Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Hi all,
I don't have a whole lot of experience with scanners (and none with scanning-specific software). A couple weeks ago I went to visit my wife at work and found a Minolta Scan Dual IV sitting in the corner. Apparently the scanner was give to her design co-op by a former prof of one of the members. They very rarely use it, so I've got it on long-term loan.
Does anyone have any advice as to what software to use with it? I've been using the scanning software that came with it and the results aren't bad, but I'm wondering if I should spring for Vuescan or Silverfast. What are the advantages of using third party software? Any other tips for getting the most out of it?
Thanks for any advice,
-Andrew
I don't have a whole lot of experience with scanners (and none with scanning-specific software). A couple weeks ago I went to visit my wife at work and found a Minolta Scan Dual IV sitting in the corner. Apparently the scanner was give to her design co-op by a former prof of one of the members. They very rarely use it, so I've got it on long-term loan.
Does anyone have any advice as to what software to use with it? I've been using the scanning software that came with it and the results aren't bad, but I'm wondering if I should spring for Vuescan or Silverfast. What are the advantages of using third party software? Any other tips for getting the most out of it?
Thanks for any advice,
-Andrew
anselwannab
Well-known
To me, it needs thin negatives. It seems to be able to pull things out of the film in the clear areas that I can't see with the naked eye.
I use the included software, but I scan in color pos mode and then reverse in PSE3. The B&W negative mode just seemed to block up highlights and shadows and give really odd results. If I scan the same negative both ways, the color pos method always has the curve so that there is still area in the highlights and shadows. With the B&W neg setting, it seems to clip the highs and lows. After reversal in PSE3, I use Smartcurves to get the settings tones right.
All the shots in my gallery are from an DSIV.
I only have done two rolls with color, and they were OK.
Mine crashes everyone once in a while. Needs have the computer rebooted sometimes to work.
mark
I use the included software, but I scan in color pos mode and then reverse in PSE3. The B&W negative mode just seemed to block up highlights and shadows and give really odd results. If I scan the same negative both ways, the color pos method always has the curve so that there is still area in the highlights and shadows. With the B&W neg setting, it seems to clip the highs and lows. After reversal in PSE3, I use Smartcurves to get the settings tones right.
All the shots in my gallery are from an DSIV.
I only have done two rolls with color, and they were OK.
Mine crashes everyone once in a while. Needs have the computer rebooted sometimes to work.
mark
peter_n
Veteran
Andrew I also use the Minolta software although I have bought Viewscan. I haven't used Viewscan because the user interface seems to be impenetrable (at least to me). I may give it another go because although I do the same as Mark and scan in high res. color mode my highlights are always blown and I am reasonably facile in Photoshop. Personally I think it's a great little scanner if all you are doing is showing stuff on the web.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I've had this for over 2 years now and like it. Too bad it's an orphan product, since there's no repair or support for it. When it breaks, I'll probably have to get another scanner. 
I got the demo of Vuescan, but found it very complex and unnecessary. Vuescan has some rabid fans, but none of them have convinced me that it will give me better scans or faster scans than the stock software, which I really don't think is that bad. I may have to go to Vuescan or Silverfast, however, when I need to (upgrade?) to Vista, as I've been told that the stock software will not run on Vista.
As for hints, there is a learning curve. The stock software does have a lot of features, but I've found that things work best to just use it for scanning and not for correction or manipulation, and do all that in Photoshop (or whatever) after. Do minor levels in the scanner software and that's about it.
The auto dust-brush is about as effective as a placebo.
I've found that the best overall images come from scanning at absolutely max res, 16 bits, and 2 or 4 samples. This gives you about an 80 meg file! Then resize, correct, touch up, and print. I've made some stunning 13x19 prints from negatives scanned on this machine.
It seems to do a good job on color negatives, color slides, and B&W negatives, and it seems like there's at least some merit to scanning B&W negatives as color positives and inverting and correcting in Photoshop.
Oh, pay attention to detail!
I got the demo of Vuescan, but found it very complex and unnecessary. Vuescan has some rabid fans, but none of them have convinced me that it will give me better scans or faster scans than the stock software, which I really don't think is that bad. I may have to go to Vuescan or Silverfast, however, when I need to (upgrade?) to Vista, as I've been told that the stock software will not run on Vista.
As for hints, there is a learning curve. The stock software does have a lot of features, but I've found that things work best to just use it for scanning and not for correction or manipulation, and do all that in Photoshop (or whatever) after. Do minor levels in the scanner software and that's about it.
The auto dust-brush is about as effective as a placebo.
I've found that the best overall images come from scanning at absolutely max res, 16 bits, and 2 or 4 samples. This gives you about an 80 meg file! Then resize, correct, touch up, and print. I've made some stunning 13x19 prints from negatives scanned on this machine.
It seems to do a good job on color negatives, color slides, and B&W negatives, and it seems like there's at least some merit to scanning B&W negatives as color positives and inverting and correcting in Photoshop.
Oh, pay attention to detail!
jmi
Established
Well, I use a DSIII which is the previous model so take this with a grain of salt... I found the bundled software to lack sufficient control over the exposure - hence the need to scan B+W negs in colour positive mode, since that gives you pretty much the full dynamic range of the scanner, but makes it difficult to see what you're doing.
I now use VueScan with it and that gives enough control, but I find the user interface to be simply awful, sorry to all you fans. Took me quite some time to figure out how to make it do what I want, but I'm pretty happy with the results now I have. Plus I can do the whole lot on Linux now
I now use VueScan with it and that gives enough control, but I find the user interface to be simply awful, sorry to all you fans. Took me quite some time to figure out how to make it do what I want, but I'm pretty happy with the results now I have. Plus I can do the whole lot on Linux now
anselwannab
Well-known
I agree with the dust brush comments. I think I do a 4x sample at 3200dpi. Why scan it once, de-dust it and curve it at a lower DPI and then have to do it all over again later?
I just printed some of the shots of the Air Force museum that are in my gallery at 13x19 with my Epson 2200 and they are pretty good. I had a Besslar Printmaker wet set-up, and I can make better sharper, better with the scan and print than I can wet printing. I don't think I could ever isolate the enlarger enough, and burning and dodging is way harder than using layers.
I just printed some of the shots of the Air Force museum that are in my gallery at 13x19 with my Epson 2200 and they are pretty good. I had a Besslar Printmaker wet set-up, and I can make better sharper, better with the scan and print than I can wet printing. I don't think I could ever isolate the enlarger enough, and burning and dodging is way harder than using layers.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Oh, one other thing I forgot that may really throw you! I have the software installed on 3 machines, my photo PC here at home, my desk machine at work, and my laptop. On the home photo PC and the laptop, it doesn't seem to matter where it's plugged in, but on the office machine, IBM stand-up model, it's REALLY picky as to which of the USB jacks you plug it in to. This one has 4 jacks, and if you don't get it in the right one, it pops up all kinds of new hardware found things and wants you to re-install, and I got it once so bad that I had to get the PC tech to straighten it out! Even if I plug in the right jack it sometimes pops up the new hardware thing and I have to cancel out. It can get very frustrating. I'm not looking forward to when I get a new PC or have to upgrade (is upgrade the right word here?) to Vista. I'm sure I'll have to go to some third-party software.
Even if I plug in the right jack it sometimes pops up the new hardware thing and I have to cancel out. It can get very frustrating. I'm not looking forward to when I get a new PC or have to upgrade (is upgrade the right word here?) to Vista. I'm sure I'll have to go to some third-party software. 
Bob Michaels
nobody special
First off, come to accept that you have a very good scanner and any deficiencies are caused by you and not the hardware. I used a Scan Dual II for years and only upgraded to the MultiPro because I shoot a lot of MF.
I really like Vuescan but I've been using it for about six years. I've seen excellent scans from the Minolta software as well. You can learn to make either work.
I scan b&w film as greyscale negs. I've tried all the scanning as positives, scanning as RGB, and all those other suggestions. I could never see any improvement.
There is nothing wrong with 8 bit files IF you dont' make major adjustments. I scan everything as 16 bit because I have 4 Gb of memory and a fast processor. But I used to do 8 bit and you are hard pressed to see any difference in the print.
Don't worry if your scans look flat and boring. All you want to insure that that you capture all the data so you can later make it look pretty in an image editor. Make sure the highlights and shadows are not clipped by looking at the histogram (no data loss)
You do realize that scanning also requires proficiency in using an image editor (i.e. Photoshop) don't you?
Don't bother with the TWAIN interface to scan directly into Photoshop. Save the scan as a .TIF and never delete it. Then open the .TIF in your image editor and save that as a .PSD file. You'll appreciate this advice when you have your first "Oh, S***" and want to start over.
Lastly, make all your evaluations based on what your prints look like. Or, JPGs on the screen if that is your goal. You can get very distracted along the way worrying about things that won't make any difference in a print.
I really like Vuescan but I've been using it for about six years. I've seen excellent scans from the Minolta software as well. You can learn to make either work.
I scan b&w film as greyscale negs. I've tried all the scanning as positives, scanning as RGB, and all those other suggestions. I could never see any improvement.
There is nothing wrong with 8 bit files IF you dont' make major adjustments. I scan everything as 16 bit because I have 4 Gb of memory and a fast processor. But I used to do 8 bit and you are hard pressed to see any difference in the print.
Don't worry if your scans look flat and boring. All you want to insure that that you capture all the data so you can later make it look pretty in an image editor. Make sure the highlights and shadows are not clipped by looking at the histogram (no data loss)
You do realize that scanning also requires proficiency in using an image editor (i.e. Photoshop) don't you?
Don't bother with the TWAIN interface to scan directly into Photoshop. Save the scan as a .TIF and never delete it. Then open the .TIF in your image editor and save that as a .PSD file. You'll appreciate this advice when you have your first "Oh, S***" and want to start over.
Lastly, make all your evaluations based on what your prints look like. Or, JPGs on the screen if that is your goal. You can get very distracted along the way worrying about things that won't make any difference in a print.
I use Vuescan on Mac OS; works great, I like it a lot better than my old Nikon scanner.