What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Stick with film and get a decent scanner

Hi Marc,

> What scanner(s) have that ability? [to set exposure time]

ALL scanners (the hardware that is) do! Whether the software supports this, is another question. I'd be hard pressed to believe the Imacon can't. Again, there is absolutely no need to scan typical B&W and color negatives using the same exposure time as slides. This is because slides typically have a higher density range.

Regards,

Austin
 
Sorry, I still don't get it.

None of the software I've ever used had any elective choice to vary scan speed. Of course you DO have to select film type, and that may be pre-programed to lengthen or shorten scan times as part of specific software film type selections. But nothing I know of allows separate selection of scanning speed.

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I just have never seen or heard of such control, and it's beyond my realm of experience. If it can, I'd like to know how.

It's been years since I used VueScan or SilverFast, I wonder if that software has any user elective scan speed controls?
 
>I think what he means is that you can vary the resolution (which >will change the scan time - at least it does on my Epson).
 
Duh, sure reducing resolution will reduce scan time. I can scan a 6X6 film in 2 seconds if I reduce the res to 5 meg : -)

That isn't what Austin said:

"Reducing the exposure time has no effect on resolution or bit depth."
 
Hi Robert,

> > The Coolscan 8000ED does not alter the exposure time, but it does > > alter the intensity/gain.

I seem to recall that this is a misnomer...it's not intensity/gain that is changed, but the exposure time. It was a discussion we had on the film scanner list some number of years ago. I can find out more if you want.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Ted,

> >I think what he means is that you can vary the resolution (which > >will change the scan time - at least it does on my Epson).

No, that is different. You should be able to change the exposure time of the scanner, just like you do with an enlarger or when taking a photo. Same effect.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Marc,

> None of the software I've ever used had any elective choice to vary > scan speed.

Well, though it techically does change the scan speed, it's simply the exposure time per line. The overall speed of the scanner is governed by the number of lines it scans, times the exposure time per line times an overhead per line for the scanner to move to the next line. Pretty straight forward and deterministic calculation.

I'm really hard pressed to believe this very simple and useful parameter would be left out of *ANY* scanner software. Typically, scanners to "auto exposure" to determine what they need for exposure time, and that is based on the intensity of the bulb, the aperture and the density of the film. This is done during the "preview" phase.

Regards,

Austin
 
If you have a Nikon scanner, and it has the misnamed "gain" control, if you change the gain, and the scan time changes, then it is simply changing exposure time. Try it and see. I found a couple of old posts that indicated that is how this worked. Less "gain" decreased overall scan time, which simply means less exposure time per line.

Regards,

Austin
 
Despite the theoretical advantages of 949, I am happy with my 646. There is one question I do wish to ask. Will there be one day that someone come up to me and say your images are not good enough because you are using a 646 instead of a 949 ?

I would rather fit a diffusor to my 646,make a cooling fan to reduce the heat and improve the Dmax and polish up my scanning and processing techniques. I would not consider a 949.In terms of the price, a 949 is just too much. Another way of saying this is that I am not rich enough.

Once one master the technique of scanning in different ways,match them together in layers, the difference between the scanners become blurr.
 
Those "theoretical" advantages are visually real, despite using words to discount them.

I agree about price. I used a demo 848 for 3 months prior to purchasing a 949. I would not have paid the full price for the 949 for incremental improvements over the 848, but for $1,500. I would ... and did.

Using your premiss, why pay a King's ransom for a Zeiss 85/1.2, when other 85's are reasonably close to it? In fact, polishing up your shooting technique will do more to improve the image quality than a $5,000. lens will accomplish. Is that $5,000. lens 3X as good as a Canon 85/1.2 ? ... having owned and shot with both of them I can answer for you ... no it is not, not even 2X better, not even 1.5X better. Just incrementally better.

But you pay the price so you can have the edge given all other things being equal.

Same concept for the scanner.

I do a lot of scanning during the wedding season. I need speed. I need D-Max, I need 17X22 enlargements or bigger without hard grain, I want multiple holders and batch scanning. You may not need this and the scanner you have is truely great for what you need.

BTW, matching layers is one way to do things, but also perfectly viable for any scanner including the 949.
 
Alright, let us quite the discussion between scanners.

A while ago, I took a portrait from my Hassy 180/4 at f4, scan it at 3200 dpi and enlarge it to super B size in Museo paper. I was pleased with the result. You remember the posting I made with the ripple in golden sunshine. It was scanned in the same way and made to fit into the web.To me, the scan result was grainy.

Apart from the type of scanner, there are different factors to affect the graininess of the final result.

For portraits, like many others, I tend to overexpose. For the late afternoon shot, I tend to underexpose. Underexposed film tends to give a more grainy final image.

Printing it in the Museo Silver paper also tends to reduce the fine details such as the grain. This paper seemed to emphasize the smooth transition of tonal gradation. Burnt out areas tends to be less burnt out.I find this paper great to create a soap and water feel.It is certainly not the kind I use for scientific work.
 
Do you guys with the Imacon scanners have good luck with scanning color negatives? I don't have any experience with the ccd scanners and was wondering how the Imacon with flexcolor handles color negs. My Tango running Linocolor scans chromes without equal but falls way short when it comes to color negs. The highlights often shift to a light cyan color. Look up tables are not as good with negs to where I don't even take them in anymore. They don't even give you film IT8 targets in neg form to make profiles with. Does Hasselblad provide with their scanners the ability to generate profiles from negatives? Thanks!

Michael Terry
 
I scan mostly negs Michael.

There are a number of specific film profiles to select from in Flexcolor. Some are pretty good, some are off a bit.

You can generate your own profiles which are then added to the list, which I have done.
In some cases I start with their profile, modify it to taste, and save it.
 
I have followed the digital/film discussions here and elsewhere with great interest. As an amateur, I cannot afford a good digital back (unless I live long enough for an affordable 54x54mm back to be marketed - perhaps by the Chinese) so have decided on a Coolscan LSD 9000 ED, which is just within my reach, and to stick with film for the present. What I hate being without is a darkroom. In the absence of a real one, a desktop one is the next best thing for me. I hope I haven't made a terrible mistake with this scanner.
 
Bojan, give yourself time to master the scanning techniques. Like darkroom work, it requires patience and building a routine to fit your vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top