james6
newbie
Reged: 13/12/2006
Posts: 27
|
|
A conversation around the table last night focused on how many pictures stayed in our digital cameras and never saw the light of day. My wife wants to revert to using film for her snapshots, which come out realy well from the disposable cameras she picks up in the £1 shop. It occurred to me [and the question may have been asked in the past] that if I carried on using my film cameras' which I really wish to do. I could keep the cost down by processing my own C41 as I still have all the process equipment and then scanning the negs into the computer. There is an offer on at the moment for a 35mm neg scanner for £69. I can't see a disadvantage as I can then send the odd neg for negative processing but have archival in the negs & PC. Everyones a winner. Touche la douche. As Delboy would say. Counter arguments and opinions welcome before I purchase the scanner. Or should this be in digital forum?
James
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3069
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
... but would your home processed C41 shots still ever "see the light of day" as prints or just be scanned and stay on the computer? Surely the main reason yor wife like the disposable cameras is that she gets a bundle of prints. 
--------------------
Rog
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 316
|
|
I have seen reviews of these cheap scanners, the conclusion is that they are poor performers. They are it seems, not really scanners, but have a small sensor, much like a digital compact camera. A used film scanner from one of the recognised manufacturers may prove to be a better proposition.
|
james6
newbie
Reged: 13/12/2006
Posts: 27
|
|
"but would your home processed C41 shots still ever "see the light of day"
Agree with that point. But I get a good neg for print process with I hope better quality than digi. Plus I can carry on using my trad cameras. Has anybody else gone down this road rather than the seduction of digi?
James
|
frank1
addict
Reged: 14/06/2005
Posts: 628
Loc: the big smoke islington
|
|
I could go down this route and often think about it and then I think why. I scanned a neg the other day and the dust was just too much. In the time it took me to do one neg I'd have loaded a card full of images on to the pc. Now don't start me on processing the negs. I do feel sad when I think of my film cameras sitting around doing nothing but alas their end is nigh.
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 757
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
I regularly use my Nikon FM2 film camera as well as digital. I usually shoot colour print film (think I've more or less settled on Superia 200 or 400), though I have been trying XP2 recently. I get the dev done at a local camera shop mini lab, and normally get 6x4" prints and a high-res (~8Mpixel) scan of the whole film to CD, so I get the best of both worlds. Getting the scan done at dev time costs about a fiver, but does seem to usually avoid dust problems. For a couple of quid extra I can use the one hour service, and get prints and scan the same day, with minimal hassle.
Edited by AlexMonro (08/07/2008 10:02)
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
a high-res (~8Mpixel) scan of the whole film to CD,
Some of us might want a higher resolution than that - and to have the scan file as a 16-bit TIFF so that we can manipulate it without artifacts.
Dust is a fixable problem, try a rocket blower.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1185
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
Some of us might want a higher resolution than that - and to have the scan file as a 16-bit TIFF so that we can manipulate it without artifacts.
Strewth I should say so. I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 for 35mm at 24MP and an Epson 4990 for larger sizes with scanned 4x5s being 320MP always in TIFF. Expensive scanners but one gets what one pays for.
|
Per
old hand
Reged: 28/11/2005
Posts: 716
Loc: UK Berkshire
|
|
I've just completed a book, published 1st July, with all images scanned on a Nikon Coolscan and printed at 300ppi and I am very satisfied with the results. In my opinion not only do they look different to digital, but the tonality, shadow detail and colours are actually more convincing.
One of the benefits of film is you can always get a better scan done when you need top quality (you don't need to get an expensive scanner straight away), and you have all the digital workflow and tools available.
Go for it!
--------------------
There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and after
that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second.
Logan Pearsall Smith (1865-1946)
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 757
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
Quote:
Some of us might want a higher resolution than that - and to have the scan file as a 16-bit TIFF so that we can manipulate it without artifacts.
Indeed, I'm sure many do. Certainly my approach doesn't get anywhere near ultimate quality, but it's probably better than a disposable. However, the OP seemed to have cost (both equipment and ongoing) and convenience as fairly high priorities.
I realise that some labs do offer 16-bit TIFF scans at much higher resolutions, but they do charge rather more than a fiver for the service. And the equipment cost, not to mention time required, to do it oneself, is not trivial.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2585
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Some branches of Tesco will process and scan to CD for around £2. It's not a standard option, but they do have a bar-code for it. (Other branches which don't have the equipment on site charge more.) The scan quality isn't the best but is adequate for small prints, and it's done before the dust attaches itself to the negatives.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
SqueamishOssifrage
veteran
Reged: 13/09/2006
Posts: 1489
Loc: Ayia Anna, Hub of the Universe
|
|
Quote:
Has anybody else gone down this road rather than the seduction of digi?
Yes! I have not 'gone digital' yet, and mostly use Reala and a KM 5400 II scanner. I agree with Per that you do not need a top-end scanner straight away, as you can also rescan the negs again later. However, I would not recommend going for a very cheap scanner initially either. I have seen some pretty acceptable results from the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 Film Scanner
--------------------
'You people, you think I know duck nothing; I tell you: I know duck all.'
Credited to Michael Curtiz by David Niven
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9477
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
A conversation around the table last night focused on how many pictures stayed in our digital cameras and never saw the light of day.
Considering how cheaply you can get digital prints made these days this sometimes seems a bit odd... Still I suppose so many households have PC's available to all that it's almost as convenient to simply view 'em that way.
Yesterday I picked up my digital snaps from a recent holiday - 150+ 7x5inch images, all keepers, for just under £15! I'd be lucky to get 3 rolls of 35mm processed and printed for the same price and they wouldn't be 100% keepers either, prints from digital are such good value I'm surprised more people don't have them done...
(Of course we won't mention all the naff image files that went straight to the recycle bin..........  )
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 713
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
My wife also quickly went back to film. She has been using Olympus compacts for some years now, so when the opportunity arose to buy a refurbished Mju 300 cheaply, I bought her one.
Her main problem was with shutter lag - she was so used to pressing the shutter button on her Mju film compact and taking the shot, that the shutter lag on the Mju 300 meant that she ended up with blurred photos! Suffice to say that the Mju 300 got resold on eBay for what I paid for it, and she is now happily using her Mju film compact again.
Digital is not for everyone - it is just a shame that happy snappers will not have the opportunity in the future to buy a new film camera (other than perhaps a throw-away)and may forsake photography altogether. Have the manufacturers dropped 35mm compacts too soon?
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
Wheelu
member
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 168
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
Agree with other posters that you need to buy a decent scanner.
I would look for a second hand Epson 4990 flatbed scanner, which will do an excellent job with medium format negs and a satisfactory job with 35mm. I traded up from a lesser Epson to the 4990 and was then faced with the task of re-scanning all of my stuff, the improvement in quality was worth it.
A flatbed scanner would probably not be an acceptable solution for a professional user, certainly for 35mm film, but the dedicated film scanners are much more expensive. (I guess that very few pros use 35mm film these days.  )
A major problem is holding the film flat, and the supplied negative holders are far from perfect.
A final thought, I find it much easier to scan colour reversal rather than colour negative film, perhaps because the negative film comes with a colour mask. On the other hand B&W negatives scan a treat
--------------------
My Flickr Photos
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
