Is a Film Scanner better?

Rolf wrote:

Even though I do not have a scanner to compare pictures with I am perfectly happy with my setup (see previous post) but I understand the need for justifying the high expense of both time and money by the ones that elected to go that route. So what we get is a drove of letters with general statements and without much emphasize on actual verifiable comparisons.

I would dearly love to see the full write up in the UK magazine. Could you please post a link or if possible FAX me a copy.

Snap Happy said:

7. So far the DLSR seems to produce very comparable results to my
scanned shots. One review in a UK magazine compared 6Mp DSLR's to a
scanned 100 ISO slide and concluded that there was little to be
gained from film up to A4 prints. Well, I've printed above this
size and IMHO both produce comparable results, even when the film
is Velvia. I have good prime lenses too.

Click to expand...

Bernie Ess said:

Myself I have both but despite the resolution disadvantage of
everything under 6MP (and even then...) I prefer digital by far.
Its cool and great fun, whereas scanning film is boring, slooooow
and just a horrible work to me.

Click to expand...

I think that film is cool and fun! I guess it's because it just seems different and novel to me

There is somewhat more resolution in film, even after you factor in the grain issue, but only if you use ISO 100 film and high quality lenses. The prosumer digital camera (like the excellent Sony F707 which I have) will outperform a point and shoot film camera.

I think that most people would prefer digital over film. But film is still cool.

Capital Man,

I have the Canon scanner and when you scan a sharp slide or neg you are going to be amazed. See my post here "Get out those slides & negs".
John

Capital Man said:

elwood said:

Is a film scanner, with negatives from a quality 35mm SLR, better
than the output of, say, the G2?

Click to expand...

This is an excellent question to ask.

I just got a new Canoscan FS4000, so soon I will have the answer
for you. I will be compare it to my Sony F717.

Personally, I feel like completely rebelling against the high-tech
stuff, and buying a Voigtlander Bessa R2, a completely manual
rangefinder camera with interchangeable, built like a camera from
the 1960s.

But if the Canoscan FS4000 + film doesn't give results much better
than my F717, then I suppose I won't bother buying any more film
cameras.

Click to expand...

--
JWP

You've received a number of excellent replies here. I use a digital camera (Canon G2) plus a number of film cameras. There's no question the digital is faster and cleaner and that scanning is a drag -- particularly if you do a lot of it.

If you have the patience, though, you can squeeze out very high quality from 35mm, whether slides, B&W or col negs. A bit of NeatImage at the end can tame the grain aliasing thing. Although tedious at times, particularly the cleanup of dust and scratches, a scanner allows me to continue using my older 35mm SLR gear. Sure, I'd rather own a DSLR, but it's too large a financial commitment for me today.

Despite my preference for a total digital workflow, having a scanner has had two additional side benefits for me:

1. Family history scans. My extended family has a lot of 35mm negs and slides and they trust me with them. I'm scanning all the early stuff. This is bringing images back to life and everyone in the family enjoys seeing the old stuff again. Plus I distribute CD's like crazy so these images should stay around in the family for awhile.

2. Owning a scanner allowed me to make an interesting decision on purchasing a carry-around camera. The G2 is too bulky and too expensive for me to schlep around with on the way to and from work, and my SLR's are even bigger. Smallish digitals are fairly pricey with a low mpx count, so I purchased a fun 35mm P&S camera: Olympus Stylus Epic. A sharp, non-zoom 35mm f2.8 lens and I can literally carry it in my pocket. It was cheap and I'm getting good scans from Fuji Superia Xtra 800 film.

Everyone's mileage will vary.

Gene

--
http://www.NorthernJourney.com/

elwood said:

Is a film scanner, with negatives from a quality 35mm SLR, better
than the output of, say, the G2?

Click to expand...

Without any doubt, yes! I do have to preface it by saying that not all 35mm scanners are to be included here. Also, if you wanted to scan a negative and have no real experience in color printing, the results may very well disappoint you.
Rinus of Calgary

I am refering to the absolute pleasure of the the excercise of shooting on film and the process involved to get to the end result.

I am happy to get out of the darkroom where I have spent nearly 40 years looking at black walls. The digital age gets me out and I am still as involved as always. My darkroom experience is what helps me do a better job digitally than most people that have never seen a darkroom at all. The mystique of seeing a print come up from pure white paper while in the developer is not to be equaled by anything else, not even the instant preview on a camera LCD. Unfortunately, the "Instant Age" is slowly taking over and most people in this forum do not even know that the color of light changes every second of the day. We are now doing this "Instant gratification" thing.
Rinus of Calgary

JWP said:

Capital Man,
I have the Canon scanner and when you scan a sharp slide or neg you
are going to be amazed. See my post here "Get out those slides &
negs".

Click to expand...

Well.... I've scanned in some slides, which I thought were sharp, and there is a little more resolution in the scanned slide than in the F707, but so far it's been a somewhat disappointing experience. (All my slides are Fuji Sensia 100.)

The huge increase in resolution just doesn't seem to be there.

I guess that F707 is a damn good camera! You can still do stuff with film you can't do wit hthe F707, like photography with a 28mm lens, and with a 135mm lens you can take portraits with blurred backgrounds. I intend to experiment with both effects.

Do you think it's my crappy Minolta MD 50mm F1.7 lens? Maybe I need a Contax G1.

Rinus said:

Without any doubt, yes! I do have to preface it by saying that not
all 35mm scanners are to be included here. Also, if you wanted to
scan a negative and have no real experience in color printing, the
results may very well disappoint you.

Click to expand...

Even slides require some extensive photoshopping to go equal the computer controlled quality that comes right out of the digital camera.

Of course I enjoy playing around with curves and gamma and that stuff.

Okay, guys, let me try to answer all your questions. (even if this is a bit of a ramble)

The main lesson I learned while doing research is that EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION.

Contax G2 vs. other rangefinders: I don't profess to have bought the best, because as I was doing my research, there didn't seem to be a perfect rangefinder. But I had to go on faith. Some say that the G2 is the Leica for the 21st century (rich in rhetoric, admittedly - but Rangefinder people tend to be poetic about their cameras - just read the forums and you'll agree).

Lenses: The more I read reviews in the online articles, the more I realized how subjective this area is. You learn about contrast, color rendition, open vs closed aperture, bokeh (the aesthetics concerning the out-of-focus areas), and all that stuff. I'm not technical enough to read the graphs and charts.

Personally bottom line? Leitz, Zeiss, Voightlander ... they're all good in their own way. As the photographer, it's your job to make art with what whatever you've got. (To the guy who read that Voightlander was the sharpest - I read that they are the sharpest FOR THE PRICE, but they MIGHT NOT compare to Leica or Zeiss - again, another's opinion.)

The G2 Specifically. Leica people say it's loud. A leica makes no sound, although remember that a leica is hand-cranked. The shutter is made of rubber, and does need servicing periodically. The Leica film autoadvance option is not so quiet. The G2 is not as loud as most SLRs, and it's mostly heard by the photographer. It's hardly noticed by people who are, say, farther than 5 feet away.

I find that the focus is fast, it zips into position, even if the lens always returns to the starting position after the shot is made. Unlike the contrast-method used by digicams that seem to "find" the focus based on trial and error. The G2 is certainly many many times faster than the auto focus of all the digicams I've used. It uses two methods of determining focus. One method uses two infrared beams to calculate the distance -- the same thing as if you were doing it manually on a Leica, but it's figured electronically.

Conclusion: There's no perfect camera. Not even a Leica is perfect. I didn't like the fact that the max shutter speed is 1000/sec. And I do like autowind.

The G2 has a limited number of lenses, and the fastest lenses are only F2. But you can still get good existing light shots at F2. The lenses are good fully open. The shutter response is very good, and it feels solid and substantial.

How did I do research? Google.com.

Look up Contax G2, Leica M6 M7 and all the rest, and you'll find a lot of sites. (try photographyreview.com and go to the reviews section; camerareview.com, among others) They are reviewed by people like us.

Do this and see if you agree with me: read the Leica reviews by the Faithful Leica-ites. Is it my imagination or do they only wax poetic in their praise? Users of other cameras are more apt to use more objective language in their reviews. Honestly, if I read another Leica reviewer comparing Ferraris to Fords ...

-- Martin

newsposter said:

yes it is.

Click to expand...

--
C2100UZ, D600L and that 1.45x teleconverter lens(fits both cameras) Kenko 3X
http://www.pbase.com/ihor/fotographia

Did you get the F717? How would you compare your scanner vice your 717??

TIA

D.

Capital Man said:

Rinus said:

Without any doubt, yes! I do have to preface it by saying that not
all 35mm scanners are to be included here. Also, if you wanted to
scan a negative and have no real experience in color printing, the
results may very well disappoint you.

Click to expand...

Even slides require some extensive photoshopping to go equal the
computer controlled quality that comes right out of the digital
camera.

Of course I enjoy playing around with curves and gamma and that stuff.

Click to expand...

--
DeeDee G.
http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root

DeeDee G. said:

Did you get the F717? How would you compare your scanner vice your
717??

Click to expand...

I have an F707.

There is very little quality difference between the scanned slide and the F707 image direct from the camera. I guess the F707 is just a damned good camera. It probably has the top resolution of any digital camera for $1000 or less.

Although the Canoscan FS4000 makes close to a 20 megapixel image, it's not 20 quality megapixels. There is a little bit more detail than in the F707 image, but not that much more.

It's amazing how close the F707 comes to film, yet the F707 has a sensor that's 1/15 the size of 35mm film.

Of course it might be the camera lens. I just bought a 135mm lens for my Minolta manual focus, I will see if the the 135mm is any better, or worse, than the 50mm. I am also trying out Fuji Reala to see if it's any better than Fuji Sensia.

I may have to be a Contax G1 to get the ultimate in image quality from film.

Capital man,

Out of curiosity, your 20 meg file from the canon 4000, is that after you rezed down? Are you scanning to get a 300dpi image ultimately? I scan my slides at 4000dpi at 42 bit & then rez down from there. That is how I get the best quality. Of course you are talking about a 100 meg initial file.

Capital Man said:

DeeDee G. said:

Did you get the F717? How would you compare your scanner vice your
717??

Click to expand...

I have an F707.

There is very little quality difference between the scanned slide
and the F707 image direct from the camera. I guess the F707 is
just a damned good camera. It probably has the top resolution of
any digital camera for $1000 or less.

Although the Canoscan FS4000 makes close to a 20 megapixel image,
it's not 20 quality megapixels. There is a little bit more detail
than in the F707 image, but not that much more.

It's amazing how close the F707 comes to film, yet the F707 has a
sensor that's 1/15 the size of 35mm film.

Of course it might be the camera lens. I just bought a 135mm lens
for my Minolta manual focus, I will see if the the 135mm is any
better, or worse, than the 50mm. I am also trying out Fuji Reala
to see if it's any better than Fuji Sensia.

I may have to be a Contax G1 to get the ultimate in image quality
from film.

Click to expand...

--
JWP

Rolf,

The article I was refering to was a comparison review between the Nikon D100 & Fuji S2. They used a Nikon F100, and took the same shots as with the digital camera, matching the focal lengths using the same zooms as in the main test (Nikkor 28-105 & 24-85). Film was Sensia 100 & Kodak Elite Chrome 100. The slides were scanne on a Nikon LS4000. Their conclusion was:

'The results showed just how far digital cameras have come, and at A4 there is little to choose between the prints. Above A4 the higher resolution available from the film/scanner route does just give it the edge for ultimate picture quality'.

Rolf K said:

Snap Happy said:

7. So far the DLSR seems to produce very comparable results to my
scanned shots. One review in a UK magazine compared 6Mp DSLR's to a
scanned 100 ISO slide and concluded that there was little to be
gained from film up to A4 prints. Well, I've printed above this
size and IMHO both produce comparable results, even when the film
is Velvia. I have good prime lenses too.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Your comment is without basis. Film is not WYSIWYG. OK, slide film is a little closer to what you mean but negative film is at a distinct advantage when it comes to dynamic range and as a color printer I can tell you that the negative is not even close to a RAW file for ease of correcting.
Rinus of Calgary

.............

Capital Man said:

Rinus said:

Without any doubt, yes! I do have to preface it by saying that not
all 35mm scanners are to be included here. Also, if you wanted to
scan a negative and have no real experience in color printing, the
results may very well disappoint you.

Click to expand...

Even slides require some extensive photoshopping to go equal the
computer controlled quality that comes right out of the digital
camera.

Of course I enjoy playing around with curves and gamma and that stuff.

Click to expand...

I must admit that the correcting of scans is part of my expertise and I do it before I push the scan button. The output I get in photoshop is much like the final output you need for printing. The amount of actual correcting before scanning can be extensive but it always rewards me with a better than average image/scan. My printing background is largely the cause of that. No matter what the scan, though better, is also time consuming. The digital camera is a different medium and probably that is a good thing. It gives guys like me a choice to choose the best medium for the job.
Rinus of Calgary

Good answers and as an ex Leica rangefinder shooter I have another point to add to the validity of the rangefinder type. I do not know which makes the better lenses but I do know that any rangefinder camera is considerably more accurate with focussing than a reflex camera. The split image when lined up correctly focusses where the infinitely flat focus area of the lens is situated. The reflex is bound by depth of field in it's focussing. Even the new electronic focussing devices in the reflex are constructed with considerable tolerances.

The noiseless shutter in the Leica is a real plus when firing that camera in a church or other place where detection is not recommended. I also know that my earlier Leicas needed no servicing for 250,000 frames. A feat not equaled today!
Rinus of Calgary

JWP said:

Capital man,
Out of curiosity, your 20 meg file from the canon 4000, is that
after you rezed down?

Click to expand...

The scanned image has 20 megapixels. The file size of the TIFF is 120 megabytes, because each pixel takes up 6 bytes when scanned at 42 bit.

Also, I mis-spoke before. There is a lot more resolution in the scanned slide when compared to film. But I ran NeatImage to get rid of the noise, and that got rid of a lot of the extra resolution as well.

It's absolutely necessary to use NeatImage to get a decent looking web sized image. I need to try printing out at 8 x 10 without NeatImage and see how noticeable the grain is.

Film would be totally awesome of they could just make it finer grained.

Rinus said:

I must admit that the correcting of scans is part of my expertise
and I do it before I push the scan button. The output I get in
photoshop is much like the final output you need for printing. The
amount of actual correcting before scanning can be extensive but it
always rewards me with a better than average image/scan.

Click to expand...

The correction tools in the Canon "FilmGet" software seems to be the same as the tools in my Corel PhotoPaint software, so I'd rather use PhotoPaint which I'm familar with.