How to scan negatives - Epson V550

J

Jetstream Rider

Suspended / Banned
Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd like to hear some thoughts on scanning negatives - I have an Epson V550 - and while I realise a drum scanner would give the best results, I have what I have...

My question really, is how do I scan a film to look as natural as it is - generally if I scan a negative, I end up squashing the levels/curve a fair bit to make it more contrasty - my scans seem to have quite low contrast. If I do that, it does seem to somewhat defeat the point of shooting with a particular film. What I'd like to hear about is people who scan their images and how they do that to bring out the qualities of the film they are shooting with?

Thank you.
 
I think a few of us use a V550, it is a perfectly good scanner and I think most of us tweak the levels, which is no different to using a multigrade paper and dodging/burning etc in a darkroom.
 
You can add contrast in postprocessing but reducing contrast is more difficult; so having flat scans isn't too much of a problem as it allows you to create many different interpretations from that scan. If you use Lightroom you can create "virtual copies" so that you're not even using up disk space by having multiple versions. The idea of having a natural "straight out of camera" look only really applies to transparency film (positives); any type of negative, whether black and white or colour, can only be viewed as a positive after some kind of processing has been applied, whether it be the creation of a print or viewing on screen after scanning.
 
When I scanned negatives, I sometimes wondered how close to a ´neutral’ result I had when the positive showed up on the screen.
Even with all the settings set to ´standard’( for want of a better word), those presets are determined by the manufacturer’s idea of a ´base ´ upon which to work with .

Be assured I have no real idea what I’m blathering about so possibly / probably talking gobbledygook !

I think in the darkroom with wet prints the nearest one can get to original ´qualities’ of any given film would come by making a straightforward contact print with no filters but even then the choice of paper and chemicals would dictate how the positive rendered itself .

I know the wetprinting is not what you’re asking about .
Ive simply mentioned it so as to open up a broader picture of how allmethods of obtaining a positive image are in some way manipulated imo
 
I put together a guide on how I personally scan B&W negatives with a V550. You can find it here:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Scanning Film Negs tips / Tutorials?

Hi all, I've just bought an Epson V550 from the forums here specifically to scan some old negatives from my wedding day 25 years ago! Ive googled and Ive searched on here but I just want to know from you guys that scan if theres any specific techniques / tools you use when scanning? ie all I...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Thank you, I'll have a read.

I do understand the whole thing about variability in a darkroom - which paper you choose and how you print it etc. The thing is, if I shoot FP4 or Fomapan, they come out a bit different on the scan, but when I've finished with them, the images I get are very similar. This makes me wonder if its worth using different films, or just going for the cheapest and doing the manipualtion after the scan? There is more to it of course, grain size, the general look etc, but am I just scanning and manipulating to my taste (which is fine), or destroying the essence of the film (which seems a bit pointless).

I love the process, the cameras I use for film and the output - I'm quite happy, and that's all that matters really - but I just wonder if I am mssing something in the scanning that would bring out the qualities of a particular film instead of hiding it in a computer based manipulation?
 
Jetstream Rider said:
Thank you, I'll have a read.

I do understand the whole thing about variability in a darkroom - which paper you choose and how you print it etc. The thing is, if I shoot FP4 or Fomapan, they come out a bit different on the scan, but when I've finished with them, the images I get are very similar. This makes me wonder if its worth using different films, or just going for the cheapest and doing the manipualtion after the scan? There is more to it of course, grain size, the general look etc, but am I just scanning and manipulating to my taste (which is fine), or destroying the essence of the film (which seems a bit pointless).

I love the process, the cameras I use for film and the output - I'm quite happy, and that's all that matters really - but I just wonder if I am mssing something in the scanning that would bring out the qualities of a particular film instead of hiding it in a computer based manipulation?
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting topic that you’ve raised as if I look at my prints made through scanning and computer post processing I very much doubt that without the brief info noted on the rear , I would be able to distinguish the different emulsions.

The wet prints seem to hold on to some independent film characteristics but even then, with the use of filters and bringing the end results to my personal taste, the vast majority differ very little regardless of film used.

I think for most of us ( including yourself I suspect) , providing we are happy with the end print then the rest is irrelevant , however you’re quite right in asking if there are any real benefits in using different emulsions.
 
I do see a really difference, mainly in contrast between the film stocks I normally use, which are FP4+ and HP5+. It is even more noticeable with films I use less often such as Neopan Acros or Adox CMS20.
 
Out of interest does anyone bother with Negative Lab Pro, or are you all just sticking with the native Epson software?

(I do need an Epson Scanner, so it's good to hear even the V550 is good enough, as no change of buying a new V850)
 
MarkWalker said:
Out of interest does anyone bother with Negative Lab Pro, or are you all just sticking with the native Epson software?

(I do need an Epson Scanner, so it's good to hear even the V550 is good enough, as no change of buying a new V850)
Click to expand...
Well I've always used Epson's software and have scanned many negs/pos but others will say Vuescan or Silverfast etc are better (for different reasons). As for the V550 it's VG for MF negs but not so good for 35mm if wanting to do very large prints or large cropping of a scene. I've never read of lab using a V550/V600 for scanning 35mm negs, but some of the cheaper ones would use a V750/V850 as minimum.
 
Last edited:
I have a V550 which I use with Silverfast for 120 film. I use a Plustek 8100 (again with Silverfast) for 35mm.

What I've come to discover is that there are many many factors that contribute to the tones in the final image, of which film choice, and scanning settings are just 2!

- Available light [and actual contrast] in the image
- ISO rating decision [push = more contrast, pull = less]
- Type of film (& freshness)
- Type of developer
- Duration & temp of development
- Scanner settings
- Post production settings (e.g. Lightroom/Photoshop)

For me, I try and get a flat [low contrast] a scan as possible so that I can use Lightroom to get what I'm after. Some films (Ferrania P30 & Washi S) are naturally heavily contrasty and even a flat scan won't hide it, but telling the difference between (for example) HP5 & Tri-X at the scan stage is very difficult. I tend to develop (for example) HP5 in DD-X and Tri-X in HC-110 which gives [what I would call] a significant difference to the negative which I flat scan and then enhance with PP. Tri-X gives me a contrasty, grainy look out of the tank, whilst HP5 is clean and has plenty of room in the tones to push or pull contrast.

Some films are very similar too. I doubt I could tell the difference between FP4 & Foma 100, or Kentmere 400 & Foma 400.
 
I've been using VueScan for nearly 20 years with Epson flatbeds. I originally switched because VueScan literally saved me hours of scan time with my 5x4 negatives.

My early scans from whatever the Epson scanner was in those days are still good enough for me.

I also have a Plustek 120 scanner that handles negatives up to my 6x7s. A comparative test one on colour negative showed that it did extract more detail than the V700, but not significantly more. Possibly my technique was at fault? Focus off slightly? I don't know. Anyway, not enough to bother me.

I found that Kodachromes scanned on a V700 gave reasonable results up to A3, and quite honestly I haven't noticed a lot of difference between the Epson flatbeds I've used.

Like Ian, I find a low contrast scan works better for me.
 
MarkWalker said:
Out of interest does anyone bother with Negative Lab Pro, or are you all just sticking with the native Epson software?

(I do need an Epson Scanner, so it's good to hear even the V550 is good enough, as no change of buying a new V850).
Click to expand...
Hi Mark.

I bought a copy of Negative Lab Pro earlier in the year and have been very impressed with the redults I can get with it - far better than I've ever achieved using Epsonscan, Vuescan, or Silverfast. I used a free Photoshop plugin called Grain2Pixel for a while which also did a vey nice job, but NLP gives me better results.

I wrote a blog post about my experiences when I first got a copy, here:

steelcitysnapper.wordpress.com

Colour blindness – struggles with converting colour negatives in a way I’m happy with

One of my biggest issues with colour film is, well… the colour. Getting the darned stuff to look “right” is a test for my patience and also my sanity it can seem. Even when I get …
steelcitysnapper.wordpress.com steelcitysnapper.wordpress.com
 
Thanks everyone that is interesting… I fired out the question because I’ve recently bought a She Hao 4x5 field camera and in that 'self-justification' for the purchase, I decided I’d have to start to develop and scan everything myself. Given that I also have Mamiya medium format, Canon & Contax SLRs, I thought I’d rule out the lab and just do it all myself to help recover the dev costs. What is also interesting to hear is that the Plustek is a popular choice for 35mm scans.

Up until this point, I've been perfectly happy with the results from the Silverpan or Exposure Film labs :)

Nige - will take a look at your website when I have some time (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top