Did you not like the film holders that came with the V850?Originally Posted by Kayaker72
The biggest problem I have had with scanning film is the dust on the negatives and screen.
Did you not like the film holders that came with the V850?
The biggest problem I have had with scanning film is the dust on the negatives and screen.
I am not scanning the negative film files yet. My family seemed to switch from slides to negatives in the early '80s. I have just entered the '70s. What I had done is in searching how best to use the scanner, I came across a couple of people that didn't like the film holders for the V850 and preferred, for example, the lomography "DigiLIZA". Then I came across other people that very much preferred the "picture of a picture" method over a flatbed scanner. While going through old prints, I did really like the picture of a picture method as well, but had an issue with glare from my light source. The negative supply company's film carrier seemed to solve that issue and also numerous people talked about how fast the method was (a big selling point).
But, to better answer your question, I just did a test of a grand total of 2 negatives, and my initial order of preference is: 1) V850 holder; 2) Film carrier (picture of a picture); and 3) DigiLiza. In testing scanning my positive slides, I noticed that I got sharper results with the feet fully extended, so I did that automatically for the V850 negative holder (this moves the holder further off the glass). The Digiliza rests on the glass, so it may not have been as in focus as the V850 holder, it was certainly softer. That said, the real purpose of the Digiliza is to flatten any negatives that want to bow and I can see how it would do that very well. It may perform better if I add feet to it to raise it off the glass. The "picture of a picture" negative test I could likely improve with a bit of practice. I just hand held the camera, for instance, rather than using the copy stand. I haven't bought the software that inverts the negative, I simply inverted the tone curve and didn't adjust from there. So, with tweaking, I bet this method will get there. No glare, so that goal was accomplished. I can see how it would be fast. But it will take a bit more work. But, for scanning only two negatives, the V850 holder gave good results right away. Inverted the image during the prescan, which was nice. Reasonable color. Nice. It will likely come down to speed of scanner vs the picture of picture and then using the Digiliza to flatten slides if needed.
Yes, the dust. Painful. And then the iSRD sometimes creates artifacts, so it is not a perfect solution. Right now I am scanning all my slides twice, once in regular and once with iSRD. I also have a pocket rocket, canned air, and microfiber cloths on hand.
What is nice, as I have already given the scans of my Grandmother's prints to family. I told them I would be happy to go back and rescan anything that they had an issue with as I had numerous issues (after a while you get in production mode). Not a peep. So, not surprisingly, my photographic standards are a bit above theirs. Which is something to remember, not all of these need to be fine art. They are about memories. A few dust particles and scratches might actually add to that feel. Then, a couple of special images, we might try to take and make perfect.
Oh...by the way. I dropped off my first roll of 120 yesterday. Asked when I might expect them, as it was all tests to check focus, checking my ability to expose properly, etc.
Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.
Film
On old family pictures many of them have scratches, water spots etc. So picture of a picture you are getting the defects of years. With the negative there may be age defects but you have a chance of getting a picture without cracking or other defects.
I bought the cover for the V850 to help keep the dust out. It is meticulous scanning and making sure there is no dust, but can be rewarding.
For instance, most of the pictures I have before the 1960's are small prints. Many of them are small and contact prints. All the pictures I had of my Grandpa, Mothers Father, were small and couldn't tell really what he looked like. It was good to scan a picture of him and see him on the 32" screen.
Ha ha but now you get to relive the nostalgia of waiting for prints! I took a few trips in the film days, bringing several dozen rolls with me. It was always a nerve-wracking time, carrying them carefully in x-ray proof bags and guarding them closer than your passport. Then dropping them all off at the developer and pacing back and forth for a week, wondering if any would turn out. Good memories!Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.
Film
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
I received my first roll back on the Mamiya 645. This was mostly rushed test shots. Unfortunate, but true. I wanted to get these off for developing before heading off to Florida. So, I ran around our house photographing a few things comparing the Mamiya 645 with 80 f/1.9 lens with Kodak Porta 400 to the R5 with the Sigma 50 f/1.4 art.
A few images:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Limit 5 images per post (when directly uploading) so:
6)
7)
OK...yes, we still had some Christmas decorations up in mid-January.
These are straight out of camera for the R5 and Sigma 50A. No modifications other than making the aspect ratio 4:3 to match 645. The MF images were scanned on my Epson V850 using Silverfast default settings. Only adjustments in LR was cloning dust (...and do new negatives attract dust!).
As for the key:
1) R5 and 50A f/1.4
2) Mamiya 80 f/1.9
3) Mamiya f/2.8
4) R5 f/2
5) Mamiya f/4
6) R5 f/2.2
7) R5 f/1.4
Ok, first, the equivalence of 645 f/1.9 for FF is f/1.2, but I do not own a 50 f/1.2 lens. But then some mistakes as I was rushing, 645 f/2.8 FF equivalence is f/1.7, I didn't shoot f/1.7. Also 645 f/4 equivalence is f/2.5, the closest I shot was f/2.2. There are also a few exposure issues as I was trying to adjust shutterspeeds to get the same exposure on the fly.
But, overall, you get the picture.
First conclusion. The MF images are not awful (IMO). I was prepared for them to be whether it be some sort of light leak in camera or to just totally miss exposure. They are underexposed, but I'll take it for the first attempt.
As for the differences:
- Check out the window in #1 and #2. I have heard it a couple of times now, but film holds highlight/white detail better. That sure seemed to be the case. Granted, there is an exposure issue between 1&2, but in every image I took with the window, with film, I can see details, with digital, I don't. I used 1&2 here to line up bokeh. But yes, this would be more conclusive is the exposure was identical.
If interested, here is #2 brought up a stop (and greens adjusted to better color match)
- The second item I've heard repeatedly, but film shadows are crushed. Definitely see something, but this could also be on exposure.
- Color is definitely different. Overall, I think the R5 was more accurate. However, what interests me is that colors from the entire scene seemed to affect the R5 image whereas with the film, each element seemed more independent. Specifically, I am looking the "A" in PEACE between 3 and 4. While I think the decorations and wall are more accurate with the R5, the metal letters have a tint that isn't there.
Otherwise, it seems to me that "equivalency" works.
Anyways, still just playing around. Hopefully I can get out and shoot some more and with a bit more experience and more preparation the tests will improve.
But now, I need to go work on my driveway....snow, sleet and freezing rain today. Yaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 02-05-2022 at 12:09 PM.
To be honest I have almost no interest in film as I barely make time to use my digital gear. Keep in mind that I still consider myself a beginner, but find myself learning from people on this forum as they share openly and inform people like me.
That being said, I examined all of the "peace" signs closely without peaking to see which camera took the shot. I noticed immediately that #4, #6 and #7 had much less detail on the right side (closest to the lens) of the letter A. Specifically, in my mind with the R5, it looks like the edge has relatively fresh paint on it and it pretty smooth, then when you look at #3 and #5 they look like the A was hand made many years ago. One minght think this is actualy a family herilom that that has been passed down for genereatiions. With the fine details of the film version, I personally think it tells a better story.
With regard to the Christmas treee with ornament photo, I actually prefer the #1 R5 photo. To my untrained eye it appears brighter, shows more details and looks more "real" to me.
I suspect my eyes and photo peeping skills are similar to some of your ralatives that you mentioned above (not very technical). Thanks for taking the time to share.
Scott
Thanks Scott.
This has turned into a bit of a dive for me, but I've always been a bit curious about film. Not so much to get into it, but just wondering "how good is/was it" type of thing.
I am still looking into the resolving power of film, as it does not seem simple. But, I can totally see what you describe in the "A". There may be two aspects of film coming into play: 1) Potentially impressive resolving power; and 2) Film manufacturers may be "cheaters." Of course, the third option is I did underexpose the MF relative to the R5.
But, assuming it was a legitimate difference between film and digial, a quick explanation.
Film may have more impressive resolving power than I appreciated. Keeping this on the simple side, Fujifilm reports the resolving power of their film and several people rave about Velvia 50 for its rendering and detail. Looking at Fujifilm's site, they list the resolving power of Velvia 50 at 160 line pairs per mm (lp/mm).
Converting this, a line pair is two lines, that means 320 lines per mm. Assuming a line is a single row of pixels, that gives us the digital equivalent of 320 pixels per mm. Then some quick math: 36 mm x 320 = 11,520; and 24 mm x 320 = 7,680 or, 11,520 x 7,680 = 88.5 MP equivalent to digital. My 645 MF film camera would be ~238 MP equivalent.
So, if we just take Fujifilm at their word, digital still has not caught up to film in terms of resolving power. Fujifilm backs this up with MTF charts. Velvia ISO 50 is on their page 48, PDF page 24.
This is where you can start to see the "cheating." Notice the MTF chart was that it peak significantly above 100% response. In most instances, that isn't possible. This guy has looked at this and has noticed with Velvia 50 (not all film) had whiter whites and blacker blacks than expected right at the boundary of the white and the black. Thus, the differential is greater than 100% of the contrast ratio of the chart.
Did something like this come into play with Kodak Portra 400 used to shoot the "A"? Not sure, but on the last page you can see Portra 400 has a similar MTF curve (last page in link). Also, if you are wondering, I think FujiFilm extrapolates their curve out to 7% response to get the 160 LP/mm value, but their curve does end before you reach 160 LP/mm and 7% line is bolded. In reading about how MTFs work, it seems like 2-5% response is still visible contrast.
I am still working on if converting LP/mm at 1000:1 contrast ratios translates as linearly as I did just above and have seen a few others do online. With film, they do indicate that resolving power drops with lower contrast. Using the Velvia 50 as a reference, they rate it at 160 LP/mm at 1000:1 and 80 LP/mm at 1.6:1 contrast ratio. Also, I came across this test where the 24 MP Sony A900 looks a lot better than various films. So, true resolution is not settled in my mind....
If people are interested, and also for my future reference: resolution units, Understanding MTF curves, and How to Read MTF curves.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 02-07-2022 at 01:10 PM.
Don't know much about film but I wonder how the size of silver halide crystals compares to pixels?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote