Scans from Film

Carrigman

See below from a recent Ken Rockwell post (www.kenrockwell.com).

Does anyone know if it is possible anywhere in these islands to get such scans on a CD from a company processing Velvia as part of the processing package? If it was, I might just be tempted to dig out my Nikon FM2 and shoot a few rolls.

Regards,

John

"... real photographers are coming back to film in droves. Most of us have finally tired of throwing money away at digital, and prefer the better results from film for photos that matter.

Why film all of a sudden? Because unlike 2002 when we all went digital, today it's trivial to get great digital files directly from film as we shoot it, for a lot less money with a lot less hassle than hauling all the laptops and chargers and cords and blank DVDs and everything else digital cameras need to keep them running in the field.

The only reason digital cameras became popular was for convenience, never for ultimate quality. Now that it's trivial to get great scans along with our film, and that film requires a lot less junk to carry out in the field, why was it again that we want to shoot digital?

Film? My camera runs for years on the same battery, and when I pick up my film at the lab, it's already backed up to DVD before I bother loading it into my Mac. My laptop and all the other junk stays home; my $220 pocket-sized iPod Touch gives me all the online computer power I need while traveling.

Digital was fun while it lasted, and still the best for shooting in low light and for news, sports and action (which is what most of us shoot most of the time), but when quality matters, it's film for me, now that its trivial to get all my film scanned as its developed.

Film just looks better. Can digital capture get these colors? No. Digital gives bright, cartoonish colors, but not colors that are both vivid as well as distinct from one another. With digital capture, everything heads towards a few primaries, but doesn't get bold for colors in-between primaries. Not only does scanned film look better on-screen, original transparencies look out-of-this-digital-world on a light table or projected direct-from-film...."

Panhour

I think the Fuji Lab in Abbey St will scan them, but I think they charge per scan and post to anywhere in Ireland. I posted stuff to the-darkroom in the UK and they processed and scanned them for me.

whitetea

Check inspirationalarts.ie for high quality scanning.

houseoffun14

Give Repro 35 in Merrion Square a call. They should be able to sort you out.

Fajitas!

Repro or Fire will both do high res scanning - What you're looking for is drum scans. It's not cheap either.

Tbh though, you're wasting your time reading what that ape types. The aim of digital was never just a matter of 'convienience', it was a development of the medium of photography.

That said, there's no reason not to go back to film. It's a lovely medium you can get some great enjoyment out of - much like digital. It's slower, and you're not as likely to shoot off 40 photos in a few minutes because of the price. I'd give it a go if I were you - See if you enjoy it! The unfortunate part is... if you do, you're going to have to give a larger format a go to get the real thrills outta it.

Carrigman

Fajitas! wrote: »

Repro or Fire will both do high res scanning - What you're looking for is drum scans. It's not cheap either.

Tbh though, you're wasting your time reading what that ape types. The aim of digital was never just a matter of 'convienience', it was a development of the medium of photography.

That said, there's no reason not to go back to film. It's a lovely medium you can get some great enjoyment out of - much like digital. It's slower, and you're not as likely to shoot off 40 photos in a few minutes because of the price. I'd give it a go if I were you - See if you enjoy it! The unfortunate part is... if you do, you're going to have to give a larger format a go to get the real thrills outta it.

Thanks Al. I think I'll pass. I've used film - 35mm and 120mm - for most of my photographic life but moved to digital for all the usual reasons. The only reason I might give it a go again is if I could easily and fairly cheaply get drum scans of the type Rockwell was on about but clearly that is not possible.

Regards,

John

AnCatDubh

yes in terms of film as a photographic medium and I intend sometime (hopefully not to far into the future) to crank out some film but, in terms of what Mr. Rockwell is saying, he is missing a point or maybe just neglecting to reference it.

Shooting on film, processing, and then having a scan done will yield a raster format image (JPG or TIFF i'm assuming) - HiRes or not it still has all the trappings of a raster format.

Accepting what he says and i don't think you would dispute the chemical properties of film which yields a far better dynamic range capability, more smooth aesthetic appeal of the output, and perhaps even better colour reproduction, BUT, what about the beauty of the digital negative i.e. RAW and its ability to be pushed, pulled, and manipulated in its RAW form. I know often it will be compared to a film negative but in truth it is far more flexible in terms of adjusting the various photographic parameters.

Or does my lack of film processing knowledge mean that there is equivalent photographic parameters which can be manipulated at processing - but even if it is surely it is more difficult???

I'm not for a minute knocking film - i sometimes look at some old film prints that we have at home and think 'i wish digital would have that overall appearance' but is a scan of a negative not the equivalent of digital shooting a JPG albeit with nicer aesthetic qualities i.e. fine for 80% of situations, but lacking when you want to push things a little bit more than what the camera has 'seen'.

Now i've even confused myself i think

Fajitas!

Well, in a single neg, you can get a lot more out of an image than you can out of a single RAW file, indeed, a very well exposed neg, you'll get as much as a composite of RAW's, but that will require a lot of tedious work.

The pushing/pulling factor with film is a lot more limiting at the developing stage, as you have to decide there and then if you're going to push or pull a whole roll. It is possible to get results out in the darkroom after (Or digitally).

DaireQuinlan

In terms of the OPs original question, I think Rockwell was actually talking about normal lab scans, not once off drum scans. That was the whole basis of his spiel from what I understood, he gets his film dev'd and scanned at the lab, and that the normal lab scans of his shots are up there quality wise with his digital stuff.

Now, I've never seen anything other than really crappy lo-res scans from those lab machines, but AFAIK they're capable of doing pretty high-res scans in 16 bit off a roll, but they take their time, so most places won't do them in anything better than whatever is required to get a 6x4 inch 300 DPI print.

I doubt they could match the quality of the raw scans I get off my coolscan anyway, although scanning a roll of film is such a PITA. Takes hours to get to the same point where you digi guys are when you download the raws off the camera, and after that much the same PP has to be done to get them to a usable state.

cnocbui

I send my slide film to Fuji Lab in the UK for processing. They can do a CD of scans for a bit extra. Their pricelist:

http://www.fujifilmprocessinglaboratory.co.uk/otherServices.php

mentions they use a imacon (hasselblad) 949 scanner.

You could send them an email and ask what resolution their scans are. I have never gotten them to scan any of my films as I have a 4000dpi scanner and so DIY.

quilmore

Carrigman wrote: »

Ken Rockwell post (www.kenrockwell.com)

take anything this guy says with a pinch of salt
he's one that started his own page because people laughed at him on forums
that's why he doesn't allow comments on his page I think

said that, I'm one that reads all he writes, but now I've learnt not to believe all he says