Home 'consumer' scanner image quality v print shop scanner image quality

[Ken_Watson]

I've recently bought a Plustek 8200 AI scanner for scanning colour and B/W negs. Even allowing for the fact that my local photo processing shop sharpens their scans to death, I'm finding that their 'low res' scans (I think maybe 1800dpi-ish) seem to have more definition/detail in them compared to the Plustek even when I scan at 7200dpi.
I'm scanning at optimum settings and in 16bit.

My question to the forum is:
Should I expect my 400 quid scanner not to be as sharp as the print shop state of the art machine for obvious reasons? Or is there a tweak, trick of the trade, workflow or gem of advice that anyone can throw in the hat for me to try, as an experiment to see if I can squeeze a bit more out of my scanner?

Regards, Ken.

 

[icebear]

You need to get used to any new tool, espcially if it involves software to figure out the best settings to get close to best possible result the tool is able to produce. That's usually called learning curve 😉. Once you master your tool, your results will most likely equal or surpass whatever store with standard settings and batch processing will be able to get you. Just keep learning.

 

[jparriott]

Fine scanner. I agree with Klaus - it's just getting to know the tool. I find that a lot of labs these days pump the contrast and you lose a lot. My scans - on a very cheap V500 Epson are much better.

I've also found - and this is me personally and maybe a function of the scanner - that I get better B&W from shooting color and converting to B&W in PP. The jpegs off the scanner (at least my scanner & skills) have much better mid tones and allow me the most latitude in post processing.

When I street shoot on film, I like all the forgiveness and latitude that I can get ( I use a IIIF). "Granny Film" is my choice - Superia or Ultra Max.

I'm obviously not a pro. Just reporting what seems to work the best for me.

 

[joeswe]

Ken,
IMO your assumptions are correct, a state of the art commercial scanner that is properly set up and handled plays in a different league compared to a consumer grade film scanner. I do have some experience in film scanning and own a relatively decent film scanner, but I find it very hard to reproduce the results from my favorite lab. Sharpness, color reproduction and especially density range are usually superior. On the other hand, that seems to be more the exception than the rule. The vast majority of commercial (= automated) scans I haven seen over the years are nothing to write home about or even inferior to what you can achieve at home. So I wouldn't say it's meaningless to do your own scans, it can give quite good results after some time of learning as has been pointed out. However one should be aware of the limitations of the hardware of a consumer or semi-pro scanner.
John

 

[Pherdinand]

you might be just lucky with that "print shop" scan quality.
All is relative 🙂
PS: scanning at 7200 dpi is, anyway, useless in my oppinion since these scanners dont have true 7200 resolution. Though i don't own a plustek.

 

[Joosep]

All of my stuff is scanned with a Fuji Frontier at a camera store. Im pretty pleased with the results actually, because I WORK THERE and I can scan MYSELF. I set all the sharpening and whatnots off and try to get the most range from the scans, oh and scan into BMP, the scanner is still pretty blind to darks, but everything else is pretty ok.

 

[Ken_Watson]

Thanks guys - food for thought.

 

[jfretless]

I'll put my two cents in since I just had four rolls developed and scanned them last night.

I have NEVER been happy with my scans. Different scanners, doesn't matter. Joosep's images on his website are light years ahead of mine. Dare I mention him, but Ken Rockwell gets his stuff scanned at NCPS and that's where I sent my film to be developed, but did pay the extra to get scans. Kicking myself in the arse right now. Spent a couple of hours scanning last night... in the end wasted.

I don't want to get into my workflow as I'll put the onus on me and I'm sure with my equipment, someone good get good scans, but considering the time I've spent on getting good scans, we are talking well over ten years, it's just not worth it.

John

 

[venchka]

Help is here. Ken works with Epson scanners. Hopefully, the information translates to other scanners.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanningGreen.php

Good luck.

Wayne

 

[valdas]

All of my stuff is scanned with a Fuji Frontier at a camera store. Im pretty pleased with the results actually, because I WORK THERE and I can scan MYSELF. I set all the sharpening and whatnots off and try to get the most range from the scans, oh and scan into BMP, the scanner is still pretty blind to darks, but everything else is pretty ok.

some great photos in your gallery...

 

[venchka]

My biggest gripe with store bought machine scans, besides the small size, is: JPEG. Wretched. Terrible. Horrible. No good. Very bad. Useless file format.
16 bit greyscale TIFF files are the only way to fly. Or 48 bit color TIFF files. JPEGs are for the interweb. Period. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Wayne

 

[wblynch]

It is a shame because the commercial minilab scanners are very, very good. They cost thousands of dollars and are ruggedly built for high volumes.

The problem is the selected settings used for the lowest common denominator, 4x6 prints. And some are barely useable. Like the Walgreens scans at 1200x1800, then over saturated and sharpened to death.

It's almost as if it were a conspiracy to make you quit film.

And the worst part is, selecting the highest quality and saving as a TIF costs nothing for the operator.

 

[kanzlr]

it would be interesting to know what you do not like about your scans.
maybe you could post the same image scanned by yourself and the equivalent lab scan?

 

[k__43]

I have the 8200 too and a V500
the 8200 is soooo much better.

I scan at 7200 dpi and scale down to 3600 (bicubic sharpen). According to filmscanner.info 3600dpi is still above the real optical resolution of the plustec so I guess this way I'm getting an optimum from the scanner.

I agree - most labs just pull up the contrast so hard it's useless. More contrast can lead to the impression of more sharpness too (w/o being better in resolution).

 

[venchka]

I have the 8200 too and a V500
the 8200 is soooo much better.

I scan at 7200 dpi and scale down to 3600 (bicubic sharpen). According to filmscanner.info 3600dpi is still above the real optical resolution of the plustec so I guess this way I'm getting an optimum from the scanner.

I agree - most labs just pull up the contrast so hard it's useless. More contrast can lead to the impression of more sharpness too (w/o being better in resolution).

I have never have understood this practice. Folks talk about doing this all the time. What gives?
My take on the process is this:
1. You allow software to create and add pixels that are not in your original.
2. The scan/save takes extra time.
3. The scan file takes up extra drive space.
4. Downsizing takes extra time.
5. The finished file takes up extra drive space.

Explain the point. Examples with/without the 7600 > 3600 process versus scanning at the real optical resolution of the machine would be beneficial. Assuming these exist.

Wayne

 

[citizen99]

My lab-produced scans are made on the NORITSU KOKI QSS-3203.

At home, I have a CanoScan 8800F, mostly used for old, pre-digital age, negatives, but I have experimented on using it with the modern negatives.
Usually I use the proprietary CanoScan s/w, although sometimes I can get a better result with VueScan or Silverfast.

I have hardly ever managed to get a home scan with colour rendition that I prefer to that from the lab NORITSU.
Now, I realise that my 8800F is not the best flatbed available for the job, and light source and sensor hardware quality are perhaps an issue.

But, (what I suspect is a significant difference, and the real point for me, independent of subjective colour preference issues) I really doubt that a busy lab, where you're not paying extra for a premium service, has the NORITSU Operator spending a lot of time lovingly fine-tuning the settings on each frame of your holiday snaps.

Perhaps the NORITSU has a really good database of presets for each type of currently available film, selectable quickly from a menu (?)
Perhaps the NORITSU has really good s/w for assessing optimum settings automatically from the illuminated negative (?)
Perhaps both (?)
I don't know - if anybody reading this can tell me what is actually the case, I would be very interested 😕 🙂.

 

[canetsbe]

All of my stuff is scanned with a Fuji Frontier at a camera store. Im pretty pleased with the results actually, because I WORK THERE and I can scan MYSELF. I set all the sharpening and whatnots off and try to get the most range from the scans, oh and scan into BMP, the scanner is still pretty blind to darks, but everything else is pretty ok.

Joosep answered your question, though maybe not directly. No, you should not expect to get PRO lab-quality scans from your Plustek. It's just not feasible. The reason most lab scans still look crappy (oversaturated, oversharpened, muddy blacks, etc.) is because the tech doesn't have a clue what they're really doing, and is likely trained to process 4x6 prints from disposables or something like that. If you want scans from people who know what they're doing and will work with what YOU want from your scans, try a lab like Richard Photo Lab in LA, or Old School Photo Lab in New Hampshire. They understand the capabilities of their scanners and actually know how to use them, like Joosep.

As a side-note, Fuji Frontiers seem to do a better job in terms of color reproduction (from my own observations and opinions) than comparable Noritsu systems.

p.s. Joosep, where do you work? Maybe some of us can give your lab some business. You do a fine job scanning.

 

[venchka]

I do prefer scans from the Noritsu machines over the Fuji Frontier machines. However, that may have more to do with maintenance and operators. I also expect that the commercial machines hold the negatives flatter and focus is calibrated better. It's a darn shame that you can't get 16/48 bit TIFF files from them. Company policy and all that. "Hot, fast & cheap." is all you get.

Wayne

 

[paulfish4570]

wayne, i did a 16-bit/3200 tif scan of a favorite neg and compared it with a 16-bit/3200 jpeg scan. in close-up, the tif scan looks far less digitalized, and sharper. thanks for the tip. it is easy to copy tifs in photo shop as web suitable jpegs. i think i will continue to scan as tifs on my epson 4490 ...

 

[brbo]

I have never have understood this practice. Folks talk about doing this all the time. What gives?
My take on the process is this:
1. You allow software to create and add pixels that are not in your original.
2. The scan/save takes extra time.
3. The scan file takes up extra drive space.
4. Downsizing takes extra time.
5. The finished file takes up extra drive space.

Explain the point. Examples with/without the 7600 > 3600 process versus scanning at the real optical resolution of the machine would be beneficial. Assuming these exist.

Wayne

1. You don't. (If you don't scan at a resolution higher that that of a stepping motor, software is NOT adding pixels that are not there. It might not make much of an improvement if the resolution of the optical path (lens+sensor) is very low, but you are not "inventing" pixels...)
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. It doesn't. (You downsized it in step 4.)

I will try to make a scan with my Canon 9900f @1200dpi (probably around it's optical resolution) vs @3200dpi and downsized to 1200dpi.

I do prefer scans from the Noritsu machines over the Fuji Frontier machines. However, that may have more to do with maintenance and operators. I also expect that the commercial machines hold the negatives flatter and focus is calibrated better. It's a darn shame that you can't get 16/48 bit TIFF files from them. Company policy and all that. "Hot, fast & cheap." is all you get.

I like Agfa minilab scans best.