ocmex
Newbie
Hmm... there might be another similarity
That little thing behind your back, if that is you. I used to be licensed for that one too, back in Europe. Not here, different association.
This is an old but very valuable thread.
Please update with your current film scanning technique
if you have already posted here please explain why / how you changed your methods
or why you did not
Thanks,
Stephen
Please update with your current film scanning technique
if you have already posted here please explain why / how you changed your methods
or why you did not
Thanks,
Stephen
agentlossing
Well-known
I scan with a Pacific Image XA Super, not the newest scanner they offer, but it works for my needs. The design and build quality of these dedicated scanners is nothing to write home about, and I don't love that part of the development process. But it gets the job done, for considerably less cost (once amortized) than having a lab do the scanning.
steveyork
Well-known
My Nikon 9000 + Vuescan scans B&W film very flat and grey. It's also a slow scanner. This seems typical issue with this software. Nikonscan was much better, but they stopped supporting that decades ago. You have to pop the scanned image into photo shop, ect to create anything usable. A gigantic PIA and sometimes my PS skills aren't good enough to salvage it. Vuescan experts probably know what to do but that's not me.
I have a more modern Epson 600 flatbed scanner with house software. It scans the opposite, too contrasty and plenty sharp. The images often look like digital captures, w/o the shadow detail. I found by accident that if I underdeveloped the B&W film, I get better results. Probably same if I overexpose -- or both. Also, sometimes get some weird digital artifacts in the image.
Neither is a perfect option, but I lean toward the flatbed as it is faster and my post processing skills are poor. For some of the better images, I'll try scanning on both machines.
I have a more modern Epson 600 flatbed scanner with house software. It scans the opposite, too contrasty and plenty sharp. The images often look like digital captures, w/o the shadow detail. I found by accident that if I underdeveloped the B&W film, I get better results. Probably same if I overexpose -- or both. Also, sometimes get some weird digital artifacts in the image.
Neither is a perfect option, but I lean toward the flatbed as it is faster and my post processing skills are poor. For some of the better images, I'll try scanning on both machines.
Last edited: