DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Zeiss 21mm madness at Ffordes
- Thread starter grumpoid
- Start date
Marc,
An important part of getting good scan results is the choice of film. I am an amateur with both Contax 645 and several different 35mm systems. For 35mm I have been happy with slide film such as Kodak 100GX, Fuji Provia (most satisfying), and Velvia 100. I then scan with a Nikon 4000ED. I have little experience with 645 scanning as I recently got the Nikon 9000ED with glass carrier but so far am somewhat disappointed. It just seems I could get better dynamic range with negative film. I send 645 film to A&M for developing.
What fine-grained color film would you recommend for 35mm and 645 using my scanners?
An important part of getting good scan results is the choice of film. I am an amateur with both Contax 645 and several different 35mm systems. For 35mm I have been happy with slide film such as Kodak 100GX, Fuji Provia (most satisfying), and Velvia 100. I then scan with a Nikon 4000ED. I have little experience with 645 scanning as I recently got the Nikon 9000ED with glass carrier but so far am somewhat disappointed. It just seems I could get better dynamic range with negative film. I send 645 film to A&M for developing.
What fine-grained color film would you recommend for 35mm and 645 using my scanners?
Hi Christopher,
I have had decent luck scanning the lower contrast neg films like Kodak Portra NC (160 or 400 ISOs), and also very good results from the Fuji lower contrast films like NPH.
I used to shoot a fair amount of wedding work with my Contax 645 (which I now do with a Hasselblad). Weddings can be a challenging contrast situation due to a big white dress and a guy dressed in black ... so I took to using these lower contrast films as most wedding shooters do.
I rate them approx. a stop lower than marked, so for a 400 speed film I set the meter for ISO 320. Neg films have a much getter tolerance for overexposure than underexposure ... and it is better for scanning anyway because it holds more shadow detail ... which is what D-Max is all about.
Mijakame, scanning is a bear with the table top scanners. They're slow and the software is difficult to control. Which is fine if you're only doing a few scans. But a lot of scans and it indeed is a bear.
The Imacon software is the same as the one used for the big Imacon digital backs. It's very sophisticated and offers an enormous amount of control once you learn all it can do.
I have had decent luck scanning the lower contrast neg films like Kodak Portra NC (160 or 400 ISOs), and also very good results from the Fuji lower contrast films like NPH.
I used to shoot a fair amount of wedding work with my Contax 645 (which I now do with a Hasselblad). Weddings can be a challenging contrast situation due to a big white dress and a guy dressed in black ... so I took to using these lower contrast films as most wedding shooters do.
I rate them approx. a stop lower than marked, so for a 400 speed film I set the meter for ISO 320. Neg films have a much getter tolerance for overexposure than underexposure ... and it is better for scanning anyway because it holds more shadow detail ... which is what D-Max is all about.
Mijakame, scanning is a bear with the table top scanners. They're slow and the software is difficult to control. Which is fine if you're only doing a few scans. But a lot of scans and it indeed is a bear.
The Imacon software is the same as the one used for the big Imacon digital backs. It's very sophisticated and offers an enormous amount of control once you learn all it can do.
Today is a big day, my Imacon 646 arrived.
Marc, you did not tell me about the size. It is about 10-20 times the size of my Minolta 5400. I was completely stunned by its size.
The size and the sound of operation do give a serious sense of seriousness.
I smiled at the first scan from this monster.
I always feel dissatisfied with my scans from the Minolta. It does not look real but artificial. Others like Marc and Antony did push me to Imacon.
So the next stage is going for the Imacon, it is stunningly large and expensive. I made an A4 print from my first scan and another one from the Minolta.
The image from Imacon do look more real and has more fine details.
This image comes from the 646. Camera Leica M3 with Zeiss M 25mm 2.8 at 5.6 Original film was Kodak Gold 100, scan to image size of 48Mb Tiff 16bit
The one above is Imacon and below Minolta. Even the one below have a higher pixel count, you can see that Imacon gives more details and in particular in the shadows.
It is expensive but I love it. It does make scanning a lot more meaningful. I am happy to stay with film until the next stage of digital revolution, when film will be truely taken over by digital.
Marc, you did not tell me about the size. It is about 10-20 times the size of my Minolta 5400. I was completely stunned by its size.
The size and the sound of operation do give a serious sense of seriousness.
I smiled at the first scan from this monster.
I always feel dissatisfied with my scans from the Minolta. It does not look real but artificial. Others like Marc and Antony did push me to Imacon.
So the next stage is going for the Imacon, it is stunningly large and expensive. I made an A4 print from my first scan and another one from the Minolta.
The image from Imacon do look more real and has more fine details.
This image comes from the 646. Camera Leica M3 with Zeiss M 25mm 2.8 at 5.6 Original film was Kodak Gold 100, scan to image size of 48Mb Tiff 16bit
The one above is Imacon and below Minolta. Even the one below have a higher pixel count, you can see that Imacon gives more details and in particular in the shadows.
It is expensive but I love it. It does make scanning a lot more meaningful. I am happy to stay with film until the next stage of digital revolution, when film will be truely taken over by digital.
For Minolta, I use the one which comes with the machine. For the picture above, single pass. I know that you can improve the shadow details by using other software like Vuescan but I have not brought one.
For Imacon, I got it yesterday. I used the software which comes with the machine. Again single pass.
Can one use multiple pass for Imacon 646 to improve the dynamic range even further ? If you look at the ground of my Imacon image, there is not much details at the highlights. Is there any other software for the Imacon apart from the one which comes with the machine ?
For Imacon, I got it yesterday. I used the software which comes with the machine. Again single pass.
Can one use multiple pass for Imacon 646 to improve the dynamic range even further ? If you look at the ground of my Imacon image, there is not much details at the highlights. Is there any other software for the Imacon apart from the one which comes with the machine ?
Hi Joseph. Congratulations on your 646!!!!
No need for multiple passes with the Imacon. If the detail is in the negative, you can get it in the scan ... it will just take some time for you to learn how to use the Flexcolor software... which is very sophisticated. It is the same software used for the Imacon digital backs.
First question I have for you is what version of Flexcolor came with your 646? There is a new one recently made available. It is Version 4.5.4. Among other things it has an expanded list of film profiles for the scanner. You can download it off the Hasselblad web site ... www.hasselblad.com
Now this said, you still have to adjust the factory provided profiles of your favorite films and save them for future use. Take advantage of the Imacon technical support if you don't know how to accomplish this.
When scanning are you selecting RGB 16 bit? Also if you look closely at the histogram tool, there are sliders left to right like most histograms, but there are also sliders on the right side top and bottom. These are used to control density in the bright areas (top) and darks (bottom). When setting up my Imacon 848 loaner, the representative adjusted the top/side slider down a little to assure all scans would hold detail in the bright areas.
Give it some time, this is professional level equipment and it will take some effort to learn the secrets of using the Flexcolor software.
Here's a scan from the 848 that I had tried to scan before with my Minolta and had no luck holding any shadow detail ... this is just a tourist photo and hardly worth scanning, but it was a good test of dynamic range and ability to resolve detail from the Leica M neg.
No need for multiple passes with the Imacon. If the detail is in the negative, you can get it in the scan ... it will just take some time for you to learn how to use the Flexcolor software... which is very sophisticated. It is the same software used for the Imacon digital backs.
First question I have for you is what version of Flexcolor came with your 646? There is a new one recently made available. It is Version 4.5.4. Among other things it has an expanded list of film profiles for the scanner. You can download it off the Hasselblad web site ... www.hasselblad.com
Now this said, you still have to adjust the factory provided profiles of your favorite films and save them for future use. Take advantage of the Imacon technical support if you don't know how to accomplish this.
When scanning are you selecting RGB 16 bit? Also if you look closely at the histogram tool, there are sliders left to right like most histograms, but there are also sliders on the right side top and bottom. These are used to control density in the bright areas (top) and darks (bottom). When setting up my Imacon 848 loaner, the representative adjusted the top/side slider down a little to assure all scans would hold detail in the bright areas.
Give it some time, this is professional level equipment and it will take some effort to learn the secrets of using the Flexcolor software.
Here's a scan from the 848 that I had tried to scan before with my Minolta and had no luck holding any shadow detail ... this is just a tourist photo and hardly worth scanning, but it was a good test of dynamic range and ability to resolve detail from the Leica M neg.
Mark nice tip on those sliders, I've been using my Imacon Flextight Photo (yes pretty old by todays standards) for about five years and it's been a joy but I never checked the default settings. The highlight was set at 255 and shadow at 0 so I've adjusted those. I bought a refurb so never talked to any service guy, i just watched the Imacon video and read the manual. My use has been 95% chrome especially Velvia 50 and over the years the scanner did struggle with reds, I recently upgraded to newer software and I feel like I've got a new machine.
Have fun with the 949 hope you have lots of memory especially if you end up scanning those 6x6 negs....files wil be huge.
Have fun with the 949 hope you have lots of memory especially if you end up scanning those 6x6 negs....files wil be huge.
I am using Flexcolor 4.5.2, I will upgrade it when they give me the number after registration. I must admit I have pretty much to learn.
I am trying to make some high dynamic images 32bits from the negative. I scan each negatives at least three times in different brightness +25, 0 and -25.
You go to file in Photoshop and you can fuse these images into HDR ones. I am having a bit of trouble, The HDR function do not automatically align the images so that the net result showed an image with very poor overlapping.
I have to find a way to crop every images exactly in the same way so that overlapping can be done perfectly. Any ideas ?
I am trying to make some high dynamic images 32bits from the negative. I scan each negatives at least three times in different brightness +25, 0 and -25.
You go to file in Photoshop and you can fuse these images into HDR ones. I am having a bit of trouble, The HDR function do not automatically align the images so that the net result showed an image with very poor overlapping.
I have to find a way to crop every images exactly in the same way so that overlapping can be done perfectly. Any ideas ?