Scanning 35mm colour negatives

[artob]

Hi all;

Newbie here...

Just got an Epson V500 flatbed scanner, and am using it to digitize my 35mm film.

From what I have read about film vs. digital, I was expecting the scanned images to be comparable, if not better than the images I get with my digital camera. I realize that this is not a dedicated film scanner...

The negative I used for my experimenting was Kodak Gold 400ASA. Pictures were taken with a Canon SureShot camera (point and shoot, auto focus,...), about 4 years ago.

No matter what settings I tried on the scanner, the results look nowhere near what I get from my Sony DSC-W5 (5.1MP point and shoot).

The scanned pictures have noticeable grain(?) once I zoom in a bit. Something that is pure, glossy black from the Sony, is black with all kinds of other colours on the scanned film (once you zoom in a bit). Overall, I was disappointed.

I tried 24bit, 48bit, resolutions from 300DPI to 4800DPI, Unsharpening on/off, saving to JPEG (at best quality). Scans generated JPEGs anywhere from 100KB to 25MB, but none of the scans looked very good once I zoom in a bit.

Is this the best I should get from my film/camera/scanner combination?

Any suggestions, comments would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks;
Arto

[Xia_Ke]

Hi Arto welcome to PR

The images are not going to look comparable and which is better is going to come down to preference. With 400 speed film, you will get more grain than you would noise at 400ISO in digital, in most cases anyway. Do you have a sample shot and a crop you could post? I'm using a 4490, the predecessor to the V500. I usually scan at 2400dpi 16-bit grayscale or 48-bit color and have been very happy with the results. Here's a 100% crop of 35mm TMAX 400 scanned at 2400dpi, though granted it's about as fine grain as you will get in 400 speed:

[drg]

Arto,

I second the Welcome to Photography Review!

A flatbed scanner is generally going to produce a different quality (though not poorer always) of image than a dedicated film or slide scanner.

Scanning is also a learned process and adjusting the scanner parameters to the type of film, the exposure bias (over/under, filtered, etc), how the film is developed for contrast and on and on is an important part of the process.

Then there is post processing for noise, scratches, dirt and the like.

A raw scan may not be very pretty and if you've got a built in hard or software solution to reduce noise (particularly with color) use it!

Kodak Gold film has one problem, if it isn't properly developed it will look brown and muddy. More so than most other emulsions. It is far more temperature sensitive than is generally noted in the processing guide and if a one-hour type machine is used, it won't produce really good images unless the equipment is handled by a very experienced and careful operator. The best scanning in the world won't fix it.

Film and digital are DIFFERENT. That's one thing that we've tried to emphasize in this forum. They have their indivual role and reasons for use. Side by Side comparison is not as helpful as many would have you think.

I am definitely posting my second Scanning comparison this p.m. It is another 400 speed color film. It is to demonstrate the differences in negative scanning vs print scanning but you may get some reference from it.

Welcome to PR, post some examples and we will get you scanning those negatives better, quicker and far more satisfactorily!!

[artob]

The following 2 images were scanned with a bit depth of 24, at 9600 dpi. The original file sizes were 1.16MB & 620KB.

Not sure if this is what you meant by a crop.







Arto

[jgredline]

Arto,
Welcome to PR.
One thing I have learned is that most software that comes with scanners is not that great. It introduces what it thinks. I have a HP scanner with a dedicated film slot and it was awful...''until I replaced the software with Vue Scan software...Best $40.00 I could have spent in my film processing. Anyway, something else to consider.

[drg]

Arto,

Film scans are going to display grain if scanned at high enough resolution. Most print film will show grain above 1800dpi and will 'breakdown' at 2200 plus. Breakdown means that you are scanning the 'blobs' of color beyond their resolution. Slide and B/W films will go slightly higher, some films as high as 3000dpi with careful processing of the B/W Silver Halide (traditional film) emulsions.

Very few scanners scan at an actual rate above 2400-3200 dpi. At 9600dpi they are interpolating or it is a combination rating for tri-color sensors. At 9600dpi you will get just garbage if you look at it in 'pixel peeper' mode.

These two samples look pretty good if the color is O.K. Is the wall to the right of the window supposed to be white? There's some red-eye in the boy that is easily fixable. A couple of noticeable film flaws and dirt specks that also are quickly taken care of with software.

jgredline comments regarding better software is a good one. Xia-Ke (Aaron) having a similar scanner probably knows well the capabilities of what is included. I can say that any of the ADOBE Photoshop products including Elements (get the latest version) will let you scan directly. That might be a great help.

Then you will have to learn to play with the white and black points to set levels (histogram endpoints), remove color casts, and a list of regular adjustments. Quick fix solutions may do most everything you need to produce good photos.

Different films will perform VERY (emphasis, not shouting) differently. Kodak PORTRA films are made for scanning and might be worth the extra money if you want the best Kodak has to offer in color print emulsions.

The 'cheap' films of choice for its color tolerance (including flourescent tinging problems indoors) and other performance is FUJI 400 X-tra Superia. Great film.

Is there something else you are disatisfied with with these or other images??? If so post samples and we'll try to point you in the best direction.

NOTE: Comparing a digital P/S at 5+Megapixels to 35mm film scans is apples and oranges as the film needs a lot processing to perform competitively. You will find that the film displays a much greater dynamic range. That's one reason to still use film. Digital will do it now in the right hands and with proper techniques or very expensive setups.

[danic]

I too am interested in scanning negatives. Did you use any special software or scanner? I'm looking at a scanner, but not necessarily a dedicated film scanner. I am very interested in the results you get and how you achieved them.

The more information here the better

[photophorous]

I agree with everyone else so far, but I just want to emphasize that you will get drastically different results with different films. Scanning a 100 ISO slide will give you much higher resolution and less noise/grain than any 400 ISO color negative. My 4000dpi Nikon Coolscan V will pull much more detail from a Fuji Velvia slide than I can get from my 6MP DSLR. I haven't been too impressed with any 400 ISO color negative scans I've made, but some are better than others. You're pretty much limited to 8x10 (or12) with 400 ISO color negatives, but I've made nice 16x24s from 100 ISO Fuji slides.

Even with the best film and the best scanner, it is very rare to get a perfect image straight from the scanner. Learn to tweak whatever software you use.

Paul

[artob]

First of all I'd like to thank you all for your comments, insights, and suggestions.

So, I downloaded a trial version of VueScan, and scanned the same picture with it. As you can see from the results(below), colours are different (I don't think I fiddled with the colour settings much).



Neither this scan with VueScan, or the scan with the Epson software are very accurate as to colour. The virtical blinds in the back have NO bleue in them, and the wall is actually an off-white. In the VueScan picture, both the wall and the blinds seem to be a bit on the bleue side. It looks like I really need to understand all of the adjustments and controls available in the software if I want to do this properly.

That being said, I think I might be in over my head. All I wanted to do was to digitize my negatives, just in case something happened to them. I just don't see myself spending an hour adjusting each negative prior to scanning.

[jgredline]

Well, if you are basically getting the same results, then I would guess the problem is your film.