Finding the value in home scanning – Guest post by Frank Lehnen

Martin Smith replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

I just realized it wasn't Hamish that wrote this, sorry Frank. I must admit I thought Hamish had already bought a different scanner.

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

a different and much better beast he bought! No problem, Martin.

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Have fun scanning, Bruce - Another one caught the bug, hehe

Bruce Gill replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Thanks Frank. I've had little luck on colour, but in fairness it was slightly underexposed Etkar. Black and white seem ok but I do generally hate scanning haha. Had a long night dev'ing film last night so got a few rolls to get through!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Have fun, and keep some beers handy - that helps a lot!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Thanks Terry, I think the Canon is (for a flatbed) a very good scanner that might even satisfy 35mm shooters if they do not print big. As for the Plustek comparison with Vuescan or Silverfast, it's an ongoing investigation. For the moment I am quite happy with he Silverfast color rendition. Time will tell what I will prefer in the end. Scanning is an obscure science,like alchemy ;-) I think the lab applied way too much sharpening ( and too much price) to their work. I largely prefer the Plustek scans, but will still have to fine tune the results.

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

"and by the time you get to this scan, have you noticed a horizontal scratch can now be seen in the sky" Yep Terry, noticed it and forgot to edit it out in Lightroom.... this scratch is on the original negative from the beginning, not the fault of the Plustek scanner....

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Right Jeremy, if money, time and convenience mattered.... we must be crazy! ;-)

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 11/05/2016

Yeah, almost like digital ;-)

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

That s'easy, sell your digital Leica and shoot film only! Just kidding ;-) ....or not?

KJ Vogelius replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

Aukje – I wouldn't worry about it except if you're buying something out of warranty that might break. The resolution requirements for a scanner doesn't really change over time as you're close to the practical limits of film resolution already (for dedicated film scanners that is). As for software I also wouldn't worry. Silverfast is updated every few weeks. Vuescan is probably an even safer bet as it works with pretty much every scanner made and seems to have good support too.

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

Aukje, As K J has pointed out, a scanner will either work or it won't and unlike the software of a digital camera which is usually not fixed before the camera is released, a scanner has less to worry about. The main thing you want it to do is carry out a scan which is good enough for your needs and at a reasonable cost. You will see that somewhat bizarrely older dedicated film scanners still fetch good money. The reason being there are so few affordable modern quality scanners available today. For example, my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, vintage 2000, will set you back about the same as the Plustek 8200 series is new. Look at the other Minolta and Nikon Coolscan models, which will set you back even more as they offer higher resolutions. The problem with some of these, and is why I opted for the Scan Elite II is it connects by good old USB. Most of the competition at the time requires a SCSI board and connectors, or Firewire. Who uses SCSI nowadays? Mac users will be OK though, but many Windows PC's lack Firewire. The second problem is not so much scanner software, but whether the driver on older scanner models was ever updated to later operating systems. This affects my scanner, which only works natively with XP. I trialled Vuescan on my W7 64 bit pc but it didn't produce any better quality scans, which proves the point that you don't have to worry about a scanner's software not being updated. The only meaningful update is thus the driver for the latest OS. As the Minolta scanner software is far more advanced than Vuescan, I got round the driver issue by buying a small 12" Windows XP laptop. The scanner connects via Photoshop Elements and I carry out the basic scans on the little laptop and then copy them over to my main pc for post editing. Can you justify the expense if you do so relatively little film work? That's for you to decide. But for those, such as I, and who have built up literally thousands of negs over half a decade, it is a labour of love and accessing images that I can no longer print myself. And it brings back fond memories as well.

aukje replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

But I love my digital M! :-)

aukje replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

Thanks for the clarification, Terry. I am going to reconsider this, again. I just got some scans back from the lab, and I think they are quite grainy. Seeing Franks results makes me now wonder if it is the lab or the film (HP5 ). So Franks results give me food for thought...

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

No, it has enchanted your soul, it has a bad influence on you. Let me take it from you for free and you'll see the light again.... That's 50€ for the Voodoo session!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

That's from oversharpening!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 12/05/2016

Yeah I came to the dark side because they have cookies... ;-) You make me want to reconsider the Vuescan versions.... Terry made a similar remark. I used the Negafix profiles for the films - did not try the others yet... will start some evaluation over the next weekend I guess - wife and kids will miss me ;-)

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 14/05/2016

Grace, you got me! A SCSI user. :D) Most people will, more than likely, assume because our scanners are around year 2000 vintage, the quality will be on a par with a contemporary digital camera. But as you know from experience, they aren't. They have high quality optics and providing the scanner is mechanically working OK, this is what contributes to their ability to produce quality scans and, if needs be, editing can be done post capture in imaging software of one's choice. A feature of my Minolta and which I overlooked in my post to Aukje, is that the neg/slide tray is motorised. The tray is introduced to the scanner and is then drawn in for up to 6 quick pre-scans. I can then choose which image to work on, either all 6 in sequence, or any one out of sequence. If I select, say, pre-scan 3, the sled drives to position 3 for full scanning. Also what I value is that focusing is AF in normal mode, but can choose to focus manually and, if necessary, select any part of the image for the scanner to focus on. This can be very useful for any neg which resolutely refuses to lie flat in the holder, or I definitely want a particular part of the neg to be absolutely nailed for focus. I like this lazy way of doing things; once the sled is loaded I can sit back and control everything from my laptop thereafter. What does time matter when it's a hobby?

Alvaro replied:

Comment posted: 15/05/2016

I too find VueScan to be able to recover much more highlight detail on B&W than SilverFast (as long as the white point is kept almost to the minimum!), but the latter produces better results in colour for me... someone else in here says its shed scan looks dull (which it does), but judging from the overcast lighting, I'm guessing that's the culprit!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 15/05/2016

True, but lately I switched to digitizing negatives with a digital camera... even better than scanning!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 01/06/2016

Terry, when I had the Canon flatbed scanner I used input sharpening but with the Plustek scanner I find it's not necessary. The scans are basically OK and I just sharpen slightly as needed in LR.

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

JC, please don't take it the wrong way, but digital capture gives you far fewer problems than shooting with colour negative film, and the digital process has somewhat spoilt you as colour capture with digital is much easier than with film. You simply can't throw a colour negative into a scanner and expect the sort of result you're used to with your digital camera. and which has done most of the hard work for you. So, back to basics. You've read and been told that colour negative films don't all reproduce colours the same, they have a colour "signature" all of their own. Have you ever wondered what the orange mask does? Why is it necessary? Without getting too technical, the cyan and magenta layers aren't pure in their response to light, and so the orange mask sort of modifies the light so these layers behave as they should when light hits them. Now you may have noticed that this mask varies from one film manufacturer and film type to another. When you send you film to a lab, they colour analyse this mask and set their enlarger/printer settings to neutralise it and leave just the three colour layers to form the image colours. Now you will appreciate that the corrections applied will vary from film to film, and if a lab, say, gets this wrong, the prints you will get back won't be right for that film, although many users never notice this, until they get prints from a quality lab. This will explain why prints from High Street photo finishers offering bucket shop prices often fell below what the film was actually capable of. Also, you will need to set your own reference point as to the colour accuracy of film, this is not the same as the film you prefer. You may prefer a film that is somewhat less than neutral, and if this is so, then when scanning it you may first have to find your own colour settings, or profile. Now we come to your problem with home scanning. I get the impression that you are expecting your first scans to come out perfectly without having had any experience or understanding of colour film. You are disappointed with your results because it is so much easier with digital cameras. Now think in terms of the photo lab providing colour prints from film, and the colour analysis that is invariably necessary to get the best from a variety of films. You have to approach scanning very much like a darkroom technician with film. To help, software such as Silverfast, can provide a pre-set, or profile, for specific films and this will provide you will a basic setting. Now, if your film has been correctly exposed and and you are using the right film for daylight or tungsten light, then this setting will be a good starting point, but final adjustments to taste will probably still be necessary in your editing suite of choice. You asked, in the face of the problems you faced and the work you needed to put in, what is the point of film? And by corollary, why scan it? Those who shoot film will tell you it is a different experience to digital capture, it is more "hands on" more deliberate and, in many cases, more rewarding, plus they simply prefer the "look" of film. If this really appeals to you, then you will need to put in the work to gain experience of it all. And don't forget, you don't need to scan every negative. Don't let your initial disappointment put you off. There is no free pass to getting good results with film; those that achieve this have worked hard for it.

JC replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

Hi Frank, thanks for the advice! I tried a demo version of Silverfast but I couldn't even get the scan to look sharp! it looked horrendous! But I have seen some people's results using it and now I'm sure there's something I'm doing very wrong! I'll give it another try and let you know. I really hope it's not a fault in the scanner that's giving me weird colors. Thank you, once again!

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

I think it's not your scanner! I just scanned a roll of Fuji Superia 200 (terrible film...) which was a test roll for my 'new' Olympus Trip 35 and the results were fine with SF. Just set it to a resolution of 3600 dpi (more does not get you much better results). In the Negafix section select your correct film. Use USM sharpening, but only at 'less sharpening' setting and leave the rest OFF. Good luck

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

Here you can see some of the scans: https://whyfilmcameras.com/2017/03/16/olympus-trip-35-the-photos/

JC replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

Hi Frank, I went back and gave silverfast another try and let me tell you.......I'm glad I did!!! I feel so much better now knowing that I can scan my own film with accurate look and color and not have to pay $15 to scan a single roll! I watched some videos on youtube where they walk you through it step by step; it really couldn't be any simpler! Their film profiles are pretty much spot on. The only things I adjust are the black, white and neutral points with the pippette and that's pretty much it! sometimes I might raise the exposure a tiny bit, but I hardly ever do that. Silverfast is far superior to Vuescan. Vuescan just cannot process the colors like Silverfast can. All my scans are either looking just as good but most of the time even better than the lab scans in terms of color. Anyways, for anybody reading this: don't waste your time and money with Vuescan.

Frank Lehnen replied:

Comment posted: 16/03/2017

Glad it worked out OK for you! When you get over the convoluted user interface of Silverfast, the results you get are great. Too bad it's expensive and if you change your scanner you have to buy a new license.... but that's the price of quality