Film/Digital Questions

Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
7,484
Location
Texas (KSKF)
1) Can an image shot on film still be considered a film image once scanned? (I tend to think it's not a pure film image once scanned)

2) What gives the higher quality print - print from film or film print scanned, then printed? (I'm thinking the former in this case)

Thanks! :)
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
2,407
Location
London
1) Can an image shot on film still be considered a film image once scanned? (I tend to think it's not a pure film image once scanned)

2) What gives the higher quality print - print from film or film print scanned, then printed? (I'm thinking the former in this case)

Thanks! :)
My understanding is that most labs relying on machines print films from scans nowadays.
The development is analog but the print is digital (so is the CD print).
It is only 100% analog if done manually.
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,470
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
Not directly relevant but Kodak had a production line for printing from 35mm Kodacolor which worked by scanning the negatives and projecting the image onto the photographic paper.

Q2. It is much better to scan and then print. You can apply a range of automatic processing, such as Digital ICE - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE
When, about 10 years ago, I used a professional Nikon scanner for 12,000 slides and negatives, it incorporated Digital ICE. It also had iSRD - Infrared Smart Removal of Defects.

Of course nowadays one can choose to apply a whole range of digital processing such as colour balance, contrast, noise reduction, sharpening etc.

Q1. I would say yes, once a film image always a film image. See the grain.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
7,484
Location
Texas (KSKF)
Not directly relevant but Kodak had a production line for printing from 35mm Kodacolor which worked by scanning the negatives and projecting the image onto the photographic paper.

Q2. It is much better to scan and then print. You can apply a range of automatic processing, such as Digital ICE - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE
When, about 10 years ago, I used a professional Nikon scanner for 12,000 slides and negatives, it incorporated Digital ICE. It also had iSRD - Infrared Smart Removal of Defects.

Of course nowadays one can choose to apply a whole range of digital processing such as colour balance, contrast, noise reduction, sharpening etc.

Q1. I would say yes, once a film image always a film image. See the grain.
Thank you sir!
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,470
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
I have wondered about this in the past. Once you scan, do you in some sense give up some of the advantages of film, such as the higher latitude of print film (corresponding to dynamic range of a digital camera)?
Yes, negatives in particular have a huge dynamic range.
But if you use a good 16 bit scanner it will produce 16 bit TIFFs, accurately covering the whole dynamic range.
If you were limited to using a camera, you could even take multiple exposures and combine them using HDR techniques.

And if you zoom in on a good scan it is amazing the detail you can see, with each lump of grain clearly captured. Lots of megapixels.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
2,407
Location
London
Yes, negatives in particular have a huge dynamic range.
But if you use a good 16 bit scanner it will produce 16 bit TIFFs, accurately covering the whole dynamic range.
If you were limited to using a camera, you could even take multiple exposures and combine them using HDR techniques.

And if you zoom in on a good scan it is amazing the detail you can see, with each lump of grain clearly captured. Lots of megapixels.
How does negative compare to slide in that respect? I am a big fan of slides.
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,470
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
How does negative compare to slide in that respect? I am a big fan of slides.
Me too. Negative film has more latitude by far. But like you I preferred to take slides. That way there were immediately available to see in their full quality (with a projector). And I alone was responsible for the results. With negatives you had to rely on them being printed correctly - a white cat on a red background would sometimes be printed as a green cat, and a lovely red sunset would be printed as boring grey.

When I first started, after using rolls of just 8 photos on 127 b/w film, I used Kodacolor negative film. Then I switched to Kodachrome. I would always sort and chuck out all the bad ones, but accumulated over 12,000 of them. I digitised them all. I used a copying stand, lightbox and camera for the small number of old ones, and a Nikon scanner for all the 35mm, both negative strips and the slides. A batch loader made it possible, My scanner and the computer were both slow, and it took about 10 minutes per slide. The whole project took 18 months. It would run in the night, every night, with a batch of 80 slides. Often the Nikon batch loader, surely their worst ever engineering, would jam, so I would find it had scanned only a few. Sometimes the autofocus in the scanner wouldn't focus correctly. After scanning they all needed labelling with what they were, and the date put into the EXIF data. And any blemishes tidied up.

Here is a Kodachrome slide from London in April 1978, scanned:
04971 LONDON Near London Apprentice.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
2,407
Location
London
Me too. Negative film has more latitude by far. But like you I preferred to take slides. That way there were immediately available to see in their full quality (with a projector). And I alone was responsible for the results. With negatives you had to rely on them being printed correctly - a white cat on a red background would sometimes be printed as a green cat, and a lovely red sunset would be printed as boring grey.

When I first started, after using rolls of just 8 photos on 127 b/w film, I used Kodacolor negative film. Then I switched to Kodachrome. I would always sort and chuck out all the bad ones, but accumulated over 12,000 of them. I digitised them all. I used a copying stand, lightbox and camera for the small number of old ones, and a Nikon scanner for all the 35mm, both negative strips and the slides. A batch loader made it possible, My scanner and the computer were both slow, and it took about 10 minutes per slide. The whole project took 18 months. It would run in the night, every night, with a batch of 80 slides. Often the Nikon batch loader, surely their worst ever engineering, would jam, so I would find it had scanned only a few. Sometimes the autofocus in the scanner wouldn't focus correctly. After scanning they all needed labelling with what they were, and the date put into the EXIF data. And any blemishes tidied up.

Here is a Kodachrome slide from London in April 1978, scanned:
View attachment 1656288
Thanks for the detailed story.
That is a very nice picture. There definitely is something to it.
Slides just look more real, vivid and alive.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom