OK, I know we are an analog forum but I would like to know what methods you have found best for converting medium format negatives to digital for editing etc.

Do you have it done by the lab, scan them yourselves, scan prints, etc? Is there a provider that you have found that does a good job at this.

You know, that type of stuff.

Mark

Mark,

this question is better off posted in the Alternative fourm, the regular forums are for analog discussions and most here are pretty passionate about it, so watch out, you may get some not so nice answers, at least you read the description of the system, even if you chose to not follow along with the wishes of the owner.

Dave

Yep an anolog forum. The grey area of the alternative process sub forum is about making digital negs. Mention it in the open forums and you will get flamed. Especially if that editing is to change what you shot so you can do some sort of digital manipulated multi media output that is no longer the orginal negative.

The thread has been moved.

The answer to your question depends upon what it is you plan to do with the scan. Post it on the web or print no larger than 8x10 and a consumer flatbed will probably be fine. If you wish to go larger and especially if the film to be scanned is B&W or colour transparency then you'd be better off with a dedicated film scanner, a flextight or drum scanner. The last two items would normally require a pro lab.

The problem with medium and large format film is the amount of information contained in the image. I find consumer level flatbed scanners to be totally inadequate for the task unless you only want to post them on a website - or, your standards a low enough to accept the truncated tonal scale, poor color fidelity, and lack of sharpness.

If you plan on making prints, the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is the minimum piece of equipment. I own an Imacon because I do up to 4x5. Drum scans are still somewhat better than the Imacon because they will pull a bit more detail from the shadows. The drum scans used to be less noisy in the shadows, but the latest firmware update from Imacon seems to have really improved that aspect.

A friend, who is an internationally known documentary photographer, uses the Nikon 9000 for some of his work and has had no complaints from galleries or museums as to the final image. In fact, his main gallery is urging him to do the prints digitally for prints 16x20 and larger as they like the quality better than traditional photographs.

The problem with medium and large format film is the amount of information contained in the image. I find consumer level flatbed scanners to be totally inadequate for the task unless you only want to post them on a website - or, your standards a low enough to accept the truncated tonal scale, poor color fidelity, and lack of sharpness.



I believe Steve is right about the consumer level scanners being inadequate if the goal is to extract maximum image information from a medium format negative. I have an Epson 4870 that is supposed to scan at 4800 dpi and it is adequate for scanning 6X9 B&W and color negatives if printing size is limited to no larger than 16X20. For 6X6 or 6X4.5 negatives it is good for up to no larger than 11X14.

By contrast my ancient Leafscan 45, though it only scans medium format negatives at 2450 dpi, produces files that are vastly superior the what I get with the 4870. And in large sizes, say up to about 30"X30", there is really no question but that digital prints from the scanned Leafscan files are very clearly superior to anything one could make with an enlarger and wet processing.

As a general rule I find that the consumer level scanners are entirely adequate when magnification is limited to no more than about 3X-5X. Beyond that, you need to look to something like the Leaf, Imacon or a drum scan.

Sandy

...Drum scans are still somewhat better than the Imacon because they will pull a bit more detail from the shadows. The drum scans used to be less noisy in the shadows, but the latest firmware update from Imacon seems to have really improved that aspect.

...

It sounds like you are referring to slides, not negatives. A Nikon 8000 or 9000 should be able to get all the detail from the highlights and shadows of negative film. The 8000 is significantly slower than the 9000, largely because of having to use 'Super Fine Scan' to avoid banding, but I've seen little difference between the 8000 and the 9000 in the final quality when scanning negs. The 9000 might be capable of greater true maximum bit depth, but I think that it is a close call.

Best,
Helen