AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Good morning,

I still use a number of film cameras, from 35mm to 4x5, but I realize that my scanning game needs an upgrade. Recent posts by another member have reminded me that I'm not alone, so I thought I'd ask some general questions here.

1) What resolution scan should I shoot for, to produce a 24MP - ish digital image? Online labs are not helpful in describing their resolutions, using obfuscatory terms like "super resolution" instead of actual figures.

2) What format will these labs deliver the results in? I want RAW, not JPEG.

3) Any advice on what film to shoot where digital conversion is the desired end product? I'm thinking a good quality positive color film would be best; I'm very happy with the digital b/w conversions I've done, and, of course you can't go back from B/W to color.

4) Does anyone have recommendations on film processing labs and services who do this?

I've got a couple rolls of 50 ISO 120 Velvia in the fridge, that I'm itching to put into my Rollei or Super Ikonta!


Thanks for any ideas or advice!


Andy

fosis Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Just very briefly, I experimented with my own Epson 4490 Photo scanner which does negatives, slides and prints. Although it claims 9600 dpi resolution, I found that sharpness maxed out at 2400 dpi. Simply put, a 10x enlargement of that image would produce a 22.5" square image from a 120 negative/slide at 240 dpi. I know that degree of quality works well. In fact, I've scanned 120 negatives and 35mm slides and used them for projection quite well. This scanner is a bit old, but it produces TIFF and JPG and PDF files, and the TIFF is what I've used with plenty of manipulability (is that a word?) with Lightroom and PSE. Scanners are cheap. They take some time to use. But I haven't thoroughly researched vendors who do this stuff, except "drugstore" operations that give you NO quality.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks for the idea!

But when you have film developed, the largest part of the cost is the chemistry and machinery. Adding digital scans is very inexpensive when added to that cost. Personally, I'd rather have a good processor, with the time and talent to invest in the best equipment and to keep it properly calibrated and cleaned, than on my own abilities and budget.

Andy

BebuLamar

For a commercial processing lab the chemistry is very cheap because they always use replenishment. The equipment while expensive they are paid for a long time ago. Scanning does take rather expensive equipment too and good scanning requires more labor which actually the most expensive cost in processing.

To scan a 35mm negative to 24MP you need to scan at 4233 dpi. Most cases they give you JPEG although it's possible to get the scan in TIFF or other format but definitely not RAW. The scanner doesn't give you RAW file. There is no different from scanning or printing optically that a good neg gives good results. As far as recommendation I would recommend you to have the lab developed the film but you do the scanning yourself. Almost any lab can do good processing of the film if they have enough volume. It's very difficult to do consistent processing without enough volume.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

LightRoom / PS will accept a TIFF file, I think? If so, that will be fine as a base image. So I should look for a scan of more than 4000 dpi, right? I'm not sure how the online labs specify this, but at least I'll know what to look for.

I agree completely on the quality from a good lab being equal to or better than the results I'm likely to obtain with my available budget and time. Back i the 70s I briefly worked at a processing lab, and was very impressed with how they kept their equipment and chemistry.

Andy

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Andy,

You might look at the Epson flat beds. They have film and slide holders. They will scan to TIFF and JPEGs.

There are enough Epson owners here, you could mail a negative, get it scanned and see if you like it.

I don't shoot film anymore but have lots of carefully filed film strips and slides. When I do scan one on and my Epson, I like the results. I have a favorite print I've saved for 40 years. I dug out the negative, scanned it, ran it through Lightroom and printed to the same size as the original. The new "digital" print looks better than the old darkroom print.

Bill

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That doesn't solve my problem, though.

I'm going to have to have film developed anyway, and it's only a few dollars more to get them digitized. I just need to figure out what resolution I want, and whether I should be shooting in positive or negative film. I'm kind of ruling out B/W for the time being.

If I eventually pull all of my old slides and negatives from long term storage, that will be the time to buy a scanner, but right now I wouldn't have the time to do much with them anyway. I still have a vast quantity of digital images to do PP on, and I'm shooting more every week. I will keep the Epson in mind for when I eventually get there, though. Thanks for suggesting it!

Andy

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Hi Andy,

The Darkroom in San Clemente, provides scanned images along with film they develop, and they will scan negative or slide film for you as well. Their scanning prices are great when they develop the film for you, but It's expensive to send them film to scan. They have some good info on their web site about scanning resolution and file sizes.

I recommend you take a look here, at their info page for scanning resolution and scanned file sizes: http://thedarkroom.com/scans/

Re scanned format. Raw format is a proprietary format, each manufacturers raw format is different, and even different over different models of the same brand. Scanners do not provide a raw format output file. However scanning can provide TIFF format, which is lossless and supports layers, so you can import a TIFF file to a digital editing program and make adjustments. You can digitally edit jpeg format too but it is a lossy compression and you lose some info in the process and the signal to noise ratio increases every time you open/change/save a jpeg.

Hope that helps.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That is very helpful. It's about the same pricing as my local B&M shop, and much less than the nearest online lab "Old School Photo" which is near me in Dover, NH. Of course, as usual, one answer produces more questions!


So...

1) I would like to avoid JPEGs if possible, but as I understand it, if I leave the original image untouched, import the JPEG into LR/PS, and then use that software to export a new, edited version, then the original JPEG will not suffer further losses, as long as I don't re-save it. I can import it several times, play around with it in LR/PS, and never touch the original JPEG, just as I would leave the RAW file alone. Is this correct?

2) Either TIFF or JPEG scans will limit the range of digital adjustment I can do in LR/PS, so I'm not sure the extra $$ required for a TIFF scan is worth the money. If I start shooting much film again, this might make the scanner purchase more worthwhile. Do you think the extra cost of the higher resolution TIFF produces any real advantage at a 16x20 or smaller reproduction scale? Again, this assumes that my assumption in question 1 is correct about not touching the original JPEG image.

3) I've noticed that scanning positive images (such as Velvia and other E-6 processed films) costs slightly more than negative. Assuming that I'll be working with both color and B/W images in export versions, is there any real advantage to any film in particular? I've loved the results from low ISO Velvia in my previous life as a film shooter. At this time, I don't see much advantage to shooting in 35mm over my DSLR, except for the nostalgia factor. But my 120 and 4x5 gear can do things that I can't replicate fully in digital, and shooting the Rollei, Super Ikonta, and Speed Graphic is a LOT of fun, even though the film is much pricier.


This is far from my area of expertise - it's really a new world for me. Maybe I'll just keep my negatives filed, use the moderately sized JPEGs for now, and eventually buy a new scanner if I want to get higher resolution scans in the future.


As usual, contributors here have been extremely helpful in clarifying my thinking and options. I really appreciate those who took the time and effort to provide answers and information.


Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I've been searching on the Adobe Cloud help forums and came across a scanner driver called VueScan that looks like it will work with most reasonably high end scanners to produce RAW files. I think that sounds like the best idea yet, at least if it works as advertised, and makes me think that a negative scanner would be a better investment for me. Best of all, it's freeware for testing, and quite inexpensive to purchase. No subscription required.

Does anyone know of this, or have experience with it?

https://www.hamrick.com/

Andy

PS: Wolverine scanners seem to be quite affordable and available at 14 to 20 MP ranges. Anyone have any experience with them?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Sorry. I totally misunderstood your first post.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I know of it. I suggest you try it and see if it works for what you want.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I will answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

(1) Yes. I still suggest copying the original jpeg to "MyFilename_ed" for that. Then you will always have the original in case of a screw up.

(2) No. TIFFs are lossless and can be created/saved in 16 bit format, and TIFFs support layers. So you can import them into PS and go from there. Similar to if you imported a digital camera raw file into PS. Your assumption in (1) is correct. But TIFFs are a different format.

(3) You would know better than I if there any advantages to any film in particular. Those advantages would apply to the film itself. Think of it like this. You can digitize an auto recording. Suppose you recored a classical guitar solo. Done properly, with sufficient sampling rate, the quality is high fidelity. It's clean with no pops and bumps like the old vinyl disks. It will sound like what you heard while listening to it live. Recording stills and video images is a similar thing. Done correctly digitizing an image will reproduce the bandwidth of the original image. And you can import it into Photoshop if you like and make adjustments and have to not lose fidelity (Lossless-> TIFF format).

Now about film vs digital. I probably will start a shit-storm here with this, but IMHO, film records light very differently than digital. I find, personally, that well scanned film pics are more pleasing to my eye, as well as more satisfying. There is something about film......(it has a soft exposure shoulder, and the crystals are random, not on an x-y grid). And here in the movie business, as I understand it, the big DP's still prefer film. Imagine that. Now for a commercial "tog" time is money, and digital certainly takes less time. And you get instant feedback. So that is the obvious choice for digital in a commercial environment. But for pure artistic joy where time is not a factor... maybe not.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks JD. Very comprehensive!

A couple of things...

I agree with you about the “soft shouldered” curve, and that’s why I want to mess around in this manner. I expect I’ll just try films I like as film, and see how they digitize. Was just wondering if there is any inherent difference in how positive or negative images translate.

I’ve never worked with TIFFs, except as an export from PS, but it sounds like they will have similar characteristics to RAW. That should be fine for my purposes.

Time to haul out the Rolleiflex and Velvia!

Thanks to all who responded!

Andy

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The best I can do with my Nikon Coolscan 9000 (I use it for 35mm and 120) is 4000 ppi and that's plenty for over 21 MP for 35mm and 70 MP for 120 square format.

The maximum optical resolution for my Epson V750 (I use it for medium and large format) is about 2400 ppi. That's a bit low for 35mm (under 10 MP) but you can still see the grain in most films. A higher scanner resolution setting will give you bigger files but the real resolution is limited to whatever the camera's lens captured and what the scanner's lens can deliver.

But a 2400 ppi scan of square 120 Velvia 50 will give you a grain-less image with more than 26 MP. Get it scanned to a TIFF and you will be happy with the result from either of your MF cameras.