bad scanning experience, need advice

[hammerman]

like many oldies out there, i come from film photography. went into digital because the industry said so and now i'm back to film, giving up on ever seeing great digital reso interpretation. but i did buy a digilux 3, didn't i...! anyway, new roll film, old pages of negatives in the archive of over 40 years and no darkroom, which leads me to scanning. i scanned some negs @ 2400dpi this week and then printed test prints in CS3. the prints look like really bad 1980s photocopies, no sharpness and no depth. the frustration is, i know light, i know digital cameras and i know film but i don't know digitising the analogue, ie, scanning negs to print like wet printing (i have an epson R2400 A3 printer). am i asking too much? am i missing something? and it appears to be a good canon scanner, as well, made for transparencies...
help, advice or show me the exit. ta.

cheers, dj
lost in Oz

 

[clintock]

http://www.scantips.com/
That's a good place to start-
It's like traditional photography was, you over time learned what made photography work, same deal with scanning.. but I guess digital stuff is supposed to yield instant success, or so I've been conditioned.
It has taken me a while to get to where I can scan better than the minilab robot..

 

[dmr]

There is somewhat of a learning curve to scanning negatives and slides. It's a bit more tricky than scanning a document for e-mail. 🙂

I really don't think there's any single magic bullet. Just keep trying, focus on what you don't like, and learn to do such things as tweak the exposure and such.

If your scanner can go more than 2400 dpi, you might wanna try it. For anything serious, I have learned it's best to scan at max res, 16 bit depth, multiple passes.

 

[photodog]

Many varibles at work here

Many varibles at work here

Scanning isn't easy the first time around. What scanner are you using? Hopefully not a flatbed one.

You will need to properly use the scanning software, fix the image in Photoshop (sharpen and adjust levels), and then figure out how to get the printing software to match what you see on your monitor.

It took me more than six months to figure everything out and I still there are a lot of things I don't know.

I recall seeing a book a couple of years ago called "Mastering Digital Printing" which I found very informative.

Have fun, it's a learning experience.

 

[Thardy]

Much depends on the scanner (flat bed vs dedicated film) and the software you're using.

Then you need a good workflow once you've figured it out, else it will be trial and error with every single scan.

I'm using Vuescan with a film scanner and have found that it allows an easy reproducible workflow for me.

 

[aad]

Scans often need some post processing, similar to what a digicam does by hardware. Slides especially lose sharpness during the process.

 

[hammerman]

good on ya, everyone. ta. your words help a lot. i am quite familiar with photoshop so i will work inside that. i think it is the sharpness issue which affects me most. i'm working with the default canon canoscan software via CS3 on a fairly good flat-bed scanner, as i recall. the unit isn't in this room but i'll check the model number.

any suggestions as to tackling the sharpness issue? especially slides, as someone has mentioned...? but i will do some homework, now. scanning doesn't seem as straight forward as making contact sheets...

cheers,

dj

ps, you know, working in photoshop really feels like cheating, given all we had to work with in the old days was a film cap on a coathanger for dodging and our hands for burning and a cigarette packet for soft focus blurring. the rest was left up to the skill of reading light and a well-trained shutter finger, your agitation technique and the music you listened to while you watched the timer. but life goes on...the times must be moved on with.

 

[LKSC]

dj, I would suggest sending your slides to Image Science in Melbourne for scanning on their Imacon 949 to get the most out of your transparencies. For A$12, they will do a "raw" 16 bit, 5000dpi scan with no sharpening. The resultant scan will not be print ready, and will look "flat", but it will retain all the detail in the highlights and shadows. Using curves and levels in PS to match the scan to the transparency is relatively easy if you are skilled at PS. I use them and can highly recommend them: www.imagescience.com.au

I would also recommend the focalblade plug-in for sharpening.

 

[40oz]

My biggest problem with scanning and printing was that the results out of the printer did not match the display. I started out spending a lot of time getting the scan to look right on my monitor, then realized the output of my printer beared litle relation. So I've found I can either get a good looking scan for the printer, or for the monitor, but each takes a different approach. For my printer, I need way less contrast than looks acceptable on a monitor. So rather than spend time getting it to look good on screen, then adjusting for the printer, I've found it's best to adjust the original scan independently, depending on if I want to print it or not.

I've not used a flatbed scanner for negative scanning to any extent, so I can't share many secrets there, sorry. I have found that one should not try to get the scanner to return the best image, rather "fix" it in Photoshop with the Levels control. If you are scanning at 2400 ppi, you won't be able to view the image in entirety on your screen, so it may not look as sharp as you think it should.

If you are scanning at the highest resolution of the scanner, the only issues with sharpness should be the focus of the scanner and the flatness of the film. You can experiment with raising the negative holder slightly to improve focus by applying pieces of tape to the underside of the holder and see if that will help. As far as flatness goes, if your negatives have any curl, perhaps flattening them in/under a book for an hour or so prior to scanning would rectify that issue.

 

[hammerman]

so, after all that, i can see a flatbed isn't the recommended device. now, can you all recommend the RIGHT device for both BW and Colour Negs as well as the occassional older trannie? brand? model? money's no object...when you haven't got much...but i do believe in investing in quality since the divorce.

cheers,

dj

 

[sepiareverb]

Darkroom equipment is mighty cheap these days on the used market, and some of the new enlargers are better than ever. I scan prints only. Much flatter learning curve. All but one of my scans from negatives have taken me far more time to clean and futz with than mixing chemistry and making a print.