CanoScan 9000f Help!!

[jefffribourg]

I have had my canoscan for a few months now and seemed to be getting good results at first but as time has gone by i cant get a subpar scan to save my life. I have looked at many posts on other forums and sites about this scanner, settings, in's and out's but can not for the life of me get a scan that is worth even looking at (sorry for the frustration but this scanner is going to loose me money and gigs). If anyone has any suggestions on how to get this scanner to work right, then please help. Even if the suggestion is sell it...

I usually Develop all my own film but i got busy and got my last 12 rolls developed at Samys Camera in LA which is when i really started noticing the lack of sharpness. Could it possibly be the development? The negatives look sharp but the scans come out horrid.


thank you in advance, Jeff!

First scans

Better scan From the last batch
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jefffribourg/7424669740/in/photostream

 

[zauhar]

Jeff, what's the issue ? I couldn't blow up the Flickr photo on my phone, but it looks good. The photo of the kitty actually looks a little soft, but the depth is also shallow.

My 9000f is performing the same as when I got it a year ago (most of my posted photos were scanned with it). Maybe you are looking more closely at the results?

Randy

 

[joeswe]

Sharpness with a flatbed scanner like the 9000f is nowhere near what a dedicated film scanner will get you. You will have to apply a heavy dose of unsharp mask in post processing to get decent results. This procedure gives satisfactory but not stellar results with medium format film. For 35mm I use a dedicated film scanner.
I usually turn off all the "auto" settings in the canon scanning software (except "photo") and do in PSE whatever is neccessary. Especially, I do not use the "best quality" setting, as I found that it gives inferior results. Use the native resolution or a "straight" fraction thererof. 9600-4800-2400-1200 ppi. Don't use intermediary settings like (1600 ppi). However, using more than 2400 ppi makes little sense in my experience.

 

[Athiril]

I heard a little trick somewhere to scan in 48-bit colour, and take the green channel to make the the 16-bit greyscale as it's a bit sharper. I think you can do that in vuescan without fudging around extracting the channel in photoshop etc.

Anyway don't know the truth to it. But I don't bother try to eke out sharpness out of a flatbed, it's just a fraction of a scan from a good scanner or good optical print.

Otherwise your image look fine for online display.

 

[Trius]

That tip probably came from Ken Lee's site.

 

[jefffribourg]

thanks for the help, scanning higher resolution and dropping in a unsharp masks in post seems to help. It might have had something to do with the development as well. im going to download vuescan and see how that works for me.

 

[Jaans]

Sharpness with a flatbed scanner like the 9000f is nowhere near what a dedicated film scanner will get you. You will have to apply a heavy dose of unsharp mask in post processing to get decent results. This procedure gives satisfactory but not stellar results with medium format film. For 35mm I use a dedicated film scanner.
I usually turn off all the "auto" settings in the canon scanning software (except "photo") and do in PSE whatever is neccessary. Especially, I do not use the "best quality" setting, as I found that it gives inferior results. Use the native resolution or a "straight" fraction thererof. 9600-4800-2400-1200 ppi. Don't use intermediary settings like (1600 ppi). However, using more than 2400 ppi makes little sense in my experience.

Joeswe: Which dedicated film scanner do you recommend for 35mm? I am also starting to do some research on scanners as I am gradually moving out of the darkroom.

 

[joeswe]

Joeswe: Which dedicated film scanner do you recommend for 35mm? I am also starting to do some research on scanners as I am gradually moving out of the darkroom.

It depends on where you live. The Reflecta ProScan 7200 in combination with Silverfast SE (Standard, or "Plus" if you scan slides) is very good value for money and would be my first choice, but it is mainly available in Europe (price without bundled software around 300 EUR). It might be available outside the EU under a different brand name? There are other Reflecta scanners which are named very similar (but are quite different beasts qualitywise), so don't confuse the different models.

The ProScan 7200 is fast (under 60 seconds for a scan at 3600 ppi, about 1m 20s with dust removal enabled), sharp, and resolves a little bit north of 3200 ppi, which is a very good result considering the price (to put that in perspective: the real resolution of the 9000f is somewhere around 1600 ppi). The scratch and dust removal via infrared channel also works very well.

If you cannot get hold of the Reflecta in your country, the top of the line models by Plustek (also reviewed at the site linked above) will also get you decent results. They even resolve a few hundred ppi more than the ProScan 7200, but it seems they have (relative) shortcomings in other areas (slower, dust removal not up to par etc). Here you will find detailed reviews of the ProScan 7200 and comparable scanners.

The last generation of Nikon film Scanners is a notch above all that for sure (resolution close to 4000 ppi and also better density range), but they are only available used and are much more expensive.

If money is not a concern, you might want to consider the announced Plustek medium format scanner (should arrive in September, price will probably be in the four digit range).

John (who is moving back into the darkroom because he is bored of staring at computer screens...)

 

[Vincent.G]

You might want to lay the negatives flat on the scanner glass then place the plastic holder over them to hold them down and as a guide to position the negatives properly. I am using a canoscan8800f.

Ensure your negatives are flat before scanning.

 

[RFH]

I have the same scanner, and I am getting the same kind of mixed results. Fine, but not exactly amazing. I use the Canoscan plugin for PS, but the preview is usually much different from the scan in terms of exposure, so it takes some trial and error to get it right.
The negative holders are atrocious. Flimsy, hard to use and, I suspect, not helping you get sharp scans.
I tried placing a 9x12 sheet negative directly on the glass, and that actually yielded a much sharper scan. I haven't tried it with 120 film yet.
I've heard people say that different negative holders like Betterscanning are, well, better.

A few of mine:

4x5 in the holder:

9x12 on the glass:

6x9 using the holder:

 

[jefffribourg]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jefffribourg/7442249270/in/photostream/
i used two unsharp masks and it makes it "sharper" but seems to kill all any smooth grain and make it into jagged grain.