Hi Keith, I have a V800 and I’ve scanned quite a lot of my old shoots in last years. Talking about details, I’ve found that properly focusing the film holder can make a significant difference. I’ve developed an easy technique with Affinity Photo. You simply scan a small part of the film several time at every height setting, then you stack them with affinity, so they are properly aligned. Now you can easily compare them turning the layers on and off and choose the best one. The right setting can change from one film to another if the film is not totally flat. For sharpening it’s difficult, no easy solution : ) for batch scanning I quite like low levels of Silverfast sharpening. If the film has lot of grain there’s no much you can do about it, I usually try to apply local sharpening to avoid grainy skys. I found that printed grain is not that bad, better looking then on screen. Hope it make sense, good scanning!
Thanks - more than anything in this exercise, I keep asking myself why I didn't take more shots. Of course, the reason at the time was the hassle and expense of carrying lots of film with me and bringing it back to get it processed ;-) I'l be adding these videos to the main V850 review, since I've the scanner here for a while yet.
@@KeithCooper for me the worst part of scanning >2000 shots was discovering how bad they was : ) the biggest part was shooted with a cheap camera, with fixed lens and fixed focus. But there was 4-6 shots out of a roll that paid back the effort (as a memory, not necessarily as a good shot). And also a few gems. I’ve printed some on A4 and they are nice and reasonably sharp, but I will try to go larger. But I like the look and the colors. Sometimes it made me thinking about shooting medium format film, 35mm is just too small to bother
Thank you, Keith. Really enjoyed this, and you have encouraged me to find a way to print some of my old negatives. So glad to have found your informative videos. All the best to you!
I use a very similar work flow, but for when I use my Nikon Coolscan LS50. Here the scans do not need sharpening at all. As for the setting for Sharpen AI, since I am still using the 3.2.2 version, I find that the setting Too Soft- Very Noisy, does a great job of sharpening the scans from Epson without affecting the grain too much. The rest is similar to yours. I used to do a lot of deep space long exposure imaging, and I am sure that Focus Magic was part of the work flow, or I could just be getting too old to remember. You are absolutely correct, almost all these image edtiting software have been designed to dea with the data from the sensor of a digital camera with all the embeded information available to work with. When the software is presented with a file from a scanner, it really has no idea what the heck is going on and can make a right mess of it. I wish they'd design something for film.
Thanks that's interesting to know My suggestions here are somewhat experimental, since I don't use film in my day-to-day work, but I'm pleased to get a good print from that day in 1994 up in the clouds.
Keith, excellent video and thank you for making it! The fork in the road for me has always been whether to make tweaks like sharpening during the scan (I use Silverfast) or in post- I also have Topaz Sharpen as you have done. And of course there is PS unsharp and Smart Sharpen and perhaps as you have suggested there is no universal sharpening path forward but this has at least wrestled with the workflow for scanning with the Epson flatbed. Bravo!
Thanks for a very helpful video. I don’t have a scanner- space and funds lacking. I plan to use my Canon 6Dmk2 and ON1 Photo Raw to copy and process a few of my old negatives. I think that your workflow will definitely help to turn out an acceptable image
Camera digitization is the king of speed. My example setup: Tethered Olympus EM5II + TTArtisan 40mm Marco + Kinetronics StaticVac + copy stand + Valoi film holder/advancer = scanning an entire roll in < 5 minutes with almost no dust. This process yields 35mm 9216x6137 composite "scans", and they can then be inverted directly in Lightroom via the Negative Lab Pro or Negmaster plugins, or in the case of Negmaster, directly in Adobe Bridge. Shooting with modern glass, for example the 40mm Sigma Art (200lp/mm) and Delta 100 film, the above process will create images that match your 5DSR😁 Using Adox CMS 20 II film, that same Sigma lens, and the A7R4 for composite "scanning", yields over 80mp of real optical resolution. I suspect there was actually more information in the frames and the conversion method is "lossy". At some point I want to dark room print one of the CMS frames and then scan the darkroom print to see if there is more detail than the 80mp. Why do I know this? This is what happens when an IT engineer has too much time on his hands during covid isolation🤪 As for the v850, if you do want to bulk convert your old film collection, I recommend Silverfast. They have implemented a new "Express Scan" feature that allows the software to scan multiple frames at once. What that means is for a fully loaded film holder it is 3x faster than using Vuescan or Epson scan. Cheers
Thanks Not here it wouldn't ;-) I've long had a great dislike of toning/tinting - to the point I've not seen an image where I think it contributes positively to it :-) Yes, one of my pet hates but as they say YMMV ;-)
Great video! I have the Epson V700. Can you just briefly talk about the proper position of the film in the holder…ie scanning through the base or emulsion…matte side down toward the glass or up. Thanks!
I just put the film in the holder in the suggested way [there is a text symbol on the holder) This has the emulsion directly pressed against the the anti newton film This seems to go against what some people think 'aught to' be the right way - I'm happy to go with the suggestion of the people who designed and built the scanner. For anyone concerned about tis I say - experiment for yourself... ;-) [as ever!] I've a quick look at scanning some colour negative film where I'll mention this...
Great video. I shoot film and digital and print. However, I find that scanning is a very time consuming and tedious task. I have since switched to shooting color digital. I shoot my black and white on film 35mm, medium format and 4x5. Occasionally shoot color medium format and 4x5, but don’t see much advantage to shoot 35mm color. I print my color and some black and white on the Epson Photo Printer, and most black and white (film) in the darkroom. While I develop my own film, I find that dust can be a big issue, and scanning and removing the dust to be a challenge.
Thanks Don't get me wrong, back when I used film I'd have loved a scanner (and printer) like this! Getting the healing brush out on Photoshop though for the dust brought it all back to me. That was when it was a hobby... 'going pro' coincided with my switch to digital in 2004 ;-)
Interesting...I have a V850 - I've ditched it in favor of a digital camera with a macro lens. It gives noticeably superior results (especially sharpness, tonal resolution), more control, and efficiency (it takes about 3 minutes to digitize a 36 roll film). Plus you have less chance scratching the film and the pesky problem of dust. You need a decent DSLR or mirrorless camera with a macro lens plus a copy stand, a film holder and a light source. Valoi, Cinestill and Negative Supply have scanning kits that are about the same cost as the Epson 850.
Similar but different - like all of these things designed for digital images so needing quite a bit of experimentation. Of course it varies by film and exposure (and scan settings), so I'm more than happy to suggest people try whatever they have...
I use Topaz DeNoise AI as well for film photos. Works wonders on the Low Light setting. And for a few images where it's not, version 3.0.3 usually does the trick for me.
@@OrelRussia In some situations I find that the Low Light mode in the latest versions struggles with really high ISOs, and while the Severe Noise mode can deal with these situations it blows up imperfections in out of focus backgrounds that makes them look quite messy. Older versions Low Light mode handles these situations better. But for most cases I find the newer versions better. So it depends and in general I would recommend the latest version.
While you do you get a 3x bigger file, you don't get more data converting a greyscale image into RGB as I am sure you know. You get three duplicated channels with no distinction between each, with which software can do no more than with the original greyscale. So that is a dead end. I'd like to prattle on about this to pique the interest of willing learners, 1. Creating a "seriously considered" B&W image (for instance a landscape) best be done from color film or transparency media via a full RGB file, or via an original digital RGB file. If for some reason one wishes to crush the RGB to greyscale, do it dead last. But in general, don't bother. The example in this vid is not useful, as it's a near monochrome scene. If you use a shot with a person, greenery, and blue sky with clouds, the implications of the technical details are apparent. 2. Depending on the subject matter various interpretations of the colors into tone values is all the difference in a B&W end product. Typical example is the blue sky with white clouds dilemma; blue sky and white clouds have about the same reflectance ie their exciting visual distinction in an image is not due to their differing reflected light intensity, but their hue. Thus the excitement is either retained by dumb luck, or lost, if the record is created in monochrome media that tosses out colors. So we may ask, Why did an Ansel Adams sky look so dramatic if it was shot on BW film? Because with panchromatic BW film, Adams would use a yellow or orange or red filter on the lens for the shot, and thus specifically increase contrast between image elements the compliment of the filter color: ie the blue sky would become darker and the clouds thus stand out with the same drama found at the scene. This can still be done in software, if the color data is there to edit. This is accomplished with the channel mixer tool for instance in Photoshop. No 3 channel color data, you can still do dodging an burning, curves & levels, but it's nowhere near as perfectly effective as editing by color. This also applies to creating a mask, which can be done in very effective manner via a duplicate color channel, if they are there to work with. PS side not this necessity for RGB to create superb BW is why I find the illustrious and ungodly expensive Leica "monochrom" model digital rangefinder to be a backward anachronism at over $10K. It has a BW sensor! No color data at all! It's ridiculous, and an example of how a brand name can overcome scientific reality in the minds of people with more money than sense. Pardon the length and typos, it's a complex topic and I've only so much time today.
Ah, back in 1994 I had B&W film in the camera - for eventual printing in my darkroom. There was obviously no thought whatsoever to scanning. There may well have been a yellow filter on the lens, but I was in low cloud... Your points are well made but perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of _this_ particular video which is purely to look at scanning some old B&W film on the V850 and making a print from it, so considerations of the use of colour film and conversions are for a different day. _Of course, I'd not even consider film these days, so that's a whole different subject entirely ;-)_ The print is a personal memory of an event nearly 30 years ago, not particularly a work for anyone else's benefit or how I would likely compose and create a print these days. I have been writing about converting digital images from colour to B&W for nearly 20 years ;-) www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital-black-and-white-photography/ ...but they are all matters for another video (or 10) I try and keep videos relatively specific - since I can never include all the additional info/references I would in a full written article. PS definitely agree about the Leica ;-)
Hi Keith, I have a V800 and I’ve scanned quite a lot of my old shoots in last years. Talking about details, I’ve found that properly focusing the film holder can make a significant difference. I’ve developed an easy technique with Affinity Photo. You simply scan a small part of the film several time at every height setting, then you stack them with affinity, so they are properly aligned. Now you can easily compare them turning the layers on and off and choose the best one. The right setting can change from one film to another if the film is not totally flat. For sharpening it’s difficult, no easy solution : ) for batch scanning I quite like low levels of Silverfast sharpening. If the film has lot of grain there’s no much you can do about it, I usually try to apply local sharpening to avoid grainy skys. I found that printed grain is not that bad, better looking then on screen. Hope it make sense, good scanning!
Thanks - more than anything in this exercise, I keep asking myself why I didn't take more shots. Of course, the reason at the time was the hassle and expense of carrying lots of film with me and bringing it back to get it processed ;-)
I'l be adding these videos to the main V850 review, since I've the scanner here for a while yet.
@@KeithCooper for me the worst part of scanning >2000 shots was discovering how bad they was : ) the biggest part was shooted with a cheap camera, with fixed lens and fixed focus. But there was 4-6 shots out of a roll that paid back the effort (as a memory, not necessarily as a good shot). And also a few gems. I’ve printed some on A4 and they are nice and reasonably sharp, but I will try to go larger. But I like the look and the colors. Sometimes it made me thinking about shooting medium format film, 35mm is just too small to bother
Thanks Keith, you've heightened my understanding of scanning negatives.
Thanks.This overview is definitely intended to point to areas for experiment, not a specific how-to guide ;-)
Thank you, Keith. Really enjoyed this, and you have encouraged me to find a way to print some of my old negatives. So glad to have found your informative videos. All the best to you!
Glad it was helpful!
I use a very similar work flow, but for when I use my Nikon Coolscan LS50. Here the scans do not need sharpening at all. As for the setting for Sharpen AI, since I am still using the 3.2.2 version, I find that the setting Too Soft- Very Noisy, does a great job of sharpening the scans from Epson without affecting the grain too much. The rest is similar to yours. I used to do a lot of deep space long exposure imaging, and I am sure that Focus Magic was part of the work flow, or I could just be getting too old to remember. You are absolutely correct, almost all these image edtiting software have been designed to dea with the data from the sensor of a digital camera with all the embeded information available to work with. When the software is presented with a file from a scanner, it really has no idea what the heck is going on and can make a right mess of it. I wish they'd design something for film.
Thanks that's interesting to know
My suggestions here are somewhat experimental, since I don't use film in my day-to-day work, but I'm pleased to get a good print from that day in 1994 up in the clouds.
Hi Keith
Another informed based film. Really enjoyed it. Regards
Thanks - glad it was of interest
@@KeithCooper Always
Keith, excellent video and thank you for making it! The fork in the road for me has always been whether to make tweaks like sharpening during the scan (I use Silverfast) or in post- I also have Topaz Sharpen as you have done. And of course there is PS unsharp and Smart Sharpen and perhaps as you have suggested there is no universal sharpening path forward but this has at least wrestled with the workflow for scanning with the Epson flatbed. Bravo!
Thanks - glad it was of interest.
Thanks for a very helpful video. I don’t have a scanner- space and funds lacking. I plan to use my Canon 6Dmk2 and ON1 Photo Raw to copy and process a few of my old negatives. I think that your workflow will definitely help to turn out an acceptable image
Thanks - it's definitely meant as an example people can adapt/experiment with, not a prescriptive 'how-to'
Camera digitization is the king of speed. My example setup: Tethered Olympus EM5II + TTArtisan 40mm Marco + Kinetronics StaticVac + copy stand + Valoi film holder/advancer = scanning an entire roll in < 5 minutes with almost no dust. This process yields 35mm 9216x6137 composite "scans", and they can then be inverted directly in Lightroom via the Negative Lab Pro or Negmaster plugins, or in the case of Negmaster, directly in Adobe Bridge.
Shooting with modern glass, for example the 40mm Sigma Art (200lp/mm) and Delta 100 film, the above process will create images that match your 5DSR😁
Using Adox CMS 20 II film, that same Sigma lens, and the A7R4 for composite "scanning", yields over 80mp of real optical resolution. I suspect there was actually more information in the frames and the conversion method is "lossy". At some point I want to dark room print one of the CMS frames and then scan the darkroom print to see if there is more detail than the 80mp.
Why do I know this? This is what happens when an IT engineer has too much time on his hands during covid isolation🤪
As for the v850, if you do want to bulk convert your old film collection, I recommend Silverfast. They have implemented a new "Express Scan" feature that allows the software to scan multiple frames at once. What that means is for a fully loaded film holder it is 3x faster than using Vuescan or Epson scan.
Cheers
Epson scans may be not very detailed but they have very good tonality and colours.
Yes, that's a solution - this is specifically part of my V850 review, so in no way suggested as the optimal solution for everyone's needs ;-)
@@OrelRussia Oh certainly, I own one and use it for 4x5 and 6x12 😁
great stuff, might it benefit further with some selenium toning or such like?
Thanks
Not here it wouldn't ;-)
I've long had a great dislike of toning/tinting - to the point I've not seen an image where I think it contributes positively to it :-)
Yes, one of my pet hates but as they say YMMV ;-)
Great video! I have the Epson V700. Can you just briefly talk about the proper position of the film in the holder…ie scanning through the base or emulsion…matte side down toward the glass or up. Thanks!
I just put the film in the holder in the suggested way [there is a text symbol on the holder)
This has the emulsion directly pressed against the the anti newton film
This seems to go against what some people think 'aught to' be the right way - I'm happy to go with the suggestion of the people who designed and built the scanner.
For anyone concerned about tis I say - experiment for yourself... ;-) [as ever!]
I've a quick look at scanning some colour negative film where I'll mention this...
Great video. I shoot film and digital and print. However, I find that scanning is a very time consuming and tedious task. I have since switched to shooting color digital. I shoot my black and white on film 35mm, medium format and 4x5. Occasionally shoot color medium format and 4x5, but don’t see much advantage to shoot 35mm color.
I print my color and some black and white on the Epson Photo Printer, and most black and white (film) in the darkroom.
While I develop my own film, I find that dust can be a big issue, and scanning and removing the dust to be a challenge.
Thanks
Don't get me wrong, back when I used film I'd have loved a scanner (and printer) like this! Getting the healing brush out on Photoshop though for the dust brought it all back to me.
That was when it was a hobby... 'going pro' coincided with my switch to digital in 2004 ;-)
Interesting...I have a V850 - I've ditched it in favor of a digital camera with a macro lens. It gives noticeably superior results (especially sharpness, tonal resolution), more control, and efficiency (it takes about 3 minutes to digitize a 36 roll film). Plus you have less chance scratching the film and the pesky problem of dust. You need a decent DSLR or mirrorless camera with a macro lens plus a copy stand, a film holder and a light source. Valoi, Cinestill and Negative Supply have scanning kits that are about the same cost as the Epson 850.
Yes, many more ways available now.
This is part of my V850 review rather than any suggestion of what is best
Try DeNoise Ai instead of Sharpen Ai, it'll give better results.
Similar but different - like all of these things designed for digital images so needing quite a bit of experimentation.
Of course it varies by film and exposure (and scan settings), so I'm more than happy to suggest people try whatever they have...
I use Topaz DeNoise AI as well for film photos. Works wonders on the Low Light setting. And for a few images where it's not, version 3.0.3 usually does the trick for me.
@@jimmynordstromphotography you mean that sometimes the older version of DeNoise Ai works better than the new one?
@@OrelRussia In some situations I find that the Low Light mode in the latest versions struggles with really high ISOs, and while the Severe Noise mode can deal with these situations it blows up imperfections in out of focus backgrounds that makes them look quite messy. Older versions Low Light mode handles these situations better. But for most cases I find the newer versions better. So it depends and in general I would recommend the latest version.
While you do you get a 3x bigger file, you don't get more data converting a greyscale image into RGB as I am sure you know. You get three duplicated channels with no distinction between each, with which software can do no more than with the original greyscale. So that is a dead end. I'd like to prattle on about this to pique the interest of willing learners,
1. Creating a "seriously considered" B&W image (for instance a landscape) best be done from color film or transparency media via a full RGB file, or via an original digital RGB file. If for some reason one wishes to crush the RGB to greyscale, do it dead last. But in general, don't bother. The example in this vid is not useful, as it's a near monochrome scene. If you use a shot with a person, greenery, and blue sky with clouds, the implications of the technical details are apparent.
2. Depending on the subject matter various interpretations of the colors into tone values is all the difference in a B&W end product. Typical example is the blue sky with white clouds dilemma; blue sky and white clouds have about the same reflectance ie their exciting visual distinction in an image is not due to their differing reflected light intensity, but their hue.
Thus the excitement is either retained by dumb luck, or lost, if the record is created in monochrome media that tosses out colors. So we may ask, Why did an Ansel Adams sky look so dramatic if it was shot on BW film? Because with panchromatic BW film, Adams would use a yellow or orange or red filter on the lens for the shot, and thus specifically increase contrast between image elements the compliment of the filter color: ie the blue sky would become darker and the clouds thus stand out with the same drama found at the scene. This can still be done in software, if the color data is there to edit. This is accomplished with the channel mixer tool for instance in Photoshop. No 3 channel color data, you can still do dodging an burning, curves & levels, but it's nowhere near as perfectly effective as editing by color. This also applies to creating a mask, which can be done in very effective manner via a duplicate color channel, if they are there to work with.
PS side not this necessity for RGB to create superb BW is why I find the illustrious and ungodly expensive Leica "monochrom" model digital rangefinder to be a backward anachronism at over $10K. It has a BW sensor! No color data at all! It's ridiculous, and an example of how a brand name can overcome scientific reality in the minds of people with more money than sense.
Pardon the length and typos, it's a complex topic and I've only so much time today.
Ah, back in 1994 I had B&W film in the camera - for eventual printing in my darkroom. There was obviously no thought whatsoever to scanning. There may well have been a yellow filter on the lens, but I was in low cloud...
Your points are well made but perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of _this_ particular video which is purely to look at scanning some old B&W film on the V850 and making a print from it, so considerations of the use of colour film and conversions are for a different day. _Of course, I'd not even consider film these days, so that's a whole different subject entirely ;-)_
The print is a personal memory of an event nearly 30 years ago, not particularly a work for anyone else's benefit or how I would likely compose and create a print these days.
I have been writing about converting digital images from colour to B&W for nearly 20 years ;-)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital-black-and-white-photography/
...but they are all matters for another video (or 10) I try and keep videos relatively specific - since I can never include all the additional info/references I would in a full written article.
PS definitely agree about the Leica ;-)