any tips on developing / scanning?

[ampguy]

Any tips on changing the way I'm developing or scanning? These were developed in D76, 1:1 per the tables, film is Neopan 100ss. I have more rolls of this film and might try exposing some at 200 or 400 to get more grain. Any other ideas?

Scans are 2400, 8-bit, these had unsharp mask at low, other settings in Epson scan were off.

here

These scans were with unsharp mast at Medium:

here

 

[alien8]

These look fine to me... if you want more grain I think it would be easier to use a different film rather than just changing your EI. Tri-x in rodinal for example is a tried and true grain getter.

 

[Papercut]

Those look fine to me too. Nice smooth tones from the SS100! Perhaps a little low-contrast, but that's actually good (imo) for scans as contrast is easily (and precisely) added in PS.

SS100 isn't the finest grained film around (the T-grain films are better in that regard), but it is significantly less grainy than higher speed films (Tri-X, Neopan 400, HP5, etc.).

 

[ampguy]

Thanks alien8 and papercut,

I've got a few more rolls of the 100SS to use up, then may try some Tri-X for the grainy look. I've got about 45 or so more rolls left to do with D76 before I can switch developers though.

 

[JTK]

Never do any sharpening in the scanner. Only do it in post-processing (Elements, Photoshop etc). When you do sharpen in post-processing, look closely at the previews and sharpen duplicates of files, not the originals.

Do all scanning at defaults, don't adjust anything when scanning, other than to select film type...and even that's not particularly important.

 

[ampguy]

I've tried this

I've tried this

and can't get sharp scans. I think that because of the relatively cheap negative holders in the low end epson scanners (I have the V100) that some sharpening during the scan is necessary.

I know from trial and error that it is needed to equal sharpness from a Costco, Longs or Walgreens.

I think your advice may be relevant to better scanners, but with these, you can actually see the curvature of the negative in the plastic holder, and the scanner probably doesn't have the capability to completely accommodate that non-flatness.

I have found that with Picasa, that sharpening with unsharp mask at medium in Epson Scan 3 over-sharpens, but at low, it is fine, similar to negatives commercially processed.

With unsharp mask completely off, the scans are very soft, with this particular scanner, holder, and film, while the images themselves have sharpness in them.

 

[januaryman]

Using the older but closely related Epson 4990, I used to just set everything to the default, which left on unsharp mask at medium. I used to let the scanner decide the best settings, never bothering with the histgram. The other day I set the histogram setting myself (B&W) and shut off unsharp mask.

The contrast was flat, but in Elements I was able to correct the levels, adjust the lighting, and finally to pick up more detail with less "grain" -- but with the USM disabled on the scanner, the sharpness suffered. Even after using Elements unsharp mask, then adjust sharpnes (new to v6) I was not able to get good detail that my photoshop scan gave my photos on CD.

Long story short: leave the USM on, maybe set to low, but play with the histogram for better scans. In the long run, this is not a film scanner and won't do wonders, but should be decent for most purposes. Get PS Elements 6 if you can, just try the free trial. It beats Picassa 4 ways from Sunday. IMHO, of course!

 

[januaryman]

One last thing - I nearly forgot. In comparing lab scan against my own Epson scan, I found the home scans were cutting off part of the image on the negative. In some cases this was negligible, but in one shot, an entire door frame and address number was missing on my scan, but present in the lab's. The negative holder and/or the software was not giving me everything. That's when I got online and ordered a Nikon Coolscan V which, I believe, is either going to be or is discontinued, judging from what I read on the web.

 

[ampguy]

here are some hexar af photos that I like a lot, were scanned with unsharp mask on medium, contrast and sharpness (bulk feeling lucky and then sharpness) added in picasa:

here

 

[ampguy]

thanks for the tips

thanks for the tips

lots of good info. I agree that if one is going to do a lot of scanning, the flatbeds just don't cut it. Yes, USM must be on, at least with this Epson, and software.

Using the older but closely related Epson 4990, I used to just set everything to the default, which left on unsharp mask at medium. I used to let the scanner decide the best settings, never bothering with the histgram. The other day I set the histogram setting myself (B&W) and shut off unsharp mask.

The contrast was flat, but in Elements I was able to correct the levels, adjust the lighting, and finally to pick up more detail with less "grain" -- but with the USM disabled on the scanner, the sharpness suffered. Even after using Elements unsharp mask, then adjust sharpnes (new to v6) I was not able to get good detail that my photoshop scan gave my photos on CD.

Long story short: leave the USM on, maybe set to low, but play with the histogram for better scans. In the long run, this is not a film scanner and won't do wonders, but should be decent for most purposes. Get PS Elements 6 if you can, just try the free trial. It beats Picassa 4 ways from Sunday. IMHO, of course!