to scan or not to scan

DSJ

Messages
5
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Hello.

I'm an absolute beginner at this. I have a Yashica 124g. I have rolls of 120 film I need to develop.

Because I'm just starting out I was going to leave everything to the lab...but then I saw how much it's going to cost.

How does everyone else here manage? Would love to know how you approach this.

I have been told to try Peak Imaging and yes, they are quite reasonable. But I am not sure how to proceed.

What would you chaps suggest? Remembering these are my first rolls so will probably be bad (light, composition, camera shake, everything)
ask Peak to develop&scan, then decide if I want to print any?
or just develop and then scan myself? I asked on another forum something similar and everyone seemed dead against scanning myself - that it was a tedious and time consuming process.

This might sound like a dumb question and it probably is but . .. : does a print from a negative look that different than a print from a scanned image?

In this digital age I wanted to get back to basics, i love the look of MF photos on Instagram for example...but I am already asking about how to digitise my photographs so I can share / send / post them. Am i destroying the qualities I admire so much in MF photography by scanning them? (Of course, the ones I have seen online are amazing, but they have also been through the scanner and they look so rich, subtle, layered - exactly why I bought the Yashica in the first place.

Thank you in advance for any advice.

DSJ
 
If these are your first rolls, I would probably ask Peak to develop and scan, providing you've looked at the cost / time factor of developing your own verses Peak doing it for you, and if you need to buy any kit to do the process, presuming you have a satisfactory scanner also to hand.
 
I'm a great fan of Peak but if these are just test rolls then depending on what film you've shot it may suit you to have them processed by FilmDev, quick, cheaper than Peak and your scans will be available to download from WeTransfer almost immediately after they've scanned them.
 
Hi David - If you want the absolute best quality (i.e. what you're probably seeing online) you almost certainly need to get a professional to scan your images. It makes a world of difference. For the highest quality, I'd recommend Canadian Film Lab (note their lab is closed at the moment): http://canadianfilmlab.com/

Most of the great scans you see will be in part due to using good pro scanners (Noritsu and Fuji Frontiers), but mostly down to the skills of the scanner operator.

I use an Epson V550, and something like that will get you 90% of the way there, but with a LOT of time and effort. You'll most likely need additional software (a colour conversion action I'd recommend: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-cn-inversion-method-for-ps.156863/) and maybe also different negative holders.

For B&W I'd strongly recommend processing the film yourself and using an enlarger. It's a lot more fun, very low cost and will give you better results in the mid to long term. Obviously, there's a learning curve, but it's not rocket science. There's a ton of resources online and hundreds of people on here that will help you out.

Whatever route you take, have fun. There's no point otherwise :)
 
Hi David welcome to TP, unless you have a sutiable negative scanner and software I think you are going to find it frustrating to have he negs and not be able to view them. Why no just send one off initially and see how it goes, film dev offer various scanning resolutions at different prices IIRC.

BTW people on here are very good at spening other people's money so beware :D
 
Marc, thanks for redirecting this.
Chrism8, I did just that - I spoke to a friendly lady at Peak and she advised that develop& scan was the better option. She even said that if the photos were duds (always a possibility when you are using your first MF TLR camera for the first time with a borrowed light meter) then there would be no charge.
RaglanSurf - I will check FilmDev in a second.

Overall, if I just go for negs and scan, its going to £8 a roll. Add the cost of the actual film and the postage ... i reckon it will be around £16 a roll.
That's a lot cheaper than I found so far in my (London) area, and notwithstanding the postage fee i think its pretty reasonable and has allowed me to delay the home darkroom, hopefully for a long time.

Thank you to all for responding.
DJ
 
Slightly off-topic, but how do people on here rate the scanner operators at Peak and FilmDev? Are you able to advise them of the type of scan you're looking for, for instance?

I don't know anything about their service, and don't want to speak negatively about them, but I can't recall seeing scans posted here that look anywhere close to those produced by Canadian FL (née UKFilmLab).
 
Slightly off-topic, but how do people on here rate the scanner operators at Peak and FilmDev? Are you able to advise them of the type of scan you're looking for, for instance?

I don't know anything about their service, and don't want to speak negatively about them, but I can't recall seeing scans posted here that look anywhere close to those produced by Canadian FL (née UKFilmLab).

I've certainly had conversations with the Filmdev folk about my scans. They used to give a little feedback (as UKFL/CFL do, I think), but I suspect their business has grown to the point they can't do that. If you ask them to ring for payment (as opposed to using Paypal), you get a chance to speak to them then.

I've seen zero evidence that CFL scans are significantly better than Filmdev scans. In the one instance where I had a roll of Velvia 50 scanned by me (Plustek 7500i and Vuescan Pro), Photo Express of Hull and UKFL, I thought Photo Express was much better than UKFL (who are now CFL)...

ETA: actually each scan has different virtues, I think PE does the sky much better but UKFL copes better with the rocks...

Home scan:

Plustek CS1407PMXA01r3.jpg

Photo Express:

Photo Express 72550037.jpg

UKFL:

UKFL CR290814000651-02.jpg

This was 135 film.
 
Last edited:
This might sound like a dumb question and it probably is but . .. : does a print from a negative look that different than a print from a scanned image?

I don't have a good, personal experience answer to this, though I'm hoping to get one of my favourite black and white shots wet printed soon. But you should remember that if you ask for process and print, almost everywhere you will get a print made from a scan. There may be a few labs where you can request a wet print; the only one I know of is Ilford, presumably for black and white prints.
 
Thanks ChrisR


Sirch - I will do just that. Its going to be quite reasonable going through Peak which is what I shall do. Process and scan - all 12 in the can may be duds, who knows?
DJ
 
I've certainly had conversations with the Filmdev folk about my scans. They used to give a little feedback (as UKFL/CFL do, I think), but I suspect their business has grown to the point they can't do that. If you ask them to ring for payment (as opposed to using Paypal), you get a chance to speak to them then.

I've seen zero evidence that CFL scans are significantly better than Filmdev scans. In the one instance where I had a roll of Velvia 50 scanned by me (Plustek 7500i and Vuescan Pro), Photo Express of Hull and UKFL, I thought Photo Express was much better than UKFL (who are now CFL)...

ETA: actually each scan has different virtues, I think PE does the sky much better but UKFL copes better with the rocks...

Home scan:

View attachment 129006

Photo Express:

View attachment 129007

UKFL:

View attachment 129008

This was 135 film.

That is an odd scan from CFL, presumably because it's slide film, and specifically Velvia. They don't offer any E6 on the website anymore (did they ever?)
 
I've seen zero evidence that CFL scans are significantly better than Filmdev scans. In the one instance where I had a roll of Velvia 50 scanned by me (Plustek 7500i and Vuescan Pro), Photo Express of Hull and UKFL, I thought Photo Express was much better than UKFL (who are now CFL)...

Because that is an E6 slide with a very wide subject brightness range, I don't feel those scans are indicative of the quality of any of those labs. A comparison of colour negative would be much more meaningful.

That is an odd scan from CFL, presumably because it's slide film, and specifically Velvia. They don't offer any E6 on the website anymore (did they ever?)

They offered E6 developing and scanning for a bit as UKFL, but I believe that their E6 development was not done in house.

For me, CFL's advantage is their very good and also very consistent colour negative work.
 
This might sound like a dumb question and it probably is but . .. : does a print from a negative look that different than a print from a scanned image?

In this digital age I wanted to get back to basics, i love the look of MF photos on Instagram for example...but I am already asking about how to digitise my photographs so I can share / send / post them. Am i destroying the qualities I admire so much in MF photography by scanning them? (Of course, the ones I have seen online are amazing, but they have also been through the scanner and they look so rich, subtle, layered - exactly why I bought the Yashica in the first place.

Thank you in advance for any advice.

Ordinarily, you will scan the negatives. This will not ruin the unique look of medium format images.

For now, you're likely best to control variables so that you learn what role you play in the film development process and can check to see if equipment is working. As such, I would use fresh film and a decent lab to process and scan at the start. This way, if there are any issues, it is easier to pinpoint the cause.

As you progress with film and are sure that your camera works, you might consider adding in darkroom printing, scanning yourself, using experimental film/processes, or other options where appropriate. Personally, I think the magic of colour negative is difficult to capture with most home scanners, so I stick to pro labs or darkroom printing, but this is ultimately up to you.

Keep in mind that the final costs of medium format film are similar to digital in the long run, but the cost is more spread out with film. For instance, with medium format digital, you would pay thousands upfront with minimal ongoing costs. With film, the cameras costs are much cheaper to start, but you will have ongoing consumable costs.

Also, one last thing to note is that people can pay thousands for state-of-the-art digital sensors; with film photography, your analogous cost is the film itself and its processing.
 
Last edited:
Thank you skysh4rk

You speak a lot of sense. Measured and rounded. I will finish my second roll this weekend then see what happens when Peak return it. I like the idea of scanning myself, since to me this might add a lyer of creativity into the process. I also cant afford paying the lab indefinitely! If i get anything from either roll i will post it up here. Exciting times!
 
I have done both printing from scans and darkroom printing.
It may just be me but darkroom prints always seem to have smoother colour gradations.
I also noticed the prints from scans seemed to have higher native contrast. Once again, could just be me.
 
Also, one last thing to note is that people can pay thousands for state-of-the-art digital sensors; with film photography, your analogous cost is the film itself and its processing.
The more digital images you make the cheaper they are but I've noticed as an amateur that when I do go back to film I get more "keepers". That 12 or 36 shot barrier does concentrate my mind. The mileage will vary for others of course.
 
I have done both printing from scans and darkroom printing.
It may just be me but darkroom prints always seem to have smoother colour gradations.
I also noticed the prints from scans seemed to have higher native contrast. Once again, could just be me.

My experience also.
 
12 or 36?

Oh to have such flexibility! ;)
Well, quite a few of mine only do 8 on a roll... and don't they sell large format sheet film in packs of 10? So it seems you're two better off than I am! ;)
 
Last edited:
I have done both printing from scans and darkroom printing.
It may just be me but darkroom prints always seem to have smoother colour gradations.
I also noticed the prints from scans seemed to have higher native contrast. Once again, could just be me.

I can't speak as to colour, because I don't use colour.

Whatever may be the results in the hands of experts, in my experience of my own work, prints from scans are better than those I made in the darkroom. Also, from my own experience, whatever the theory may be in practice I found that different papers have different inherent contrasts - the surface texture and colour of Hahnemuele PhotoRag and Somerset Enhanced Velvet are pretty similar, but the same can't be said of the mid tone contrast of the prints produced from the same digital file on the same printer. Possibly bespoke profiles for both papers would iron out the differences, but then we're getting into the realms where we're making fine adjustments (possibly both to the scans - I do my own - and to the file before printing).

Colour gradations could be a simple matter of not having enough bit depth in the scan.
 
Last edited:
The more digital images you make the cheaper they are but I've noticed as an amateur that when I do go back to film I get more "keepers". That 12 or 36 shot barrier does concentrate my mind. The mileage will vary for others of course.
You can recreate the same mental focus and its effect on keeper rate by going out to shoot digital with a nearly dead battery and no spare.
 
I can't speak as to colour, because I don't use colour.

Whatever may be the results in the hands of experts, in my experience of my own work, prints from scans are better than those I made in the darkroom...
The workshop that Joh @thedarkshed did for me was a bit of a revelation. I had not appreciated quite how much work goes into making a good enlargement. Not sure if it was 5 or 7 test strips, and at least 3 full sized prints. We should perhaps have made just one more, but after nearly 4 hours, it seemed like we'd spent enough on one print! John was however keeping notes, which he files with the test prints so if I go back for another go he knows where we'd got to. I also hadn't appreciated quite how unique each print is compared with a digital one, in this case because it required dodging in a couple of areas that were just too dark.

John does all his prints that way, but I have to say I would only want to do it for a special print!

One real advantage, the final enlarged print is definitely black and white; I don't have a "proper" photo printer, and there's always a slight colour cast. I went in thinking I'd done a pretty good job on my version of the print, and came out realising that it's green!
 
You can recreate the same mental focus and its effect on keeper rate by going out to shoot digital with a nearly dead battery and no spare.

But, but, but... that would be perverse! We're not perverse, we're... oh. OK!
 
The workshop that Joh @thedarkshed did for me was a bit of a revelation. I had not appreciated quite how much work goes into making a good enlargement. Not sure if it was 5 or 7 test strips, and at least 3 full sized prints. We should perhaps have made just one more, but after nearly 4 hours, it seemed like we'd spent enough on one print! John was however keeping notes, which he files with the test prints so if I go back for another go he knows where we'd got to. I also hadn't appreciated quite how unique each print is compared with a digital one, in this case because it required dodging in a couple of areas that were just too dark.

Hello everyone! Just jumping into this thread after the tag from @ChrisR - only just joined the forum so I've got a lot of catching up to do...

It's a challenge producing DR prints in sort periods - and generally I end up using more paper! Usually I would do a couple of tests strips, a full size and then sit on that for a few days why I analysed it and think about adjustments - then a couple more test strips and then a final full size test with all dodge+burn etc.
We didn't even do a split-grade on your print ;)

Timing wise, it can be shorter (or longer!) than this - some negs produce great print straight off (get it right in camera!), others need more time on them, but that's no different to working from a scan...

Any ways, great to 'meet' you all, will have a good dig through the site when I've got some free time next week...
 
Welcome John, always nice to have new people join and especially new people with your experience. I'm sure Chris mentioned that this is the friendliest bit of the forum and we do have some interesting threads on the go. We also have a good few meets throughout the year which are open to everyone (even those digi lot if they want to see how its really done :D).

Andy
 
I've seen zero evidence that CFL scans are significantly better than Filmdev scans.

I've used Palm Labs, AG Photographic, Filmdev and (yes) Jessops 1hr dev/scan. Looking through Lightroom I couldn't tell you what was scanned by who, the only thing I notice is if I've cocked up the exposure. Zero issues when ink jet printing any of their scans at A4 either.

If I was printing larger, then I may be a bit more picky. But then I'd probably opt for something like a drum scan for larger than A4 prints.
 
Back
Top