peteto Loc: Las Vegas

Hello All,
Even though I am an avid digital enthusiast, I haven't abandoned my 35mm gear. My question is for those who are also still shooting film as well, and hopefully I'm not the only one out there. Do you scan your own negatives/slides? If so which do you get better result with, negatives or slides. Also I'd like to know which scanner you are using, and what kind of results are you getting. Also what film do you prefer.
Thanks for any help, thoughts or experiences.

Pete

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I used to use a Canon Canonscan 4000F - with VuewScan software. I got great results with both negatives and transparencies. The resolution exceeded the film's ability to record details, you could actually see the individual grain particles. Velvia 50 was my favorite, but a also scanned a lot of older TriX, and an assortment of Kodak color negative flim. I found that my results were good, but no match for digital. Ebay was able to help me place all my Contax gear (2 RTS IIs, and an assortment of Zeiss lenses from 25mm to 300mm - 25 and 35 Distagons, 50 and 85 Planars, 135 Sonnar and TeleTessar F4 300).

peteto Loc: Las Vegas

Thanks Gene,
I've just started to play around with it myself and from what I can see there's no way it's going to look as good as digital. But since it's a hobby I thought I'd delve into it and see what happens. I've been using some older 400 film just to get to know the scanner and do have a roll of fresh Velvia 50 I want to try before utilizing ebay.

Pete

blackest Loc: Ireland

yes , and finally found a cheap simple scanner i like maginon 90015 its standalone and largely just pressing 2 buttons, doesn't fix scratches or dust but generally gets a reasonable colour balance on colour negatives.
Slides should be easiest as there is no colour inversion. It took me around 4 days to digitise 600 negatives although its going to take me much longer to post process them. Most are not worth bothering with except for old memories.

The frontier processing machines(fuji) can be pretty good but they tend to scan to a rather low resolution by default (what they normally put on a photo cd)

They are capable of better if the operator knows how to adjust the resolution. They might be willing to up the resolution for you and thus save you the job of trying to do it at home or finding a professional scanning service.

film wise i tend to use what is available unfortunately that tends to be very limited these days.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED (no longer made) on which I have scanned over 35,000 images - about half slides and the rest mostly B&W but some color. I also use an Epson V750 for medium and large format film. Its results are almost indistinguishable from Coolscan and it is easier to use but I have to use a holder from betterscanning.com for the medium format.

I use medium speed film (ISO 100 to 400) color and B&W film including Ektar 100, Portra 160, Ilford FP4, TMax and Tri-X. I seldom use transparency film any more.

I recently compared the results from my D610 to TMax 100 scanned on the Coolscan and the film was superior in initial contrast and tonality. Resolution was about the same viewed at 100%. I expect that grain would start to become visible but not objectionable at ISO 400 where digital, of course, would have none. The test included shots that were under- and over-exposed by one stop. As expected, the film did not block up the shadows or blow out the highlights like the digital version did. The film version looked great right out of the scanner but the digital would need some work to get the clarity and local contrast to come alive. The digital raw files were developed using Capture NX2.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

I still shoot Velvia when I get the itch for something to hold or when I'm shooting at an airshow. For scanning, I'm using a Plustek 8200 & Vuescan software. Digital is very convenient but, hasn't quite caught up with a good slide for color depth. Shooting in continuous mode works better on a film camera than digital for fast moving subjects.

peteto Loc: Las Vegas

Wow, that's very interesting Nick. I would not have thought that Velvia as slow as it is 100 or 50 would work that well on fast moving objects, but then on a bright sunny day and a fast lens, why not. So now you have me thinking, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Thanks

Pete

peteto Loc: Las Vegas

film wise i tend to use what is available unfortunately that tends to be very limited these days.[/quote]

That's the other side of the coin. You can't just go to the store and buy film any more. Although places like B&H, Adorama still have film it's not like it used to be.
Thanks

Pete

peteto Loc: Las Vegas

Also very interesting and good to know. As I said, I'm using older 400 film and an Epson V500 and getting far less than desirable results. But not ready to kick it to the curb especially after reading these replies.
Thanks

Pete

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I get very nice results with the Epson scanning software by using the preview histogram. Of course, each image needs to be adjusted individually. I set the pointers on the input side to the extreme ends of the histogram and the output pointers to the min/max settings of 0 255. I also use medium dust removal and low sharpening, if any. I then save to a TIFF for further processing if needed.

This all works great for B&W film that I develop based on the times from http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

I find that I sometimes need to cut back the development time if I plan to use the Coolscan for high contrast situations but for the most part it works very well and gives me a slightly better image.

I have my color film developed commercially and both scanners handle the color well.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I only scan film I had already shot on film, and need in digital form. I can't see shooting film intending to scan it. It just won't be as good as a digital capture with a good digital camera. Shooting film to make prints from the film makes sense. I got a film scanner early on before I could afford a pro quality digital camera because I was already getting demand for photos in digital format. As soon as prices came down on pro digital cameras I switched. I went to digital not when I thought prints from digital were better than prints from film, it was when I thought digital captures were better than scanned film.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

I have a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 which frequently winds up at f/2.8 & as fast a shutter speed as I can muster for airborne shots. Haven't shot very many airshows since we moved to Columbus last year. Certainly miss the days of Kodachrome 200.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

I just got a CanoScan LDE 600, with the seperate negative scanning attachment, not real happy with it. I think I'll try the vuescan software one day. I guess, I'll have to, if I want to get any use out of it.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

For a number of years I have used a Microtek Scanmaker 6000 which has a slide/negative scanning attachment. It did okay but, I wasn't really happy with the results. Then the fluorescent tube in the attachment died. Bought a Plustek 8200i which came with Silverfast software. Vuescan is much better.

Kevin R. Roberts Loc: Galveston Island, Texas

My scanning lab is in Michigan and uses a very expensive Hasselblad scanner with results superior to digital cameras. FACT.