source for the kind of image quality that I'm hankering after :'(.
 
I know you are looking at "purpose built negative scanners" but do not rule out the flatbeds (which can also be argued to have "purpose built film scanning" built in) - particularly if you are not looking at spending too much and are considering moving up to medium format some day. Yes, quality is not as good as the dedicated film scanners but depending on your viewing medium/print size, a little unsharp masking goes a long long way.

Example 35mm black and white scans from my Flickr all scanned using a £120ish (at the time) Canon 8800F flatbed with supplied software. All the negs were developed and scanned by yours truly and in some cases, exposure error was corrected in post processing but I can't tell you which images they were.

As they say, you get what you pay for and I think I got my money's worth with this one. I typically scan at 2400 dpi which is probably about as good as the thing can resolve in reality given the less-than-accurate focus and get 6-7 mp usable images (after a little sharpening).

Maybe not what you're after, but I think it is a reasonable option depending on your use for the scans.
 
Last edited:
Using a TLR for street is actually quite easy, in my experience people just admire your camera and then let you shoot completely unquestioned. Most of the questions I get aren't about why I'm taking their photo, but rather about the camera itself!
 
mustanir said:
I know you are looking at "purpose built negative scanners" but do not rule out the flatbeds (which can also be argued to have "purpose built film scanning" built in) - particularly if you are not looking at spending too much and are considering moving up to medium format some day. Yes, quality is not as good as the dedicated film scanners but depending on your viewing medium/print size, a little unsharp masking goes a long long way.

Example 35mm black and white scans from my Flickr all scanned using a £120ish (at the time) Canon 8800F flatbed with supplied software. All the negs were developed and scanned by yours truly and in some cases, exposure error was corrected in post processing but I can't tell you which images they were.

As they say, you get what you pay for and I think I got my money's worth with this one. I typically scan at 2400 dpi which is probably about as good as the thing can resolve in reality given the less-than-accurate focus and get 6-7 mp usable images (after a little sharpening).

Maybe not what you're after, but I think it is a reasonable option depending on your use for the scans.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that :). As you rightly say, the quality is excellent for the price.

Were the colour ones film too, or digital :shrug:? The sharpness looks like digital (well of course, they're digital scans ;)), but the white clouds don't seem to have blown out the way I would expect them to with a DSLR (unless there was an ND grad filter on :thinking:!?

Anyway, thanks again for your input. I will toss this one into the hat along with all the other possible options ;).
 
I'm biased but I'd say you also want to consider medium format film if you want to compete with today's better digital cameras in terms of IQ. For me, anyway, none of my 135 format images come very close to the IQ I get from my medium format images.

You get more negative area to define tones. And you don't need as expensive of a scanner with really high optical dpi to get good results the larger the negative is.
 
mustanir said:
I generally don't separate film and digital stuff on my flickr stream. Anyway, here is a link to see just the 35mm colour stuff: colour 35mm scans
Click to expand...

These are scanned from lab-processed colour negs, I assume :shrug:? Certainly nothing wrong with the image quality there :thumbs:.

AlanSmithee said:
I'm biased but I'd say you also want to consider medium format film if you want to compete with today's better digital cameras in terms of IQ. For me, anyway, none of my 135 format images come very close to the IQ I get from my medium format images.

You get more negative area to define tones. And you don't need as expensive of a scanner with really high optical dpi to get good results the larger the negative is.
Click to expand...

I guess this is the issue at the heart of it all :| - why go to all the trouble and additional expense of shooting and scanning film, only to wind up with images which look 'worse' (smaller, grainier) than the output from the DSLRs that I already own (and don't have to pay any more money to use) :shrug:?

Larger formats offer the kind of image quality which I crave, but I am putting any ideas of getting into that on hold, until I can sort out my 'life situation' (which involves moving to another country and getting a car ;)).

For the short term future, I was simply debating whether or not to keep on taking the (rare) rolls of film that shoot with my Nikon SLRs to be professionally processed, or whether to invest in the processing and scanning gear myself, to aim for better results (and to have more fun :)).

As an example, here are a few scans from the first roll of film that I paid to have developed, since acquiring my first SLR a couple of years ago. The film was (C41 process) Kodak BW400CN. The prints that I got looked smooth and well toned (albeit with the usual blue/brown colouration of that film/process), but these b&w scans (which I paid for) were seriously grainy and not very large either :(.

1.
F1000028.jpg


2.
F1000027.jpg


3.
F1000025.jpg



These scans were made from the negs of 'proper' b&w film (Fuji ISO 1600) and so the level of grain is only to be expected, I suppose. Mind you, they look very 'flat' and don't have much contrast :shrug: ...

1.
Fleamarket_Stallholder_01_1000.jpg


2.
Mum_I_Want_the_Top_One_01_1000.jpg


3.
Hanan_and_Frank_01_1000.jpg


Anyway, based on what everyone here has been kind enough to show me :), scans like the ones above do not represent the 'last word' in professional quality, so maybe there is a future for me and 35mm after all ;).

Thanks again for the generous input.
 
Naboo32 said:
These are scanned from lab-processed colour negs, I assume :shrug:? Certainly nothing wrong with the image quality there :thumbs:.



I guess this is the issue at the heart of it all :| - why go to all the trouble and additional expense of shooting and scanning film, only to wind up with images which look 'worse' (smaller, grainier) than the output from the DSLRs that I already own (and don't have to pay any more money to use) :shrug:?

Larger formats offer the kind of image quality which I crave, but I am putting any ideas of getting into that on hold, until I can sort out my 'life situation' (which involves moving to another country and getting a car ;)).

For the short term future, I was simply debating whether or not to keep on taking the (rare) rolls of film that shoot with my Nikon SLRs to be professionally processed, or whether to invest in the processing and scanning gear myself, to aim for better results (and to have more fun :)).
Click to expand...
Some of the colour 35mm stuff is self-processed, some is lab done. Given the amount of colour film I shoot and how little extra control self-processing affords one, I would say that you can't go far wrong getting colour stuff lab-processed.

When you talk of craving image quality, what exactly are you after? Big prints? Photos that look good on an HDTV? Digital photo frame? Desktop wallpaper? Facebook/Flickr? With the exception of the first one (big prints... and I mean "big"), 35mm film should be perfectly adequate, scanned with a middle-of-the-range flatbed. Old 6mp digital SLRs would also be just as good. Even a 4mp D2h would be fine. The extra megapixels and clean high ISO we enjoy today is all luxury, but mostly doesn't matter for the majority of viewing media.
Some of the photos you posted above look fine. You probably could do better than lab scans unless all you intend to do is stick your photos on Facebook/Flickr or get 6x4" prints. Even then the lack of post scan control is stifling.

I guess what I'm saying is, image quality shouldn't matter to you too much these days. Medium format is really for the grain-averse, or for big prints that end up viewed closely (like the kind that would go in a big photobook or something). If you can live with a bit of grain, 35mm is fine. After all, one thing we can all agree on in this forum is that we like to shoot film for the look, the je ne sais quoi that is part grain, part tone curve and part magic :)
 
Last edited:
Medium format is really for the grain-averse, or for big prints
Click to expand...

I agreed with everything else you said, but most certainly not this I'm afraid. Image size and lack of grain are only two factors in the advantage of medium format. MF (particularly 6x7 and up) and LF have more to offer than less grain
 
mustanir said:
Some of the colour 35mm stuff is self-processed, some is lab done. Given the amount of colour film I shoot and how little extra control self-processing affords one, I would say that you can't go far wrong getting colour stuff lab-processed.

When you talk of craving image quality, what exactly are you after? Big prints? Photos that look good on an HDTV? Digital photo frame? Desktop wallpaper? Facebook/Flickr? With the exception of the first one (big prints... and I mean "big"), 35mm film should be perfectly adequate, scanned with a middle-of-the-range flatbed. Old 6mp digital SLRs would also be just as good. Even a 4mp D2h would be fine. The extra megapixels and clean high ISO we enjoy today is all luxury, but mostly doesn't matter for the majority of viewing media.
Some of the photos you posted above look fine. You probably could do better than lab scans unless all you intend to do is stick your photos on Facebook/Flickr or get 6x4" prints. Even then the lack of post scan control is stifling.

I guess what I'm saying is, image quality shouldn't matter to you too much these days. Medium format is really for the grain-averse, or for big prints that end up viewed closely (like the kind that would go in a big photobook or something). If you can live with a bit of grain, 35mm is fine. After all, one thing we can all agree on in this forum is that we like to shoot film for the look, the je ne sais quoi that is part grain, part tone curve and part magic :)
Click to expand...

What I am aiming to do is to be able to display my scanned images on an HDTV screen, so long as they do not look like an analogue TV with the aerial unplugged :lol: (i.e. a mass of large black and white dots) and also to be able to make prints up to A3 size :shrug:. From what little I understand about 35mm film, both of those should be possible I believe.

The scans that I included above are only 1,000 pixels wide and are already becoming too grainy at that size (although at 6"x4", the prints were acceptable).

I'm happy to have the film je ne sais quoi, but this thread is more about whether or not I process and scan it myself. There's no point (IMO) to going to the trouble of developing the film myself, if I then have to pay a lab to scan it :shrug:. This is why I appear to be starting at the end with my original question in the OP ;).
 
HDTV is fairly lo-res by photographic standards: 1080p is 1920 x 1080 pixels (about 2 megapixels).

e2a: One of those really cheap (£20+) CCD USB 'film scanners' from Maplin or similar is going to be at least twice or three times HDTV resolution (they are usually round 5-6 Mpx)


PPS

Naboo32 said:
The scans that I included above are only 1,000 pixels wide and are already becoming too grainy at that size (although at 6"x4", the prints were acceptable).
Click to expand...

Your 1023 x 685 scans are about 0.7 Mpx.
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
I agreed with everything else you said, but most certainly not this I'm afraid. Image size and lack of grain are only two factors in the advantage of medium format. MF (particularly 6x7 and up) and LF have more to offer than less grain
Click to expand...
Indeed there are other benefits as you say, I just don't think they are so important/relevant to our OP.

Naboo32 said:
What I am aiming to do is to be able to display my scanned images on an HDTV screen, so long as they do not look like an analogue TV with the aerial unplugged :lol: (i.e. a mass of large black and white dots) and also to be able to make prints up to A3 size :shrug:. From what little I understand about 35mm film, both of those should be possible I believe.

The scans that I included above are only 1,000 pixels wide and are already becoming too grainy at that size (although at 6"x4", the prints were acceptable).

I'm happy to have the film je ne sais quoi, but this thread is more about whether or not I process and scan it myself. There's no point (IMO) to going to the trouble of developing the film myself, if I then have to pay a lab to scan it :shrug:. This is why I appear to be starting at the end with my original question in the OP ;).
Click to expand...

Well my recommendation is pretty straightforward - YES it is worth scanning yourself, whether or not you develop yourself. Particularly for your intended use. As the previous poster has said, HDTV is not that hi-res at all. You need not splash out on a Nikon Coolscan if you don't want to, you'll get away with far less expensive options.

I've never used those cheapo 5mp ish film scanners so I can't recommend them.
 
Naboo32 said:
...
I guess this is the issue at the heart of it all :| - why go to all the trouble and additional expense of shooting and scanning film, only to wind up with images which look 'worse' (smaller, grainier) than the output from the DSLRs
...
Click to expand...

There are a lot of reasons why someone would still shoot film today. But if you take a pragmatic, business-like approach to rationalize and justify shooting film, you may never find out what those other reasons are.

At the top of the list for me is the fun and challenge of shooting mechanical cameras. It's all a labor of love. Intangibles that don't compute well on a balance sheet.
 
Musicman said:
Yep, I'm not necessarily recommending them either.
Click to expand...

Might as well just get a cheap '5 mp digital camera' and and mount it above a lightbox with something around it to block out the external light and you pretty much have one of those cheap film scanners.
 
have a look in mine flickr set here I think all or most of photos here are available in 3000@2000 resolution or so when you go for all sizes :)
 
Just done a little experiment with one of my incredibly grainy and camera shaken images, when resampled to 1080p, a light pass of noise reduction and a little selective sharpening it looks just fine.

The trouble I have is that my software's noise reduction is actually pretty useless on large images but very good on smaller ones so I can't get the big image looking as good!
 
bastic said:
have a look in mine flickr set here I think all or most of photos here are available in 3000@2000 resolution or so when you go for all sizes :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, Lukas!

I couldn't find any bigger than 1024 pixels, but never mind, they looked pretty good at that size.

What did you scan them with please, as that's really what I'm trying to find out about here :shrug:?

Cheers!

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top