Tag Archives: Scanning

Colour Scanning: Negatif+ vs Epson V600 (and First Fujifilm Superia 200)


Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

When I handed over a colour film to Negatif+ a few weeks ago I decided to try their option of also having the negatives scanned; given that it takes me at least four hours to scan a (black & white) film at this point, I figured the 4€ extra might be a good deal if the quality matches up with their usual excellent service.

.. and it was! I’m positively surprised by both the Fujifilm Superia 200 film and the scanning. Besides lightening up the shadows a bit on a few of them I haven’t otherwise done any post-processing:

For comparison I also tried to scan some of them on my Epson V600 scanner; and given that it is a much cheaper consumer-level scanner than the one used by Negatif+ (apparently a Fujifilm Frontier SP3000) it actually did a pretty decent job, even on automatic, and both in terms of resolution and colour!

So a few pros and cons arose.

The scans from Negatif+ are slightly better resolution, have slightly less noise, and I like their warmer colour cast. Also, it’s pretty hard to beat 1€/hour.

On the other hand, to my surprise they are also slightly cropped for some reason (I somewhat suspect that the OM-1 exposes more than the typical 35mm frame) and come as a relatively small JPEG. The latter might not necessarily be a disadvantage of course, but on a few of them it wasn’t really possible to change the choice of burning out the highlights or closing up the shadows, and as a result I’m stuck with whatever Negatif+ decided; and part of the reason why scanning on my own takes longer is the time it takes to make this choice.

So there it is. The price for development is 6€ and for both 10€. For the next few films I’ll go with the scanning option again to have some very usable files and in order to spend my efforts on a selected few instead.

First Shots from Olympus OM-1


Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

When we took the darkroom course our teacher Barbara would dismiss our every mistake with a “it’s good that we come across this now so you know what to do”. Taking it perhaps a bit too literally we’ve since continued to discover how safe one actually is when shooting digital. For instance, you don’t have to worry about dropping the raw film on the floor when trying to put it on a spool in complete darkness; nor about keeping your cool when running out of correctly tempered water in a situation where seconds make a difference; nor about closing the box of unexposed paper properly before turning on the light.

And this brings me to the title of this post: it was supposed to say First Shots from Olympus OM-1 and OM-2, and it was supposed to be even more exciting by including shots from a newly acquired lens. However, apparently there was a lesson that needed to be illustrated more vividly before sinking into my head: when loading a film make sure that the crank has a proper grip on it and is really rolling it out. This is very easy to test by the way, by simply noticing if the rewind wheel is turning with the crank.

I didn’t do this test I suppose, with the result that after opening the tank with the developed film from the OM-2 I was very surprised to find a film completely blank, without any marks of light ever hitting it. For a second the camera was the suspect, but only until I was ready to accept my responsibility. Lesson learned, and the OM-2 with the lens is already making it’s way through a new film.

On the other hand, the film from the OM-1 turned into splendid negatives, here scanned with my new Epson V600 scanner:

Having used the batteries that’s been in the camera for 20-25 years I had a certain scepticism towards the light meter, but as it turns out this was entirely without cause.

One thing to notice though: the water marks. This was the first time I didn’t use a wetting agent and it clearly shows — another lesson learned.