Scanning

I bought a Hasselblad 500c/m and have shot a few films with it. I sent out the films to be developed and scanned. I tried the standard scan at 1024x1024 px and the enhanced scan at 2048x2048 px. I’m not impressed by either. If I look at the actual slides on a light box they look pretty darn good, the digital images are nowhere near as good. 

I have no experience with scanning. If there’s anybody out there still shooting film I’d appreciate words of wisdom on scanning. 

Those are both low resolution scans(2048x2048=4.2 mp). Do you mean px or dpi (Difference Explained)? Look at the quality of these scanners. The first is not top of the line, yet far superior.

Canon Scanner

9600x6400dpi.

This is a better one, as I had mentioned to you in an earlier inquiry:

Epson Scanner

9600x9600dpi.

Here’s a link to a recent thread on scanners:

https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=276825

And here’s another article on dpi vs.ppi:

https://photographylife.com/dpi-vs-ppi

Somebody else here will be much more knowledgeable than me!

Joe

I meant PIxels not Dots Per Inch. I can get the film scanned 4760 x 4760 pixels for $20, this is the equivalent of 64.8 MB apparently. I could just buy the Epson and try it myself but I’d rather have the opinion of someone that has actually used one. Reading the reviews some are good and some say the medium format holder is not very good.

4760x4760 is nearly 23mp. That’s a big difference from 4.2mp.

Joe

Mike, this scanner may be of interest to you Plustek OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner - 5300 dpi.
Here's a link: https://www.adorama.com/icdpof120.html
Most of the poor reviews on this scanner are about the software and not the hardware, as the scanner itself seems reasonably good.
I have done a lot of 35mm slide scanning and I have found that the included software is generally pretty poor. So I never use the scanner software to do any adjustments for color, contrast, brightness and the like. What I do is scan the film at the highest optical resolution possible and create a TIF file. I then bring The scanned image in to Capture One (or Lightroom or any good RAW converter) and make all the adjustments in one of these programs as you have much more control over the output than any of the included scanner software programs.
If you want to do a really high quality scan of one of your images see if you can find someone locally who can do a "drum" scan.

signgrap wrote:Mike, this scanner may be of interest to you Plustek OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner - 5300 dpi.
Here's a link: https://www.adorama.com/icdpof120.html
Most of the poor reviews on this scanner are about the software and not the hardware, as the scanner itself seems reasonably good.
I have done a lot of 35mm slide scanning and I have found that the included software is generally pretty poor. So I never use the scanner software to do any adjustments for color, contrast, brightness and the like. What I do is scan the film at the highest optical resolution possible and create a TIF file. I then bring The scanned image in to Capture One (or Lightroom or any good RAW converter) and make all the adjustments in one of these programs as you have much more control over the output than any of the included scanner software programs.
If you want to do a really high quality scan of one of your images see if you can find someone locally who can do a "drum" scan.

In fact the scan software makes the difference. I had used the reknown Silverfast software (https://www.silverfast.com/) with my Nikon film scanner. This software is night and day from the the one bundled by the manufacturers but pretty expensive. And you have to buy the license for the special brand and type designation of your scanner. It cannot be used independentally for different scanners. You can perfectly make all the adjustments there without additional work in PS etc. There's a learning curve, though, because of the numerous options and settings. A drum scan still is better but from my experience the results with Silverfast are the maximum you can get with a given film scanner. Of course, the hardware is important, too. The Nikon scanners are not manufactured anymore, unfortunately, but from time to time they can be find on the used market.  For medium format, the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED would be the choice, if you just need 35mm, the Super Coolscan 5000 ED (or the older 4000 ED that I have) would be the option.  I've seen some rent offers here in Europe, too, but I don't know about the situation in the US.

Wolfgang

Thanks Guys, I appreciate the responses.

I have been told of a place in NYC that does excellent Drum scans. but at $50 per transparency for the cheapest option(100MB). I think I may send one just to get frame of reference for how good they are compared to the $20 per 120 roll (12 images) for the Superscan 64.8MB scan.

You may want to check out these folks who do a lot of processing, film and digital.

https://www.metalandpaper.photo/scans

They use the Heidelberg Drum Scanner. And their pricing sounds more reasonable than what you apparently have found, and do great work by reputation.

I did a search for the Nikon Coolscan. Yikes! At around $2000 too much for me I’m afraid. I think on my next few rolls I’ll try the super scan for $20 a roll and if there’s some that I really like I’ll try the place Robert suggested.

Thanks for the input.

Mike
These guys in AZ do scans using a Nikon Coolscan 9000. A 36mp scan of a 2”x2” costs $4.50 and a 64mp scan is $8. Might be worth trying a couple. 64mp should be pretty good. A 4.2mp like you got is very small for a medium format image.

https://www.digmypics.com/MediumLargeFormat.aspx

Joe

There's more to scanning than just resolution, you also need good performance on the shadows, quite easy to get noise in the shadows if you're not setting it up right or the equipment is not up to the task.  The scans you are getting with processing are most likely on minilab type equipment and really only good for making 4x6 prints and will be setup on auto and unlikely to capture the full tonal range in the film.  

An excellent alternative to a drum scan if you can find someone offering the service is an Imacon (or hassblad ) scanner.  A drum scan apparently requires much more skill on the part of the operator to get great results, compared to the Imacon.

Otherwise don't discount photographing your film.  A macro lens and a means to hold the film flat and parallel is required, but the results can be excellent.

Another thought is get a lightbox and loupe and evaluate your slides before deciding which you would like to scan and the get a scan according to its intended use.

ChrisRoss wrote:There's more to scanning than just resolution, you also need good performance on the shadows, quite easy to get noise in the shadows if you're not setting it up right or the equipment is not up to the task.  The scans you are getting with processing are most likely on minilab type equipment and really only good for making 4x6 prints and will be setup on auto and unlikely to capture the full tonal range in the film.  

An excellent alternative to a drum scan if you can find someone offering the service is an Imacon (or hassblad ) scanner.  A drum scan apparently requires much more skill on the part of the operator to get great results, compared to the Imacon.

Otherwise don't discount photographing your film.  A macro lens and a means to hold the film flat and parallel is required, but the results can be excellent.

Another thought is get a lightbox and loupe and evaluate your slides before deciding which you would like to scan and the get a scan according to its intended use.

 I believe the Heidelberg Tango has a 4.2 DMAX and from what I understand this is what is needed to give good shadow detail. 

I think the companies that use the Drum scanners have pretty good operators or they wouldn’t be in business too long. 

I did discount the photographing option. Even with a D850 at taking a 60mm x 60mm transparency and copying with 36mm x 24mm sensor doesn’t seem worthwhile especially when you consider the stand required. 

I have a lightbox and a loupe, this is how I know the low resolution scans are not very good as the transparencies are really nice. 

Thanks for the advice Chris. 

Just thinking about Chris’s suggestion about photographing the transparency. I suppose I could build a study frame using aluminum (aluminium) . This sort of stuff https://www.8020.net/. I have an LED lightbox which is bright enough. I could use a D850 and my 105mm Macro lens to take maybe 6 shots and stitch them together with PTGui.

I’ll have a think about this some more.