advertisement


Slide vs Negative

I moved to digital in the mid-00s for its much improved value but I’d loved making slides. It was a simple one step process that seemed more truthful than printing from negatives. Well-exposed projected slides looked amazing. If I wanted prints I knew a printer who made superb ones via medium format internegs.

I was never a fan of Velvia, much preferring the lower contrast, less saturated Provia. I could buy it cheap from someone who reloaded bulk film. Early 90s Ektachrome had a lovely soft warm palette that suited autumn colours. I never used Kodachrome 25 but loved the greens in K64. Once I bought a bunch of really cheap ORWO 100 that had perhaps the most inaccurate palette ever: cool & grainy with dreadful skin tones. It had a surreal, moody effect. I used tungsten film for gigs. Ektachrome 320T was a revelation! Re gigs, my focusing was often a bit out due to it being manual in usually dim lighting, although I could hold the camera still to 1/2 sec, sometimes 1 sec, even half-cut.

I’ve long planned to make digital copies of the best of my archive, even accumulating most of the equipment to do it via camera. However it seems more & more likely that it’ll be a retirement project - if I can be bothered by then as I’ve lost much interest & nearly all my eye in photography.
 
Whaleblue said:
53309325974_08b2041899_z.jpg


On the right the 40 year old OM-2n, and to the left the 5 year old OM-D E-M1 II.
Click to expand...
It’s nuts, isn’t it, that even M43 & APS-C digital ILCs are frequently bigger than “classic” film SLRs. They *can* be lighter (which I don’t like) but that’s it. I suppose part of it comes down to handling needs but the most important thing seems to be to accommodate the electronics.

That said, my 6D is the best handling DSLR I’ve ever used, even compared to film SLRs.
 
Hazelberry said:
That said, my 6D is the best handling DSLR I’ve ever used, even compared to film SLRs.
Click to expand...
The 6D really was a special thing. It would focus centre spot in near darkness. Just too heavy for me with the nice L lenses after my stroke so it had to go. Eventually found Fuji xpro2, which I still have.
 
I went from a secondhand 5D mkII and 17-40 to a mint- M6 mkII and 22mm last year and the weight saving means I actually use it much more often. Just bought the 11-22mm for £180 secondhand too.
I may spring for a RF model eventually.

Used to scan slides and negs on a Minolta 5400 but it was a massive time sinkhole. It died on me with a white screen and the Vuescan fella couldn't see a solution. Still have loads to do so will probably end up going the digital camera/ stand route. Have a 100mm macro that would hopefully do the trick.
 
Whaleblue said:
Umm.

I’ve got a little light box slide viewer. Perhaps I can use my iPhone to take an image using that?*

Failing that, given I’d be happy if one or two images from a 36 roll were worthy of sharing perhaps there’s a service one can send a few occasionally to to get done?

*Yes, I am joking
Click to expand...

Usually the people who process the film for you will offer a scanning service. You can pick up your slides or negs and files on a thumb drive all in one stop.
 
miktec said:
I have a very expensive and fully serviced Nikon Coolscan and have compared the results I get with a copy stand set up and there is very little to tell between them - except the copy stand was infinitely cheaper to put together.
Click to expand...

Infinitely cheaper if one already owns a DSLR or digital camera :)

I don't, and I don't want one anywhere near my negatives, so my $1000 Coolscan 8000ED, fully refurbished by a guy in the US and restored to factory condition, is an absolute steal.
 
Last edited:
Hazelberry said:
It’s nuts, isn’t it, that even M43 & APS-C digital ILCs are frequently bigger than “classic” film SLRs. They *can* be lighter (which I don’t like) but that’s it. I suppose part of it comes down to handling needs but the most important thing seems to be to accommodate the electronics.

That said, my 6D is the best handling DSLR I’ve ever used, even compared to film SLRs.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it depends on the size of one's hands. I loathed handling my Nikon D200 etc. I never got on with the added bulk+mass of DSLRs compared to SLRs. My Olympus OM2n is almost always in my hands, ready to fire :)
 
albireo said:
Infinitely cheaper if one already owns a DSLR or digital camera :)
Click to expand...

I said that in my post already ;)

I am in no way decrying Coolscan scanners - quite the opposite, I love mine despite the high cost of acquisition and essential servicing

I was simply pointing out that other equally viable options are available and are actually easy and quick to use....
 
miktec said:
I said that in my post already ;)

I am in no way decrying Coolscan scanners - quite the opposite, I love mine despite the high cost of acquisition and essential servicing

I was simply pointing out that other equally viable options are available and are actually easy and quick to use....
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Good to have a variety of options.
 
I always go with the scanning option when getting a film processed at Ag, because what they charge is very reasonable compared to the faff involved in scanning myself. I would only consider home scanning if doing my own film development.
 
This is a scan of a 6x7 colour negative (Portra 160) by AG photolab. No post-processing was applied apart from adding a white border. In the old days I used to think that you needed to use slide film to get rich colour saturation, but I think this proves otherwise.

Roses by Andrew D, on Flickr
 
My first scanner was a Minolta Dimage F2400 which I subsequently replaced with the much better Canon FS4000 I still own.
Haven't used it for ages, need to dig it out sometime.
 
@albireo

Your impressions of quality of image, ease of use.

Suitability - i should have said in my earlier post: this thread has got me thinking about my slides. I used to take quit a lot of phots on prepaid processing Kodachrome and Fuji. These slides have been sitting in boxes for 20 - 35 years and i was thinking about selecting some for copying, printing off and putting in an album which i could easily peruse in my dotage.
 
guydarryl said:
@albireo

Your impressions of quality of image, ease of use.

Suitability - i should have said in my earlier post: this thread has got me thinking about my slides. I used to take quit a lot of phots on prepaid processing Kodachrome and Fuji. These slides have been sitting in boxes for 20 - 35 years and i was thinking about selecting some for copying, printing off and putting in an album which i could easily peruse in my dotage.
Click to expand...

Hi Darryl - I just checked. I actually have the 7500i, an older model, but all I'm going to say still applies, as the 8100 is exactly the same hardware, with slight more up to date software.

So I've not used this in a while as I use a Coolscan now. However the Plustek is actually a really nice scanner for the money

You'll be familiar with this review already, if not give it a go

Film scanner-Review Plustek OpticFilm 8100: Inexpensive scanning of dias and 35mm-film strips with film holders with the SilverFast SE Plus 8

www.filmscanner.info www.filmscanner.info

Key take home is that its real resolution is ~3800 dpi, not 7200. Still pretty respectable for a 35mm scanner, but do keep that in mind. For reference, a flatbed scanner like the Epson V700 will only be about 2000 dpi or so, so this is an improvement resolution wise.

A couple of other things you should know
  • the 8100 does NOT have ICE (infrared-based hardware scratch and dust removal). This would be a godsend for old material like what you have. I believe you need to go up to the 8200 for ICE
  • the 8100 does not have motorised frame advancement. You literally have to push in frame after frame in the 6-frame negative holder (or 4 frame slide holder)
  • the 8100 does not have autofocus. Its lens is fixed focus, though the DOF is pretty wide for a film scanner.
To be honest, and in my opinion, it doesn't sound like an ideal machine for your use case. You say above you have a lot of slides to churn through. This unit will be quite slow. You can leave it unattended to do its thing, and do something else (eg any post-processing of the freshly scanned frames) but you'll still need to sit close and feed the next slide once it's done with the current one. The scan itself should take 1-5 minutes, but you shouldn't need to do a whole 36-frame roll in full res: you could do a low-res preview (=faster) before deciding whether to skip the frame (too scratched? poorly exposed? poorly composed? too deteriorated?) or do a full res scan (for the 'keepers').

So to summarise I think it's a really good unit, and definitely an improvement over a flatbed scanner, however the workflow might be quite tedious. Perhaps one of the suggested DSLR scanning solutions might be a more suitable option for you. Also, you might consider Plustek's motorised film scanner, the 135i

plustek.com

The Plustek OpticFilm 135i is the Easiest Way to Convert 35mm Film to Digital

The OpticFilm 135i delivers high quality scans of 35mm slide and negative film formats, and is tailor-made for shutterbugs, and individuals wishing to preserve valuable photos and film treasures. It focuses on ease of use and speedy film scanning.
plustek.com

disclaimer: I have never used one.
 
Weekender said:
Used to scan slides and negs on a Minolta 5400 but it was a massive time sinkhole. It died on me with a white screen and the Vuescan fella couldn't see a solution. Still have loads to do so will probably end up going the digital camera/stand route. Have a 100mm macro that would hopefully do the trick.
Click to expand...
I did it and it is proving at least as good results wise and much quicker. Downsides are huge file sizes and a bit of dust/hair removal work.
The negative holder from my old Epson 3200 flatbed came in handy on this light pad with a screen protector as the neg carrier was starting to leave marks (cleaned up with: http://www.greygate.com/product/plastic-polish/):
HSK A4 LED Light Box Light Pad Lock/Unlock Modes Touch Dimmer Button Super Brightness 7000 Lux https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BC8MSPJ9?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
JETech Screen Protector for iPad Pro 12.9 Inch 2022/2021/2020/2018 (6th/5th/4th/3rd) Model, Face ID Compatible, 9H Tempered Glass Film, 1-Pack https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07GZTBPNT?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
 
Last edited:
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Whaleblue said:
And that doesn’t include processing - which again I’d completely underestimated the cost of! I’ll use the four rolls I bought, and get them processed professionally, but at an overall £1+ a picture this will be a special event only thing.

As the intention was to get out and enjoy photography again I’ve come to my senses and traded in my big old Nikon, plus the little Fuji X10 against a lovely s/h Olympus OM-D E-M1 II plus ex-demo 12mm prime. See you in the competition threads I hope!
Click to expand...
True, film and processing costs have really increased, I dropped off a 36 exposure colour film for developing and scanning for.my daughter and the total cost including the film cost was around $30, so just under $1 a shot. If you get serious about film, consider processing your own, there are simple one bath processes for B&W and 2 bath for colour negatives. That makes the cost far more reasonable if you can scan at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top