Hi
I am new here and this is a huge learning curve for me. I recently started taking film photographs again and pulled out my old scanners out of the cupboard. I have Minolta Multi Scan Pro, Nikon ED5000 and Flextight x5
Shooting 35 and 120, colour and BW
Hoping to get help with the group here if get into problems.
My first attempts using X5 and Negative Lab Pro
Hi @Alex_Y, welcome to the forum. Your results look very good to me, do you prefer them to the results from Flexcolor?
Hi Harry,
I dont know because I never used the Flexcolor -not sure I know how?
Well, it’s free but you may need an older computer to use it. I like it for colour negative and of course you can use the 3F RAW format for non-destructive editing.
Surely you have to use Flexcolor to scan with the X5?
Yes I know how to scanb with it but have no clue how to adjust the images afterwards
Ok, much the same as scanning in fact, same controls that you have when outputting to a tiff when scanning but you can scan to a 3F to save scanning again if you don’t like your tiff (I’m presuming that you are outputting a tiff for NLP). Lots of different colour negative film presets. I believe that you can also use Phocus with the X5 but never tried it myself.
I guess you may be following Nate’s advice here, so perhaps you are scanning as a 3f file.
I’ve been using the Flextight since 2000. Recently, I realized that camera scanning can deliver better results, provided you set up your rig properly and use the right tools. Honestly, if I were you, I’d sell the Flextight. It doesn’t match the dynamic range of a modern camera scanning setup, it applies artificial sharpening, and it struggles with high-contrast negatives.
With the money you get from selling it, you could buy a medium format digital camera, a macro lens, a repro stand, a light table, and film holders. You might even have enough left over to buy a used car, renovate your kitchen, or go backpacking in Southeast Asia for three months.
It was a wonderful scanner in its time, but in my humble opinion, it’s becoming obsolete. Letting go of mine was a hard pill to swallow. But after being forced to make analog prints and digitize them with a Sigma for my last book, and another book I did reproduction for, and now again for my next one, I came to see that camera scanning is the new standard.
I used the Nikon Coolscan 8000ED alongside the Flextight back in the day, around twenty-three years ago, when I was a studio manager for several photographers. Even then, I was surprised that some negatives simply didn’t work well with the Flextight. I’d turn to the Nikon to get the results my bosses needed. The guys relying on the Flextight were dumbfounded, but when they saw the difference, they agreed: the Flextight struggles with certain film stocks, especially if they are exposed in a idiosyncratic way.
I’m not saying it’s a bad scanner, it’s probably the best scanner ever made, but it has its limits.
Your results look good, and if you decide to keep it, I genuinely wish you all the best. Just know that it can’t do what a darkroom can do, and that the aesthetics of camera scanning, when done right, are much closer to the aesthetics of traditional darkroom printing.
It took me two years to perfect my rig, but if you follow @Harry, you’ll likely get there much faster than I did. Now I can easily scan a hundred images in an evening.
Maybe it is all about the software. I always liked the straightforwardness of Flexcolor, but when I use Negative Lab Pro now I am amazed at the difference in results and workflow.
Thanks @Krisky, I rarely fire it up now, very happy with my camera scans but the OP was specifically asking about Flextight scanning and NLP.. I actually find it very easy to get good colour negative inversions with little effort with Flexcolor, no steep learning curve for anyone proficient in Flextight scanning. Never got to grips with Colorperfect which some use. However you have obviously found NLP better for you, was that with a 3F file converted to tiff?
But is there an option to use Negative Lab Pro from a 3F file? That would be interesting.. Flexcolor is the first programme I really learned to use, and sometimes I preferred it to Photoshop, but then again I prefer Sigma Photo Pro to Photoshop, which is a programme that 9/10 people hate, so maybe I’m not the one to talk. I just wonder why no manufacturer is making another good scanner these days. The market should be enormous. What happened. Few things has increased its market share more than film the last decade.
Well Nate’s guide suggests simply scanning as a 3F and then changing the extension to tif. I think only Flexcolor & Phocus* could ever open a 3F so you could do real work though there is a plugin for Photoshop. That was quite handy as you could open the 3F and spot it in Photoshop, even add layers to make that easier. Then delete the layers and resave as a 3F. That’s all you could do and it could go wrong so best to work on a duplicate file.
The 3F file does actually have sharpening baked in but only to a value of ‘0’ when no sharpening (Unsharp mask) is -120.
*@Alex_Y confirms that Phocus won’t open 3F files.
Yeah, the minus thing, I heard people say it’s -180 or even -280, can’t remember. Isn’t that already quite suspicious? Why do we need unsharp mask on a 55 mpx scan? Doesn’t make sense to me honestly. Not to beat a dead horse, but when I look at my scans now from the monochrome camera I see the grain I saw in the darkroom prints, and when I look at my Flextight scans I see grain that is invented by the scanner or something.. I don’t know what is grain and what is digital noise. I know, very often it’s confirmation bias, but honestly my experience of camera scanning has been so troublesome until now, that to use Flextight would be my safest and easiest choice. But it just can’t handle push processed negatives. It’s kind of weird that it can’t handle negatives with less dynamic range than what is normal, so that’s where I guess the presets are playing a role. Anyway, I have given up on the whole method, and so has Hasselblad obviously.
My point being; why is there a default sharpening at all? I turned it off mostly, and then I learned that turning it off was not enough, you had to put minus numbers… Doesn’t make sense. What are they hiding? As far as I can remember the benefits of Flextight against Coolscan dissipated when I put those minus numbers in, though I have to admit that I did these tests two decades ago, Coolscan vs Flextight, so my memory might have failed me. We couldn’t seek help on the internet back then, so it was all word of mouth and manuals..
Thank you for your comments. The images above in my first post are from .fff files changed to .tif exactly as per Nate’s guidelines. I was surprised how easy it was and the whole process seemed more consistent than using Flexcolor although @Harry suggestion made me think and try Flexcolor.
I have 2 medium format Fuji GFX cameras with macro lenses from Fuji and Canon and I have a monochrome M with macro lens if needed. Was not sure if scanning with camera would be better than Flextight and your comments @Krisky are encouraging me to try the camera rig set up.
Screenshot of a camera scan as seen at 100% in Lightroom:
The image is a bit darker than I originally wanted, but I discovered the petroglyphs and wanted them to show without having to go through a lot of adjustments.
Photo taken in 1978 with a Mamiya 645, 400 iso B&W film (HP4 probably) and the Mamiya Sekor 300mm with Komura 2x teleconverter. Red filter, if I remember correctly.
Distance was about 500 yards, equivalent 35mm focal length approx. 1000mm. Considering the distance, lack of tripod and the teleconverter, there’s a lot of detail like in the fence (right edge) and the sign (left foreground)
I might be tempted to make an image from stitched parts scanned at whatever the lens and crop sensor will allow. I’ll scan with a R7 that will provide higher resolution than the M6 I had used here.
You’re essentially swimming in high-end equipment, @Alex_Y. If you love the process, as I’ve started to, it seems like you have the resources to do the most essential comparisons out there.
I guess I’m a bit traumatized by the Flextight, having done around half a million scans on it during my formative years, mostly for others during my apprenticeship. It also pulled me away from the darkroom, which I loved so dearly. I do believe there are scenarios where the Flextight can outperform camera scanning. Large format might be one of them. But I also believe that with the Fuji, you can achieve results that are equal to or even better in many cases.
As an afterthought: the Flextight is 16-bit (though the Fuji can do that too, right?), it uses a 3CCD sensor, and its holder ensures perfect film flatness. For me though, it all comes down to the dream of a new Foveon camera.
Right now, I’m exploring whether pixel shift on a Micro Four Thirds system, using only the center of the lens, could compete with the Flextight. I think it might in some respects, but not in others. That said, monochrome scans from a monochrome sensor are, without question, superior to those from the Flextight. After comparing my old Flextight scans to my recent camera scans over the past few weeks, I’m completely convinced of that.
Next, I plan to scan medium format color negatives with my Sigma DP3 Quattro once I’ve finished with the monochrome ones, and I’ll compare those results with Flextight scans. I suspect the Flextight might still win that duel. But if not, then I believe I’ll know where the future of camera scanning lies. And if that’s the case, Kazuto Yamaki holds that future.
If only the DP3 had true 1:1 macro.
I do wonder if this field will grow enough that we’ll eventually see a dedicated scanner camera. Something similar to the Leica S1.
Just a typo (a calco?) but surely 600mm on 645 is actually the equivalent of a shorter focal length lens on 35mm, so 437mm to give the same vertical angle of view. Irrelevant to the point that you are making though, call me pedantic…?
An afterthought: I haven’t noticed any major issues with the Flextight when scanning larger formats like medium or large format. That said, in the tests we ran at the professional lab I used before moving out into the forest and going full DIY, darkroom prints still came out on top.
I think the Flextight, like most scanners, reaches its limit with 35mm. The issue isn’t really sharpness or clarity, but rather the gradations and transitions between highlights, midtones, and shadows. The scans look good, just not analog. And that analog feel is exactly what we’re trying to replicate, right? Sharpness alone shouldn’t be the only metric.
Honestly, it baffles me that Imacon and Hasselblad haven’t put more effort into improving this over the last two decades. It feels like a missed opportunity.
Hi @Kirsky
Just orderedd some gear to do camera scans as well. Always wanted to see how GFX100 will go with a Canon 45 TC Macro Lens. Also keen to see how Leica m11 Monochrome go with a macro adaptor and a 50 mm APO lens. Another one to try will be a SL3 with same Canon TC macro lens, or Nikon Z series with a 100 MM macro. Have lots of gear to play with! Anyway, at the moment persisting with FFF scans and see how I go. Will keep you posted.
