Can we talk about film?

[mollyc]

Do you have to use the Silverfast software with the Plustek? I get that it's bundled with the product...But if you want to do a manual conversion or use something like Negative Lab Pro, can you use a Plustek as a hardware only option?

Right now I camera scan and I get decent enough results, but since I use a tripod and not a c-stand, I've come to realize I waste a lot of time cropping in post because I overshoot the frame to make sure I get the edges. A c-stand would be a lot easier to maneuver the height easily, but they aren't cheap either.

 

[mollyc]

Oh, I have found out the answer is yes, I could use NLP with a Plustek....although I did see a review on B&H that someone could not get the Plustek to work with his M1 machine, so now I have to research that next. But here is an excellent article on a workflow with a Plustek and NLP. If you aren't interested in NLP, he also has a well written article on his site about using Silverfast; but he prefers NLP now and it basically halved his work time.

GEAR - My scanning workflow & Negative Lab Pro - Editorial by KJ Vogelius

ETA: It seems like Silverfast works in Rosetta.

 

[lcubed]

Do you have to use the Silverfast software with the Plustek? I get that it's bundled with the product...But if you want to do a manual conversion or use something like Negative Lab Pro, can you use a Plustek as a hardware only option?

Right now I camera scan and I get decent enough results, but since I use a tripod and not a c-stand, I've come to realize I waste a lot of time cropping in post because I overshoot the frame to make sure I get the edges. A c-stand would be a lot easier to maneuver the height easily, but they aren't cheap either.

silverfast 9 runs with no issues on the m1 architecture.
the plustek 8300AI have been very compatible with the silverfast/quickscan and vuescan softwares on M1 as well.

it's possible the B&H user got a bad one in the box or i know that the folks who make the powerslide and powerfilm scanners recommend not using a usbA to usbC adapter.

i’m using it on a mac studio with USB-A ports.

i haven’t tried NLP, but i’ve seen at least one youtube video where they used vuescan, scanned the negative as a positive and fed that into Lightroom and the NLP plugin.

vuescan runs full apple silicon native

 

[dimme]

Right now I camera scan and I get decent enough results, but since I use a tripod and not a c-stand, I've come to realize I waste a lot of time cropping in post because I overshoot the frame to make sure I get the edges. A c-stand would be a lot easier to maneuver the height easily, but they aren't cheap either.

A DYI copy stand is pretty easy to make. there a quite a few YouTube videos out there if you are interested.

 

[bunnspecial]

Little side note-

I'd thought that ICE with Kodachrome was exclusive to the Nikon Coolscan 9000.

A bit of reading(from the manual of all places) and I've just found out that all Nikon ICE4 scanners can use ICE with Kodachrome. That includes the 5000 and V...so now I'm off to play with it!

At least in the later K-14 process, as far as I know 120 Kodachrome was a short-lived and never very popular 80s experiment, and the vast majority of Kodachrome out there was/is 35mm.

Of course I now have extra reason to want a 9000...the past few days when scanning I've been using DEE, which is part of the ICE hardware and helps get shadow detail out. I've been amazed at what it can pull out of Velvia scans that I couldn't get on other scanners, even though I have used this V a lot. DEE I guess I hadn't realized isn't there on my 8000, as it's also tied in with ICE4.

So, maybe I'll just have to bend over and buy a 9000...the 8000 was expensive enough!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

what additional software did you think was required for the plustek?

Not all PlusTek scanners come with the latest version of Silverfast (a product with a hilariously old-school-looking website!), so I assume some models might come with some upgrade costs depending on my ultimate needs.

I don't think those scanners are so expensive as to be ridiculous, but getting from where I am now to having the capability and skill to create high-quality scans of my film is going to be a significant money and time investment, and there aren't any satisfactory shortcuts.

 

[lcubed]

i've also been testing a plastek 8300. since that one requires manual advancement of the image holder, it requires the most user intervention. for virtually every negative, i would have to adjust the frame limits in the silverfast software. it's also scans fast enough that you need to stay nearby.

initially, i was convinced the ISRD cleaning on the 8300 wasn't working. during the troubleshooting process, we determined that the IR defect scan was not aligned with the RBG scan, so the removal algorithms didn't work properly. both silverfish and vuescan are now aware and have solutions.

(silverfast requires going into the ISRD expert settings and manually tweaking the XY offset, while vuescan was updated to find the correctly align the IR defect scan with the RGB scan).

the ISRD on the 8300 seems much more sensitive to dust and scratches than the PIE PowerFilm. i scanned a couple of scratched negatives back to back and output of the 8300 was showing scratches and dust that were totally corrected on the PowerFilm.

all units were tested at maximum optical resolution to produce 48 bit TIFFs for maximum post processing flexibility.
the powerslide ==> 5000 dpi, powerfilm & 8300AI==> 3600 dpi

an update: scanning and testing continues

today i received a PIE Primefilm XEs. quite similar to the PlusTek 8300AI in operation using either a six position negative holder or a four slide holder.

from other reviews, the XEs can resolve upwards of 4200 dpi when used in 5000 dpi mode while the 8300AI (which supposedly uses 8200 optics with faster processing) resolves < 3300 dpi in the 3600 dpi mode.

i tested both using silverfast 9 AI. silverfast AI is included with the 8300AI while the XEs ships with silverfast 8.8 SE. i upgraded that one to silverfast 9 AI for under 100$ so that i could do back to back testing with exactly the same software.

observations:

1) the 8300AI is significantly faster and quieter when doing a scan.
to do scratch an dust removal, the 8300AI requires a second pass to generate an IR detection mask. (this approach as currently implemented has issues)

2) the XEs is definitely louder, but combines the RGB and IR in the same scanning pass.

given the first observation, one would think that the 8300AI would be my first choice for scanning negatives and transparency, but the two passes required for scratch/dust removal causes problems.

i was quite surprised when i reran a group of 35 negative through the 8300AI which had been scanned using the PIE Powerfilm. More than half displayed uncorrected dust and scratches.

Upon further investigation using the MARK mode of the silverfast iSRD, it became evident that the IR dust/scratch mask was offset from the RGB scanned image and causing the automatic scratch removal to fail. The amount varies from scan to scan.

the current offered solution from silverfast and plustek is to run the iSRD in manual mode, and view in MASK mode, then manually offset the IR mask to match the RBG image. currently, i've seen adjustments up to +/- 40 ticks in the vertical and +/- 10 ticks in the horizontal.

this solution adds a significant amount of hand holding to the scanning process since you can't trust the iSRD to operate in the automatic mode reliable.

the XEs, on the other hand, when running the exact same software, has not shown a single instance of IR mask mismatch (due to the combined IR/RGB scan) and appears totally reliable automatic operation for iSRD. Total time to preview, frame, and scan is significantly shorter using the XEs than the 8300AI since the iSRD for the XEs works reliably in automatic mode.

in terms of output, the XEs shows finer detail than the 8300AI.

if plustek manages to fix the iSRD mismatch issues of the 8300, it could be a great scanner, but right now, the XEs (although slower) works more reliably and produces a more detailed final image with greater dynamic range.

Total all up cost of the XEs (and software upgraded to silverfast 9 AI) was less than the 8300AI (with the included silverfast 9 AI)

 

[mollyc]

an update: scanning and testing continues

today i received a PIE Primefilm XEs. quite similar to the PlusTek 8300AI in operation using either a six position negative holder or a four slide holder.

from other reviews, the XEs can resolve upwards of 4200 dpi when used in 5000 dpi mode while the 8300AI (which supposedly uses 8200 optics with faster processing) resolves < 3300 dpi in the 3600 dpi mode.

i tested both using silverfast 9 AI. silverfast AI is included with the 8300AI while the XEs ships with silverfast 8.8 SE. i upgraded that one to silverfast 9 AI for under 100$ so that i could do back to back testing with exactly the same software.

observations:

1) the 8300AI is significantly faster and quieter when doing a scan.
to do scratch an dust removal, the 8300AI requires a second pass to generate an IR detection mask. (this approach as currently implemented has issues)

2) the XEs is definitely louder, but combines the RGB and IR in the same scanning pass.

given the first observation, one would think that the 8300AI would be my first choice for scanning negatives and transparency, but the two passes required for scratch/dust removal causes problems.

i was quite surprised when i reran a group of 35 negative through the 8300AI which had been scanned using the PIE Powerfilm. More than half displayed uncorrected dust and scratches.

Upon further investigation using the MARK mode of the silverfast iSRD, it became evident that the IR dust/scratch mask was offset from the RGB scanned image and causing the automatic scratch removal to fail. The amount varies from scan to scan.

the current offered solution from silverfast and plustek is to run the iSRD in manual mode, and view in MASK mode, then manually offset the IR mask to match the RBG image. currently, i've seen adjustments up to +/- 40 ticks in the vertical and +/- 10 ticks in the horizontal.

this solution adds a significant amount of hand holding to the scanning process since you can't trust the iSRD to operate in the automatic mode reliable.

the XEs, on the other hand, when running the exact same software, has not shown a single instance of IR mask mismatch (due to the combined IR/RGB scan) and appears totally reliable automatic operation for iSRD. Total time to preview, frame, and scan is significantly shorter using the XEs than the 8300AI since the iSRD for the XEs works reliably in automatic mode.

in terms of output, the XEs shows finer detail than the 8300AI.

if plustek manages to fix the iSRD mismatch issues of the 8300, it could be a great scanner, but right now, the XEs (although slower) works more reliably and produces a more detailed final image with greater dynamic range.

Total all up cost of the XEs (and software upgraded to silverfast 9 AI) was less than the 8300AI (with the included silverfast 9 AI)

i'm curious how your scanning is going. i'm not convinced of my camera scan workflow just yet. i wonder if I am underexposing in camera some, although i actually shoot about a stop overexposed when shooting negatives. my camera scans just never seem as clean as lab scans. i am also getting some weird vignetting that i haven't figured out if is happening in my film camera or if the negative isn't being held tight enough in the film holder. it's not every image though.

 

[dimme]

i'm curious how your scanning is going. i'm not convinced of my camera scan workflow just yet. i wonder if I am underexposing in camera some, although i actually shoot about a stop overexposed when shooting negatives. my camera scans just never seem as clean as lab scans. i am also getting some weird vignetting that i haven't figured out if is happening in my film camera or if the negative isn't being held tight enough in the film holder. it's not every image though.

I would not give up on camera scans yet. I a past life I managed a pro photo lab, we had everything from drum scanners to fuji frontier scanners and a lot in-between. My favorite being the Imacon Flextight scanner. I still have boxes and boxes of film to scan. I am using my DSLR and a macro lens. I think it is important to eliminate flair in the capture.
I fine the Nikon es1 or es2 depending on you lens does a great job.
As far as your vignetting issue I don't think it is because of the film not being held tight, if that was the case you would seed focus fall off first and not vignetting. Hope this helps.

 

[mollyc]

I would not give up on camera scans yet. I a past life I managed a pro photo lab, we had everything from drum scanners to fuji frontier scanners and a lot in-between. My favorite being the Imacon Flextight scanner. I still have boxes and boxes of film to scan. I am using my DSLR and a macro lens. I think it is important to eliminate flair in the capture.
I fine the Nikon es1 or es2 depending on you lens does a great job.
As far as your vignetting issue I don't think it is because of the film not being held tight, if that was the case you would seed focus fall off first and not vignetting. Hope this helps.

I'm using a z6 and my 105 macro for scanning. The images with the vignette are with a Nikon F100 and a 35mm G lens. I use the 35mm the most on the F100; I used it exclusively on two rolls (one Kodak Gold and one Ektar) that I had lab scanned and none of those were particularly vignette-y, but I scanned a roll of Gold yesterday and some are super vignette-y. That said, the rolls I had lab scanned were almost all super bright sun, and the roll I scanned myself was a lot more variable in the light.

I know people will just say, "what do the negatives look like" but I'm not great at eyeballing negatives, particularly color ones. Maybe I need a loupe.

 

[MajorFubar]

Was reading through all this, had more or less decided that I was going to stump-up the money for the Plustek 8300i AI because if you're going to do a job you may as well do it the best you can, then I realised they don't sell it in the UK, only the cheaper SE.
Why should I not be surprised.

 

[lcubed]

Was reading through all this, had more or less decided that I was going to stump-up the money for the Plustek 8300i AI because if you're going to do a job you may as well do it the best you can, then I realised they don't sell it in the UK, only the cheaper SE.
Why should I not be surprised.

silverfast has promised a software fix in the next 9AI update for the iSRD issue of my 8300AI.

however, in my testing of the 8300AI and the PIE Primefilm XEs with the latest update of silverfast 9 AI (i think that's the Reflecta Proscan 10T on your side of the pond), if you need robust dust and scratch removal, the Primefilm XEs seems to do a better job in the detection of defects.

I have a set of 35 mm negatives taken back in 1986 in the australian outback that were badly scratched. even when driven with the expert settings, the 8300AI simply fails to detect some of those scratches, while the Primefilm XEs nails all of them in the automatic mode. In the final 48 bit TIFF output, i'm doing nearly no defect correction on the Primefilm scans, while i'm spending lots of time with the heal and clone tools on the 8300 AI scans.

i've also tested both using vuescan pro. if you enable the 'pixel colors' option on the 'color' tab, you can easily see what each scanner detects for dust and scratches. if you ignore the IR mismatch on the 8300AI, and just look at what defects each scanner detects, the Primefilm is definitely better at detecting dust and scratch defects.

 

[lcubed]

i'm curious how your scanning is going. i'm not convinced of my camera scan workflow just yet. i wonder if I am underexposing in camera some, although i actually shoot about a stop overexposed when shooting negatives. my camera scans just never seem as clean as lab scans. i am also getting some weird vignetting that i haven't figured out if is happening in my film camera or if the negative isn't being held tight enough in the film holder. it's not every image though.

i'm getting into the groove with scanning. there's definitely a learning curve with both pieces of software that i'm using. (vuescan pro and silverfast 9AI).

i did take the time to acquire a 35 mm USAF 1951 resolution target from etsy and tested both scanners. The Primefilm XEs definitely resolves higher in 5000 dpi mode than the 8300 AI in 3600 and 7200 dpi modes.

for color negatives, i really like using the silverfast 9's Workflow Pilot (WFP). In the negafix modules, choosing the 'right' film profile makes a big difference on how much (if any) color correction needs to be done after scanning. in WFP mode, automatic file naming just works,
while in manual mode, there's no way to just increment a filename by one digit. got to type it all in.

for b/w negatives, vuescan pro seems to work better. in silverfast, if you use multi-exposure, the preview does not reflect the output. there's a FAQ that advises turning on ME in preview mode preferences, but this has crashed my copy of silverfast every time. the SRDx (scratch and dust removal without using IR) feature totally bogs down my mac ultra studio if i choose the wrong settings. there's not much feedback on if SRDx is still processing or done.

for kodachrome transparencies, the vuescan pro software definitely has a better workflow. the silverfast will do an IR scan, but you have to manually tweak the mask to exclude the dense areas from correction. the vuescan pro software, (so far), has not required manual intervention for scratch and dust removal in the 100 or so kodachrome slides i've scanned.

 

[mollyc]

I sometimes share an individual photo in the POTD thread, but it's been awhile since I've shared a group of film photos; probably the last time was when I was diagnosing the broken F100.

I now shoot primarily with a fully functioning Nikon F100, and most often with a Nikkor 35mm 1.8 lens. I've tried some macro work with this camera but I haven't really been happy with many of those images so far. Probably my eyes are too old to focus through a traditional OVF. I ask a lot of questions about camera scanning vs regular scanning because I'm not convinced I'm getting the best quality from camera scanning. I'll break these into several posts since I have a lot to share.

I camera scan with either a Z6 or a Z6ii and convert and process with Negative Lab pro. I also use a film carrier from Negative Film Supply and have a Raleno video light rated at 95+ CRI for a light source (recommended to me in this thread).

Earlier this year I shot two rolls of bw and home developed them with Cinestill monobath. Many of you know my daughter has done two semesters of a darkroom class in high school, so she helped me learn how to get the film on the reel and to use the tanks, although at school they use a regular development method with fixer and stop bath, etc.

This roll was the first I did was shot with Kodak TMAXX 3200 shot in a Fujica STX-1, all manual camera with a manual focus Fuji 50mm 1.8 lens.


1.

2.

3.

 

[mollyc]

I then bought a Fujica Half from some Japanese seller on eBay and ran another roll of bw to make sure the camera worked. For this roll I used Ilford HP5+ and also home developed it in the Cinestill monobath. This camera does have some light leaks, but I'm not particularly bothered by it. I currently have a roll of Kodak Gold in it; I shot about half of it at the beach and hope to finish the roll over the course of another trip next month.

1.

2.

3.

 

[mollyc]

I decided that anytime I try a new film stock I would have it lab developed and scanned so that I would have an understanding as to how the colors should render. At the beginning of the summer I tried Kodak Gold; I am sure that I shot lots of this as a kid/young adult when film was the only option, but a lot of images I don't have the negatives for, just prints, and I would have only been using point and shoot cameras. Anyway, I really love Kodak Gold.

This was lab developed and scanned by my local camera store.

1.

2.

3.

 

[mollyc]

I also shot a roll of Ektar 100, which is possibly my favorite stock so far. But being only ISO 100, it's not particularly versatile in variable light conditions, so not sure how often I will shoot it. This was lab developed and scanned by my local camera store.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[mollyc]

At the beach I shot a roll of Portra 400. I've decided I'm not really a Portra 400 fan, depsite the hype of the internet. I've only had one roll that I really liked the colors on, and it was from the broken camera, so not a lot of keepers. On the other hand, that one roll I did like I shot at 200, so maybe I just need to try that again.

This roll was lab developed and camera scanned by me. I had a hard time scanning this roll, and this was my second attempt. I might try a third time because I'm still not happy with a lot of the roll.

1.

2.

3.

 

[StellarVixen]

Ektar 100 looks very nice indeed. Looking at the sky, very little grain

Portra 400 on other hand shows noticeable grain. Some may like it though

 

[mollyc]

And then at the beach I shot another roll of Kodak Gold, which still ranks pretty high for me in terms of color output. I did have a lot of weird vignetting on this roll, but it's possible that some of my images were underexposed, causing that. I'm not sure. I used the same camera/lens setup as the rolls I had lab scanned and it just seemed like the lab scans were a lot more consistent in both exposure and colors, which leads me to believe there is a breakdown in my scanning workflow somewhere.

These were scanned by me with my Z6.

1. This is one with the weird vignetting.

2. My daughter was obsessed with these tiny little crabs we found on the beach. 🙂

3. This is one of my all time favorite images I've ever taken and my new phone lock screen background.

4.

5.

6.

 

[mollyc]

So this is my progress with film over the 14 or so months since my initial post. I've learned a lot, have a lot more to learn, and would love to somehow nail down the scanning side of this because I love having more control of the whole process to make my images "mine." I am not finding the same level of clarity from my home scans as I get from the lab scans, which is why I've been tracking the scanner conversation so much.

 

[mollyc]

Ektar 100 looks very nice indeed. Looking at the sky, very little grain

Portra 400 on other hand shows noticeable grain. Some may like it though

I don't inherently mind grain. I'm more concerned with colors than grain for my final image.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Great photos @mollyc !

Mine are not worth sharing in terms of quality, but I just got 5 rolls of color back from the developer (The Darkroom.com). 3 rolls of Kodak UltraMax 400 and a roll of Fuji Superia Xtra 400. Plus a 23 year-old Kodak disposable I found at my parents' house when we visited last Christmas. The disposable had half a dozen shots left and remarkably all of them developed albeit with wonky color. But they have a neat 'old film' look which is pretty fun, especially with the last few shots I took just a couple months ago. Digital filters still can't truly replicate film effects. I like the colors of the Fuji Superia - less 'accurate' than the Kodak but pleasingly atmospheric.

I shot everything with my F-1n and a 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. Exposures are good but I'm still not very skilled in terms of nailing the focus....and it always seems like the blurry shots are my best compositions! I'm shooting strictly handheld using natural light so apart from sunny days I'm often dealing with a narrow depth of field.

But I got a couple of gems with static subjects. I recently bought a house and lately my photography has been aimed at creating some art to hang up on the walls. I'm waiting for the the right shot to get blown up on a really big canvas.

I think I only have one 24-exposure roll of Kodak UltraMax left, and I simply can't get 36-exposure color film at anything approaching a reasonable price right now - even when it is in stock - so I am probably going to be shooting B&W for a while. I'm already working through a roll of B&W with a Canon EOS-1N + EF 50mm f1.8 II. Compared to the F-1 the EOS-1N is a breeze to use...the viewfinder is amazing and of course it's auto-everything. Big and heavy but very comfortable to shoot and it makes the most classic 'camera snap' noise.

I wish I'd bought a couple hundred dollars' worth of film when I got these film cameras...

 

[bunnspecial]

Great work Molly and I'm glad to see you enjoying film so much.

As far as macro goes-your eyes honestly most likely aren't to blame. Your F100 isn't really meant to be manually focused. Most autofocus cameras aren't-usually the focusing screens are optimized for image brightness, and they won't really even show focus properly with larger aperture lenses. Even at that, focus aids like split images and microprisms can only be so good especially at razor-thin DOFs in macro.

My best film macro set-up is an F2 with a "C" screen and 6x chimney magnifier. It's a pain to use and honestly really isn't even suitable for general photography(the single digit cameras had interchangeable screens and finders for a reason) but can nail macro focus as well as high magnification live view can if used properly.

 

[dimme]

@mollyc If I could commit on you what you posted about you scanning experience. " I am not finding the same level of clarity from my home scans as I get from the lab scans". I've set up Nuoritsu and fuji scanners that is probably at your social lab. There is a lot that goes into those scanners compare to what you could buy for home use. The software and the image processing electronics is where the magic happens. Perhaps a work flow could be both from the samples you shared the both had very different looks and both looks were very nice.