Dear Apple-
I’m a long-time Lightroom/Photoshop user. I shoot almost all digital RAW or do high-resolution film scans from medium format negatives/slides to 16-bit TIFF. I’m basically very happy with this setup both in terms of performance and features. However, since upgrading my operating system to Snow Leopard (on a new, clean hard disk), I decided to try the latest Aperture to see how it’s progressed over the last couple of years.
I took about 5 RAW files from my Canon 30D and about 5 film scan TIFFs (16-bit files about 75-150MB each) and imported them into the Aperture trial library. After attempting to make adjustments on a few of the files, I realized my late 2007 Macbook with 3GB of RAM is clearly not capable of running Aperture 2.1.4. After only making a handful of adjustments on the 8MP digital RAW files from the 30D, Aperture seemed to slow to a crawl. On the large film scan TIFFs, Aperture seemed to slow to a coma very soon after starting to make adjustments. By contrast, on this same computer, I have a Lightroom 2.5 library with thousands of images, including huge film scan files. Lightroom runs extremely fast almost all of the time for me — it only seems to slow down when I make tons of brush/spot adjustments on a large file. Lightroom runs so much faster than Aperture that realistically, I can’t think of switching regardless of features. I wonder if Aperture requires a dedicated graphics card to run at an acceptable pace whereas Lightroom doesn’t? Just a guess.
However, I was very impressed by these features:
- soft proofing (yes!)
- levels tool (having 5 sliders)
- highlights and shadows tool (esp. the advanced options here)
- dodge and burn tool gave pleasing results
Going forward, I’ll continue to monitor the evolution of both Lightroom and Aperture (and any other viable tools that emerge) for my photo library management and RAW development needs. If Lightroom ever gets a soft-proofing feature, I may never look at Aperture again. Or if Aperture gets much much much faster, or if I somehow obtain a much much faster computer, I might just switch to Aperture at some point.
I hope this feedback is valuable in some way.
Respectfully,
Matt Sawyer
M.SAWYER PHOTOGRAPHY
Alexander Gronsky featured onĀ manymany.
This guy is an amazing Estonian photographer. I really liked this one, a beautiful juxtaposition of landscape/cityscape.
Found this series of photos made in London. Batey has beautifully drenched out and personified sadness from these found objects in southwest London.
breathtaking landscape photography by Nicholas Hance McElroy.
Well, the future is now. And I’ve invested in a scanner. I decided to go with the Epson V500. After a lot of research (and after not having much cash to spend), I figured the differences between the V500 and V700/V750 were not worth the money at this point. I would say that I’m dreaming of one day getting a Nikon 8000 or 9000. However, by the time I can afford one of those, I think either A) medium format backs may actually be within reach, or B) the quality of upper-end full-frame DSLRs may punch through the dynamic range barrier that medium format digital kits currently transcend.
As of now I’ve scanned around 7 or 8 rolls of 120. And I see what everyone was talking about when they mentioned a scanning “learning curve”. So without further rambling, here’s a nice little list of what I’ve learned:
Hardware:
- Can’t speak for 35mm film, but for 120, you might as well throw away the film holder that comes with the scanner and get one of Doug Fisher’s Better Scanning holders with the glass insert. Without one, you’ll invariably experience 1 or 2 major problems: newton rings, and out-of-focus scans.
- The Epson V500 is rated at 6400 dpi. For all practical purposes, this number is meaningless. Kinda reminds me of the annoying and useless feature called “digital zoom” on most point-and-shoot digital cameras. The V500, from my not-so-scientific testing, seems to me to have a maximum resolution of around 2000 dpi. This would yield a decent 5x7” print from a 35mm shot, or about a 12x18” print from a 6x7cm shot. Not too shabby. But this depends on whether your scanning and post-processing technique is adequate, and ultimately on how sharp the negative/positive is in the first place.
Software:
- Forget about the software that comes with your scanner. Get Vuescan Pro. It gives you just about every feature you could want in a scanner: multi-pass, multi-exposure, raw scanning, DNG files, 48-bit, and more. Silverfast AI is too expensive. Silverfast SE is possibly the most laughably horrible software I’ve ever seen. EpsonScan isn’t bad, and actually it’s probably the easiest to use. But it doesn’t give you enough control. The only thing that drives me crazy about Vuescan is that its multi/auto cropping tool is amazingly bad. But since I’m not scanning a zillion frames at once, I can live with it.
Film:
- The new Ektar 100 is awesome! My style in digital photography lately had been shying away from any vivid colors, prefering an aged, desaturated look. But seeing the poignant colors come up on the screen from the Ektar made me revisit my thinking here. Not that I’ll abandon the desaturated look though.
- Using old, cheap, expired film has its drawbacks. The quality from edge to edge of the frame is unpredictable. Sometimes this gives a nice pastel washy effect, but sometimes it looks dingy and unintentionally dirty (not in a cool way, in my opinion). The Fuji Superia 400 I used was also somewhat crinkly and difficult to work with in the scanner.
- Fuji Neopan 400 is an awesome film to scan (and great for home darkroom processing, so I’ve heard). It lies very flat, has moderate, pleasant grain (in 6x7 anyway), is pretty sharp, and has just beautiful tonality. The histograms show a nice soft falloff, making the digital files extremely easy to work with in Lightroom. I was able to overexpose it by several stops to retain all the shadow detail and I almost never lost any of the highlight detail. Highly recommended.
Technique:
- If you’re going to do much beyond just posting the images to the web, take the time to learn how to sharpen your files well. This doesn’t just apply to the digital processing of film photos, it also applies to digital photography (albeit less importantly). Files straight out of the scanner are going to be pretty soft. Here is a great tutorial about sharpening in Lightroom: here and here. Here is a great post about 3-step sharpening in Photoshop.
- The dynamic range and tonality of film are a lot of the reason why I love it so much. I was pleasantly surprised that my V500 was able to capture this decently well. Of course this was after painstakingly perusing Vuescan’s features, doing lots of tweaking. I think there are two reasons why I was able to capture great tonality and range: 1) scanning in 48-bit mode, and 2) using the multi-exposure feature of Vuescan. This produces giant files but I don’t mind. The quality is totally worth it to me.
- Vuescan totally confounded me at first. It was producing crazy, useless, color-shifted images until I found out how to get the proper settings and calibrate it for the particular film:
-
- Load the film up in the scanner and hit Preview.
- Drag a selection window over a strip of film that is blank, in the margins of the film.
- Hit Calibrate.
- Preview again.
- Check the box for “Lock Exposure”.
- Preview again.
- Check the box for “Lock Film Base Color”.
- Turn off any color correction that may be applied automatically by Vuescan. You’re probably better server by adjusting these things in Photoshop, not Vuescan.
- In the output section, make sure you’re Saving “As Film”.
- Hit Scan and you’re on your way.
That’s all for how.
Found this awesome site thought another one of my favorite online photo sites (Triangle Triangle). Off-the-cuff, inspiring, whimsical, poignant work.
In my book, Apertures currently counts as costing an arm and a leg. It cost me $5/negative frame + $6/CD for the two high-res scans. EIGHT DOLLARS per image. Add on the cost of the film, processing, and initial low res scanning, and the cost per high res image piles up to almost $10. Simply crazy unless I’ve already sold the print.
I’m all about supporting local business, especially art-related business. But at this rate I can’t afford to shoot much film, especially when the revenue-generating dept of my business is currently called “wedding photography”.
short-term plan:
Send a few rolls to Miller’s Imaging in Kansas (one of the largest labs in the world) for processing/scanning. They’re a little bit cheaper and I’m curious to compare the results to Apertures.
medium-term plan:
1: Get a scanner. I’m thinking about the Epson V750. Not a film scanner but in the ballpark. I would not consider this scanner to be good enough for great 35mm scanning, but we’re talking about 6x7 negatives here. Maybe it doesn’t have to be that good.
2: Get black and white processing equipment. This stuff is super cheap right now. I mean almost free-cheap. The cost isn’t really what’s holding me back on this one. It’s more of a time and learning curve thing. I’ve never done any real darkroom work before. It’s a little intimidating. But my wife is going to take a film photography class next semester. She will be able to process my film then (if she enjoys it, that is). Of course this means using the camera for mostly black-and-white photography. I’ve grown more in love with color in the last couple of years but I deep-down never really stopped loving black and white. Maybe the cost savings from black and white processing at home will help subsidize sending color rolls to the lab.
medium-long term plan:
Get a nice inkjet printer and really learn printing and color management. If I ever get to selling enough prints, that is. It would have to be a high enough volume to justify obviously.
long -term plan:
Get a digital back for the RZ67 (and a new computer to handle the giant files that will ensue). Right now these cost as much as a nice car. But in a few years surely not. My hope is that a real, full 6x7 back will come to the market. I realize this is quite possibly a pipe dream. If so I may say goodbye to 6x7 and just start shooting digital 6x6 or 645. Who knows.
After many games of ping-pong in my head about where/how to get my 6x7 negatives processed, I finally decided to bite the bullet and take a few rolls (not all, because it’s so darn expensive) to my nearest pro lab, Apertures Photo. I had them processed and scanned to a CD. It was something like $5/roll for processing, $5/roll for scanning, and $6 for the CD itself. The images produced by their Noritsu lab were about 5MP, 8-bit jpegs. Not the greatest quality or even usable for anything other than proofing or posting on the web, but I guess this is the digital counterpart to the old light table. The images actually looked decent though they were a little noisy and couldn’t be manipulated much on a computer. I was quite happy with most of the black and white shots (Fuji Neopan 400). Great tonality, range, and sharpness, but noticeably grainy. The color shots were all expired Fuji Superia 400, a cheap consumerr-quality film that had been sitting in my freezer for a couple of years. I was not terribly impressed with the color of the Superia or anything else about it for that matter, except that it seemed to have adequate sharpness (and that was shooting wide-open, handheld).
Well I decided I really like two of the shots I’d had processed so far, so I took them a step further. I brought those two negatives back to Apertures for a 4000 DPI scan on their Nikon 8000 film scanner. The files produced here were just enormous: 270 MB TIFF files, approximately 85 MP. My little Macbook had trouble opening each of them in Lightroom, lots of spinning pinwheels happening that day. The resolution on these files was obviously supreme, but I think a bit overstated by the technical specs of the files. I think the real resolution was probably somewhere around half of the stated 4000 DPI. And the other problem is that I’m still getting 8-bit files. So far my opinion on film scanning: why would you give up the dynamic range of the film by compressing bit-depth like that? I’d like to have a 16-bit file that’s about 2400 DPI. That would be perfect I should think. Now if I can find a lab that’ll accomodate without costing me an arm and a leg.
Click here to see some of the results (as well as old film shots).





