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:
Muggins
Junk magnet
Would be interested to hear whether anyone else just uses the defaullt settings in VueScan, or whether you can get better results by adjusting them?
mcfingon
Western Australia
Here's my scanning setup. I have changed the camera doing the scans to a Nikon D750 recently. I use the Monochrome picture control for black and white film and the Flat picture control for colour slides and negatives. The camera is set to record NEF raw files which I then process in Nikon's NX Studio.
Making the Mark Three Film Digitizer
Making the Mark Three Film Digitizer
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I am using the default settings on scangear (Canoscan 8600f) and switch off all settings except the "correct backlight " which if needed I set it to "1".
I try to get as flat of a scan I can. Sometimes I select quite a bit of outside of the frame as scangear is trying to even out exposure and averages highlights and shadows.
I adjust each part of the scanned image individually then on GIMP.
I try to get as flat of a scan I can. Sometimes I select quite a bit of outside of the frame as scangear is trying to even out exposure and averages highlights and shadows.
I adjust each part of the scanned image individually then on GIMP.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You can see the settings I use in my film scanning tutorials. I don't generally mess with altering the curve or exposure settings because Vuescan's controls are so primitive. Its easier to adjust that stuff in Photoshop or whatever you use for editing. You will need to edit the scans; straight from the scanner they will look awful. Especially scans of B&W negatives; they'll look very flat and gray. This is normal and ok...you just edit them to increase contrast in your editing software. Scans of color slides aren't as bad because of their wider density range but will still need a little editing to look their best.
Intro To Film Scanning
B&W Negative Scanning Tutorial
Color Slide Scanning Tutorial
Godfrey
somewhat colored
From a notional perspective...
It is good to consider scanning as a second tier of image capture following the camera. Do you always allow your camera's automation to do the whole job for every photograph? VueScan does a good, average job when left on its defaults, but just like Lightroom or any other image rendering application, the defaults are only rarely the best solution for more than a modest range of photographs.
When scanning film, whether I'm using a scanner and VueScan or a camera copy technique, I look at each image and tweak the settings if I think that a tweak will produce better results.
G
Muggins
Junk magnet
From a notional perspective...
Though I must point out there's not a lot of automation in a Kodak Six-20 Model C.
Exactly - which is why I'm looking for inspiration to develop (bad pun, sorry)
Though I must point out there's not a lot of automation in a Kodak Six-20 Model C.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I'm pretty much done with film, I have a few rolls yet to scan that will get done some day. I use an Epson V600 and found SilverFast software to provide my best results. The film that scans reliably the best for me has been Kentmere, both the 100 and the 400 in both 135 and 120.
Muggins
Junk magnet
Thanks, Chris, much appreciated! If the scanner settings don't make a lot of difference I'd better get deeper into Elements.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I use a Durst Chroma Pro slide duplicator with enlarging lenses adapted to my Fujifilm XT-2. I am able to handle 35mm half frame to 6x6 with an 80mm lens. I have had to shim it a little to manage edges on 6x6, which is about the upper size limit I can handle. I use electronic shutter (no shaking) and a 2 second delay for each shot.
Durst_setup_sm by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
Durst_setup_sm by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
Muggins
Junk magnet
Looks as though scanner settings for me are now moot, as my scanner has gone tits up. I've had it over a decade, and probably get better results now photographing negs on the lightbox, so it could be worse, I guess.
oldhaven
Well-known
I have not used this yet, but I am putting together this rig similar to the one Mark Wyatt has. The light is a Lupo Diaduplicator, sold in the US long ago as a Spiratone Dichro Duplilite. I am hoping it can correct some old slides that have gone off color. I just got a transformer for it and some suitable 12v lamps. The table and column are also Lupo items. The bellows and slide carrier on the column are Pentax and the lens is is a Mamiya macro Sekor 60mm f2.8. I plan on using my Pentax K-5 IIs at first, and will try to use an external monitor with the capture card cable and a remote shutter. The 35mm slide opening on the Diaduplicator lifts off and the light panel is big enough for medium format slides.
