As a very quick introduction, the Canoscan is a budget flatbed scanner from Canon. It has a high max DPI resolution and retails at the very low price of somewhere between $160 – $200. When I first got the scanner, I was amazed that it could support such a wide variety of film formats – from 35mm film to MF to regular print scans. For $200 it seemed like a steal. The general consensus on the web is that for the price, it gives great quality. Over time I started becoming a little frustrated with the extremely cheap film holders (they’re made of very flimsy plastic) as well as having to keep it clean. When you use the included software to process the images to reduce noise, etc – scan times take a long time also.

So, as I started to get more serious about film, I decided to get a dedicated high end scanner for my 35mm film. This was the Nikon Coolscan 5000. This scanner, unlike the Canon, is a dedicated 35mm scanner with a CCD, etc. There is no flatbed and so dust is more easily controlled. It also has a number of other high end features such as optional film loaders, etc. It retails at a significantly higher price however of about $1,000. It came with a great reputation and at the price tag, expectations were high.

Here’s a quick comparison of the two.

This was not a formal test so I’m using pretty much default settings for both scanners. I include some post processing too so to note invalidate the test as the process of scanning is notorious for having to tweak and refine (far more so than say shooting in JPG from a DSLR and moderately adjust the white balance).

To kick things off, here’s a quick overview of how images came straight of the scanner. The film here was Fujicolor Pro 160s, a high end colour negative film.

This is the scan that came off the Nikon. No processing or tweaking.

This is the Canon. Again no processing or tweaking, settings pretty much as default

The first thing that should strike you about these differences is that from a basic image quality perspective, they look remarkably similar (in terms of apparent sharpness, etc). The biggest difference however is the colour cast. The Canon produces a much warmer / more red cast across the image. In this case, it actually looks preferable due to the autumn scene but I can recall the specific scene quite clearly from memory and the Nikon is a much truer rendition.

An example of where this cast produces a poorer image is here:

My dog Sora, first with the Nikon. This looks great – I subsequently printed at 13″ x 19″ and the print is great

And now with the Canon

Here, the Canon scan is too warm (although again from a low res image quality perspective, it looks surprisingly good – more on quality later).

Now, if this were a proper fully fledged review, I’d be tweaking the Canon software to achieve a more realistic rendition of the image. However, I’m trying to do this write up without rescanning any old negatives and also, I’m trying to illustrate what can be reasonably expected rather than the ultimate potential of each device. However, it is important to look at what can be done with each image, so here’s an example with another shot on Fujichrome Velvia 100.

First, a shot of the Spaceneedle with the Canon. This is a perfect rendition of the scene at the time – beautiful blacks and yellows extracted from the slide

The same scene with the Canon. Here the reds are present again and the blacks don’t look as punchy

However, all is certainly not lost, using post processing (in this case Photoshop CS4), I applied some corrections using levels, colour balance, etc and within a couple of minutes:

Canon scanned image with processing in Photoshop CS4

There are still differences but this was a quick edit to show that it’s quick and relatively easy to make corrections in post (note that this was in JPG also).

As for resolution, here’s an example, using Fujicolour 160s again. First the Nikon;

Scan using Nikon at full resolution with ICE (dust / scratch removal ON) and noise reduction (GEM) set to 3 (medium – high).

100% crop of the Nikon Scan

Now the Canon:

Scan using Canon at 3200 DPI resolution with default settings.

100% crop of the Canon Scan

How do these compare? Well other than the fact that they’re at different resolutions, I’d say the Canoscan stands are surprisingly well. It’s noticeably softer but has not been sharpened so perceived sharpness could be significantly improved. I’d say it is resolving less detail than the Nikon but then at a fraction of the price you’d expect that (again, with the Nikon, the above scans print extremely well up to 13″ x 19″ which is the largest I can do at home right now).

Overall,  here’s my conclusion.

In the favour of the Canon:

• It’s dirt cheap (sub $200)
• It can scan both 35mm and medium format (120 film) and comes with film adapters
• It can also scan prints
• Resolution is good, and with tweaking (in post production or likely with better scan software), colour can be accurately captured

However, drawbacks are:

• Film holders are horribly flimsy
• It can be difficult to align the film correctly leaving to cropped images, etc
• It’s slow

At the other end of the spectrum, in favour of the Nikon:

• Dedicated 35mm scanner with useful adapters (by default it allows for scanning 6 negatives at a time but that can be increased with an adapter)
• Perfect colour reproduction, even out of the box
• Excellent quality / resolution
• Includes ICE for dust / scratch removal
• Pretty good performance in terms of speed

However, it’s drawbacks:

• Expensive
• Most of the useful adapters are add-on’s which you buy separately
• Not flexible, no MF capability (so you likely end up having to get a flatbed scanner anyway)

Since I started scanning film a few months ago, I’ve been astounded by just how many nuances and variables there are to film whether it be the type of film, the type of developer, its suitability for scanning and about a half dozen other factors. There is no simple answer to the number of questions around scanning and particularly the resulting resolution. What I will say is that the Canoscan is a great choice if any of the following is true:

• You’re on a budget
• Looking to start out with film / home scanning and don’t really know where to start (but willing to experiment and post process)
• Favour flexibility over quality

then the Canoscan remains a great buy. If you want the best for 35mm film however, the Nikon’s still the obvious choice.

So there you go…. A non perfect answer for the non perfect practice of scanning.

Well the other day I did a quick search for a free processing plugins for Photoshop and came across OptikVerve Lab’s virtualPhotographer, a free filter plugin for PS.

This will only be a quick write up – but over the past couple of weeks, I’ve really grown to like this tool. Although I enjoy carefully processing a handful of my best images, I tend to try to stick to a “60 second rule” where I spend no longer than that processing for most of my work. Because it has a a couple of hundred preset effects built in (and a good / fast preview tool), virtualPhotographer fits me perfectly for this. It’s very quick to scroll through the processing choices and apply filters and I’ve been very happy with the results. Processing speed on my dual core laptop on CS4 is fine – on my faster desktop it obviously moves v quickly. There is a bug in the software that requires you to rerun the plugin under certain circumstances to get a preview (which I wish they’d fix), but otherwise it’s extremely simple to use and very fun.

Here are a couple of examples on some random photos I pulled off my laptop tonight and then ran through a single virtualPhotographer filter.

Original (Olympus E-P1 + Switar 26mm):

virtualPhotographer version using a Cross Processing filter:

Original (Olympus OM-4 on Fuji 160s Pro):

virtualPhotographer version using a “Classic3″ B&W filter:

Original (Olympus E-P1 + Switar 26mm):

virtualPhotographer version using a “Fall Colors” built in filter (depending on your monitor this may look overcooked):

Original (Olympus OM-4 + Fuji Velvia 100):

virtualPhotographer version using “Hammer” BW filter:

Original (Olympus E-P1 + Switar 26mm)

virtualPhotographer version using a “Filmnoir” BW Filter

So – a few examples of what is possible very quickly using this handy free plugin. For me, it’s not a plugin I run all your images through, nor is it something that I’ll use when I want absolute / fine control over the output… however, when I’m looking for something fast and effective or for something unexpected, I regularly find myself using virtualPhotographer. For CS users, I recommend checking it out – it’s a great tool and lets not forget, it’s free !

You can download from OptikVerve’s site.

Originally shot with a Olympus OM-4 + Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 lens on Fujicolor Pro 160s. Modified with a Photoshop Holga action

Holga’s really are remarkable cameras. Take everything that is valued in the digital photography world (edge to edge sharpness, contrast, accurate exposure, lack of vignetting, etc), look for the inverse of it, and you have a Holga. But despite the flaws, these are surprisingly popular cameras. What they have going for them are the fact they are cheap, they’re cool, they’re very different and their shots are bursting with a distinctive yet recognisable character. Oh, and did I already mention a Holga is a medium format camera available for under $30?

This post however, is not actually about a Holga camera – but a Holga photoshop action that mimics its output. I don’t always have time or the inclination to shoot film and having a creative action readily available can be a lot of fun – and sometimes transform the right sort of image into something much more interesting. The action in question is called a “Holga Simulator” by Alberto Campione and is available for download here. There are others around, potentially better ones too, but I like Alberto’s action as it’s fast, easy to use and free.

Assuming you have Photoshop CS and have installed the action, here’s how you use it.

First of all, start with your image, select the Holga action, resize to “about 4MP” and then press play (for those interested, this is a shot of my dog Sora which I took using an Olympus OM-4, Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 on Fujicolour 160s).

After a couple of disclaimers / notices, you get the chance to select whether you want to choose a square crop (which is the natural Holga look) or keep a landscape orientation. For this image I chose square:

Once you’ve done that, hit play again and the action will quickly finish giving you a funky black and white Holga looking shot. We’re not done yet but this step yields the following result:

Finally, before you finish you get a chance to do your own editing (with the final popups from the previous step encouraging you to edit the saturation / levels as needed). I chose to edit the curves, dodge and burn a little and within 60s from start to finish, my Holga transformation was complete:

I’ve used this action before on other shots. Here are a couple of my favourites:

koriyama City, Japan. Originally shot with the Olympus E-P1 + kit lens

Near Meiji Shingu Temple, Tokyo. Originally shot with the Olympus E-P1 + kit lens

Back streets of Asakusa, Tokyo. Originally shot with the Olympus E-P1 + kit lens

My good friend and photographer extraordinaire Tommy Oshima. Originally shot with the Olympus E-P1 + Olympus Pen F 42mm f/1.2

Cannon Beach, OR. Originally shot with a Canon 5D Mk II

So there you have it, a free photoshop action that reduces your several thousand dollar equipment to a shot that you could have taken with a sub $30 camera! Like all techniques however, there can too much of a good thing when it comes to actions like this – the real value comes from using it sparingly and when the photo really deserves the Holga treatment.

Still, despite the wonders of modern technology, when it comes to holga-ography, there’s nothing quite like the real thing… If you want to get hold of a real camera to try, you can pick one up from Amazon here.

For example, here is a portrait I took of Akuri this week:

In this particular case you can see the light on her cheek
is blown (easier to view if you view the larger image by clicking on it). When I was taking the picture I knew I was shooting in a high contrast
situation and used matrix / average metering with Exposure compensation set to
-0.7. However that wasn’t enough and while the picture is definitely usable and
in my opinion still a nice portrait , it does bother me.

Burning details back in didn’t work as the levels are too
high. So instead, I worked with the “flaws” in the image and made them work for
me. First I converted the image to black and white this, can sometimes mask
blown highlights a little better IMO. Then instead of trying to burn details
back in, I pushed out the highlights even further and raised midtones and
highlights even further. Next I added contrast. And then went to the eyes and
burnt them back in (as well as the hair). So in short, I pushed the whites
where they were already blown and used the burn tool to bring out shadows and
contrast in the key features of the image.

Five minutes later, a quick crop for a tighter composition
and an unsharp mask and I’m left with what I think is a better portrait. The blown highlights look like an essential part of the image and help create a strong contrast with the eyes which become a much better feature of the image. Some
of the “alarm” in the expression that I intended to capture has been removed by
the high contrast effect but it doesn’t detract from the photo. The interesting
thing is that now the high key effect looks deliberate – the proof being
perhaps that on a photo sharing site like photo.net which is known for its highly
critical nature of photographic technique, this photo has rated very well.
And anyone who only ever saw the finished version can applaud the photographer for having taken the photo with
high key processing in mind from the start :).