atrupo
Newbie
Hi everybody
I might have done a mistake, buying a cheap V370.
I used Leica M6 with CV 35mm 1.4 MC and Fuji Superia 200 for Color and Kodak Tmax 100 for BW.
Look at the results.
I tried with Epson software and VueScan with both giving ****ting results.
What's wrong ? Scanner quality ?
Thanks
I might have done a mistake, buying a cheap V370.
I used Leica M6 with CV 35mm 1.4 MC and Fuji Superia 200 for Color and Kodak Tmax 100 for BW.
Look at the results.
I tried with Epson software and VueScan with both giving ****ting results.
What's wrong ? Scanner quality ?
Thanks
Mcary
Well-known
Resolution is the problem here.
While Epson and other makers of flat bed scanner may claim capabilities of 4800-9600 PPI the actual usable resolution when scanning 35mm film is maybe 1000-1500 PPI. This is fine for sharing images online or getting small 4-6 to 5x7 prints, but for anything more you need to use a dedicated film scanner when working with 35mm film.
While Epson and other makers of flat bed scanner may claim capabilities of 4800-9600 PPI the actual usable resolution when scanning 35mm film is maybe 1000-1500 PPI. This is fine for sharing images online or getting small 4-6 to 5x7 prints, but for anything more you need to use a dedicated film scanner when working with 35mm film.
atrupo
Newbie
I see... thanks
So you don't think the lens or settings are somehow wrong here ?
Which scanner would you advise me for private use but still decent quality ?
So you don't think the lens or settings are somehow wrong here ?
Which scanner would you advise me for private use but still decent quality ?
Spicy
Well-known
The results don't strike me as outrageously awful. Definitely good enough for sharing on websites, but as Mcary stated, perhaps not up to standard for making anything other than standard normal-sized prints or forum-posting...
Mcary
Well-known
While I don't own one myself a number of folks on RFF seem quit pleased with the results they get from scanners made by Plustek
You may also want to look into this offer http://www.precision-camera.com/categories/photo-lab-services/film-scanning.html
atrupo
Newbie
According to other samples on FlickR using same lens/film I was expecting far better results : unusable on a 2560x1440 screen.
atrupo
Newbie
thanks I will have a look.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
You have scanned the film backwards.
Try reversing the negatives to see if that improves the quality before you proceed with another scanner.
The bottom line, however, is that purchasing a dedicated film scanner will probably be in your future.
Try reversing the negatives to see if that improves the quality before you proceed with another scanner.
The bottom line, however, is that purchasing a dedicated film scanner will probably be in your future.
MiniMoke
Well-known
If slow scanning, frame by frame does not put you off, the Plustek Opticfilm 8100 or 8200 migth be good for you.
I use the Epson V600 - scans 12 negatives in one go, albeit at a little less good quality.
I use the Epson V600 - scans 12 negatives in one go, albeit at a little less good quality.
Lucadomi
Well-known
I used to have a Epson V600. It was difficult to get the right colors with color film. I was getting better results with color slides. For black and white a little afterwards work with an image editing software would help in getting a little more contrast and sharpness.
A dedicated film scanner will definitely give you better results for 35mm. However, it will be more time consuming because you will have to scan one picture at the time.
A dedicated film scanner will definitely give you better results for 35mm. However, it will be more time consuming because you will have to scan one picture at the time.
atrupo
Newbie
thanks everyone for your answer, I will try to revert the neg to see the result and eventually buy a Plustek, I guess...
HCEarwicker
Member
Hi Atrupo,
I've just been going through this - am still going through this - myself. I've just got back into photography after a 30+ year gap. I've yet to develop the first film from my recently-acquired (old) Olympus 35RC, but when I do I'll be scanning the results on my recently-acquired (old) Epson 3170 flatbed.
Meanwhile, I've been scanning a bunch of 40-year old 35mm BW negatives with the 3170. This is my first scanner and the learning curve is, as they, steep. First thing I was disappointed by was the lack of sharpness; just about every shot was soft as s***. Like you, I thought 'must be this cheap old scanner. dammit.' So I fretted and googled, youtubed and fretted...found out about raising or lowering the film holder (35mm in my case) for optimum focus; found out about dpi, screen resolution, tiff versus jpg, emulsion up or down, flattening negatives, the 'unsharp mask filter' (DON'T use it, they all say) etc etc...
After a couple of weeks of mucking about with every variable, I've come to these provisional conclusions:
(In Epson scan - just as good as vuescan for my web-display purposes): The stock negative holder is just fine. Most negatives will curl a little - or a lot - so what you gain in focus by raising/lowering the holder by a mm here you lose there, ie, what's more in focus at the middle may not be at the edges. Personally, I could find no regular, appreciable difference in sharpness in the very narrow range of focus differential that a mm here or there gives you. YMMV. Experiment. Use professional mode all the time. DO use pre-scan sharpening (never more than 'medium' setting, though). Don't bother scanning at anything above 3200. Ony use 3200+ to archive the occasional masterpiece you might one day want to print out poster-size - 2400/1200 or less does just fine for most negs. The one thing I found that does make an appreciable (but still pretty small) difference to sharpness and density is scanning with the dull emulsion side down - contrary to Epson's instructions. Only thing is you must remember to horizontally flip the image in post-process (can't flip pre-scan in Epson unless you preview using 'thumbnail', which I don't - crops the negative). Finally, depending on the individual negative, accept that you will have to sharpen and adjust curves etc - somethimes a lot - in your image editing software.
I know some of that may be heresy, and some of it may be plain wrong. I'm certainly no expert. I'm just reporting the results of my experience so far in the hope that someone will bother to read it and provide, for you and I, the magic formula that'll show us the right way to acceptable scanned negatives on a relatively cheap machine. Meanwhile, what I'm now doing seems finallyto be working, for me.
FWIW, here's a link to what I've been up to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105343797@N08/ (pictures from the tinted Fry's Chocolate distressed picture onwards scanned with the 3170 at various dpi resolutions. Pics uploaded before that were scanned by a friend on a V750 at 900dpi.)
Things are, I think, getting better. I no longer regret having bought my old Epson 3170.
I've just been going through this - am still going through this - myself. I've just got back into photography after a 30+ year gap. I've yet to develop the first film from my recently-acquired (old) Olympus 35RC, but when I do I'll be scanning the results on my recently-acquired (old) Epson 3170 flatbed.
Meanwhile, I've been scanning a bunch of 40-year old 35mm BW negatives with the 3170. This is my first scanner and the learning curve is, as they, steep. First thing I was disappointed by was the lack of sharpness; just about every shot was soft as s***. Like you, I thought 'must be this cheap old scanner. dammit.' So I fretted and googled, youtubed and fretted...found out about raising or lowering the film holder (35mm in my case) for optimum focus; found out about dpi, screen resolution, tiff versus jpg, emulsion up or down, flattening negatives, the 'unsharp mask filter' (DON'T use it, they all say) etc etc...
After a couple of weeks of mucking about with every variable, I've come to these provisional conclusions:
(In Epson scan - just as good as vuescan for my web-display purposes): The stock negative holder is just fine. Most negatives will curl a little - or a lot - so what you gain in focus by raising/lowering the holder by a mm here you lose there, ie, what's more in focus at the middle may not be at the edges. Personally, I could find no regular, appreciable difference in sharpness in the very narrow range of focus differential that a mm here or there gives you. YMMV. Experiment. Use professional mode all the time. DO use pre-scan sharpening (never more than 'medium' setting, though). Don't bother scanning at anything above 3200. Ony use 3200+ to archive the occasional masterpiece you might one day want to print out poster-size - 2400/1200 or less does just fine for most negs. The one thing I found that does make an appreciable (but still pretty small) difference to sharpness and density is scanning with the dull emulsion side down - contrary to Epson's instructions. Only thing is you must remember to horizontally flip the image in post-process (can't flip pre-scan in Epson unless you preview using 'thumbnail', which I don't - crops the negative). Finally, depending on the individual negative, accept that you will have to sharpen and adjust curves etc - somethimes a lot - in your image editing software.
I know some of that may be heresy, and some of it may be plain wrong. I'm certainly no expert. I'm just reporting the results of my experience so far in the hope that someone will bother to read it and provide, for you and I, the magic formula that'll show us the right way to acceptable scanned negatives on a relatively cheap machine. Meanwhile, what I'm now doing seems finallyto be working, for me.
FWIW, here's a link to what I've been up to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105343797@N08/ (pictures from the tinted Fry's Chocolate distressed picture onwards scanned with the 3170 at various dpi resolutions. Pics uploaded before that were scanned by a friend on a V750 at 900dpi.)
Things are, I think, getting better. I no longer regret having bought my old Epson 3170.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
atrupo -- I worked with and tested a similar scanner, the Epson V500. I found I could get nice sharp prints up to 12x18" from 6x9 negatives. This would equate to a sharp 5x7" print from 35mm. See this thread for details, examples, and a sample file I posted.
These scanners are useful for some purposes, but not for realizing all the quality that's in the negatives from a fine 35mm camera.
These scanners are useful for some purposes, but not for realizing all the quality that's in the negatives from a fine 35mm camera.
HCEarwicker
Member
PS
Of course, everyone recommending you upgrade to a dedicated film scanner is right - you'll get much better scans. Particularly of 35mm negs. So if you can afford it, do that. But if you can't, don't give up on your flatbed just yet.
Of course, everyone recommending you upgrade to a dedicated film scanner is right - you'll get much better scans. Particularly of 35mm negs. So if you can afford it, do that. But if you can't, don't give up on your flatbed just yet.
lam
Well-known
In my experience with Epson Flatbeds, going from the V300 to V500 to V700, there is a difference in quality from V300 to V700, but it is very miniscule, but there.
I'd suggest using these settings for your Epson Scan.
Turn all the adjustments off, i.e. sharpen, backlight correction, color correction, etc.
Save as highest quality JPG possible. Don't use Digital ICE if you want to keep sharpness as much as possible ( and indeed, a flatbed for 35mm is pretty much a huge compromise ).
Open the JPG in Photoshop or application of choice and use unsharpen mask to taste, I usually stick to small increments like .3 and 150% for a full size image.
---
Once I switched to my new setup, aka, Pakon F-135 Plus (dedicated high speed 35mm scanner with ICE) and Microtek ArtixScan 120TF (4000 optical DPI for 35mm film and 120) it really showed me just how weak Flatbeds were for anything concerning 35mm.
I'd suggest using these settings for your Epson Scan.
Turn all the adjustments off, i.e. sharpen, backlight correction, color correction, etc.
Save as highest quality JPG possible. Don't use Digital ICE if you want to keep sharpness as much as possible ( and indeed, a flatbed for 35mm is pretty much a huge compromise ).
Open the JPG in Photoshop or application of choice and use unsharpen mask to taste, I usually stick to small increments like .3 and 150% for a full size image.
---
Once I switched to my new setup, aka, Pakon F-135 Plus (dedicated high speed 35mm scanner with ICE) and Microtek ArtixScan 120TF (4000 optical DPI for 35mm film and 120) it really showed me just how weak Flatbeds were for anything concerning 35mm.
Dwig
Well-known
++1
Scanning the negs upside down will move the image side out of the plane of focus and result in softer scans.
Repeat the test using EpsonSCAN, rather than Viewscan, with the negs placed in the carrier correctly (emulsion side down). You should also either scan directly into PS, or similar, or save as a TIFF and not a JPEG. Using JPEG as the intermediary format will result in lower quality, period.
Tokoza
Member
My Plustek 8100 gives significantly sharper scans than my Epson v500.
HCEarwicker
Member
Like I said, I'm a newbie to scanners. But these days I've a lot of time on my hands to experiment...
My question is: Why do I read everywhere NOT to use the pre-scan unsharp mask filter? It wasn't until I tried it that I got anything approaching acceptably sharp 35mm scan (which I may have to further sharpen in editing). With the unsharp mask off many images look like they've been carved in wet soap (I've checked my holder height for focus). So if I find I (nearly) always have to sharpen a 35mm scanned image, why not do it pre-scan rather than risk losing more information sharpening in post-scan?
PS I don't use any of the other 'auto' functions in Epson scan. I get why you wouldn't want to. But the sharpness as opposed to mush thing seems so basic...
My question is: Why do I read everywhere NOT to use the pre-scan unsharp mask filter? It wasn't until I tried it that I got anything approaching acceptably sharp 35mm scan (which I may have to further sharpen in editing). With the unsharp mask off many images look like they've been carved in wet soap (I've checked my holder height for focus). So if I find I (nearly) always have to sharpen a 35mm scanned image, why not do it pre-scan rather than risk losing more information sharpening in post-scan?
PS I don't use any of the other 'auto' functions in Epson scan. I get why you wouldn't want to. But the sharpness as opposed to mush thing seems so basic...
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Because you have no control, if you scan flat you can apply USM in PSCS.
Normally I take a flat scan into CS and apply a radius sharpen, adjust in curves or levels, colour and finally a USM for detail.
This is the same Fuji 200 as used by the OP
wood by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Yes those are grains of sand on that bolt...
HCEarwicker
Member
Yes, I get that. It's just that I've found so far (early days, I grant you) that the amount of sharpening I get from low or medium unsharp mask in Epson scan never looks other than 'right' to me...whereas the unsharpened negative looks plain wrong, making it difficult to assess/work with. I'll usually have still to do a fair amount of editing/adjusting, including further sharpening, post scan. A reasonably sharp scan of the negative seems like an appropriate first step, no?