Pymm
"Clacker"
Hello all,
I have ab Epson 4870 flatbead which I (most happily) use for my Midformat negatives, it performs well and for the purpose of scanning I have no complaints at all. Good Negatives I print anyway.
I have just gotten into 24x36 negative size and the 4870 is quite dissapointing with these scans, which after all is to be expected....
What reasonably priced scanner system will scan my B&W negatives well ? I might even try slides someday, so it will have to do that too, but main issue is B&W (APX100 and Tri-x)
I use a Leica "M" camera and Leica lenses if this makes a difference.
Thanks in advance
I have ab Epson 4870 flatbead which I (most happily) use for my Midformat negatives, it performs well and for the purpose of scanning I have no complaints at all. Good Negatives I print anyway.
I have just gotten into 24x36 negative size and the 4870 is quite dissapointing with these scans, which after all is to be expected....
What reasonably priced scanner system will scan my B&W negatives well ? I might even try slides someday, so it will have to do that too, but main issue is B&W (APX100 and Tri-x)
I use a Leica "M" camera and Leica lenses if this makes a difference.
Thanks in advance
lido
Established
Minolta Dimage Scan Dual 4 is a very nice scanner. I borrowed it from a friend of mine for a couple of days and was very happy with it. On the other hand, Plustek Optikfilm 7200 is cheap, and according to the test not far behind in image quality if you scan at 3600 dpi.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
What is "reasonably priced?"
djon
Well-known
Pymm, the only moderately priced film-only scanners that arewell known to experienced users (browse photo.net to confirm) seem to be Minolta and Nikon.
In my experience the 5400II Minolta is mechanically badly designed and constructed, prone to failure..someone just posted that B&H was only selling refurbs, theorizing that Minolta was getting out of the scanner business.
The original 5400 is evidently a very good scanner in every respect except speed...very slow. The Minolta IV is reportedly very good as well, but it lacks Ice...which doesn't work with B&W anyway unless you shoot C41 B&W. Ice is a wonder with color film, very desirable. Using Ice at a low level (plenty for airborn dust) does NOT affect sharpness, but at a high level it can.
I use a Nikon V. It's absolutely wonderful. Built like a truck, fast. Minolta comes with simpler software for B&W than does Nikon, but Nikon becomes superb for B&W with Vuescan and many Minolta users decide to go that route as well. Vuescan is a $50 download. Vuescan's only drawback for B&W and color is that it's got a tremendous number of potential decisions, which can lead you astray...most are irrelevant to normal workflow.
Both Nikon and Minolta work at an effective 4000ppi resolution according to one Japanese test. Minolta's advertised 5400ppi resolution does produce a bigger file than Nikon from the same image, in my experience, but it doesn't record more visual detail.
In my experience the 5400II Minolta is mechanically badly designed and constructed, prone to failure..someone just posted that B&H was only selling refurbs, theorizing that Minolta was getting out of the scanner business.
The original 5400 is evidently a very good scanner in every respect except speed...very slow. The Minolta IV is reportedly very good as well, but it lacks Ice...which doesn't work with B&W anyway unless you shoot C41 B&W. Ice is a wonder with color film, very desirable. Using Ice at a low level (plenty for airborn dust) does NOT affect sharpness, but at a high level it can.
I use a Nikon V. It's absolutely wonderful. Built like a truck, fast. Minolta comes with simpler software for B&W than does Nikon, but Nikon becomes superb for B&W with Vuescan and many Minolta users decide to go that route as well. Vuescan is a $50 download. Vuescan's only drawback for B&W and color is that it's got a tremendous number of potential decisions, which can lead you astray...most are irrelevant to normal workflow.
Both Nikon and Minolta work at an effective 4000ppi resolution according to one Japanese test. Minolta's advertised 5400ppi resolution does produce a bigger file than Nikon from the same image, in my experience, but it doesn't record more visual detail.
Pymm
"Clacker"
.. Reasonably priced, somewhere around 5/600 €
GeneW
Veteran
djon, I appreciate your notes about scanners. I currently have the original Minolta 5400 and find it quite decent, but if it ever breaks down, it's starting to look like Nikon is the only serious player left. Canon had a good one with its 4000 Canonscan but has dropped it. Now if I could only afford a Nikon 9000 !
Gene
Gene
djon
Well-known
People say the latest Canon rivals Epson 4990....one would be my choice if I was semi-serious about MF/LF. I'm afraid I'd rather do the digital dive than go beyond 35mm and my current Nikon. End of the trail.
GeneW
Veteran
The CanoScan 4000 was a dedicated 35mm film scanner. All that's left in the Canon line are flatbeds. Decent enough for 6x6 work for prints up to 8x10.
Gene
Gene
einolu
Well-known
I just got a dimage scan 3 for $100, so I am playing around with that. I like the quality, but getting it to expose bw negatives correctly seems to be tricky.
djon
Well-known
Consider getting a copy of Vuescan http://www.hamrick.com $50
You might as well work with an up-to-date scanning application, undoubtedly better than the old app that came with your III. You'd want the same application with a top-of-line Minolta or Nikon, you'd be in good company
You might as well work with an up-to-date scanning application, undoubtedly better than the old app that came with your III. You'd want the same application with a top-of-line Minolta or Nikon, you'd be in good company
Jordan W.
Member
I use a Minolta Scan Dual II. I bought it used a few years ago and it's still doing fine. I'd think that either this model or a used Scan Dual III or IV would be available on the used market for very little money. A new Scan Dual IV usually sells for just under $300 in the USA.
LazyHammock
Well-known
I would suggest taking a look at the Nikon Coolscan IV. It can be picked up for reasonable prices on the auction site. I have used one for about three years and it is rock solid. It is only 2700dpi but I print in the (wet) darkroom and scan mostly for emails and web (speaking of which I'll have some pics posted here shortly!). I have printed slide scans at 11x14 on an Epson 1280 and the image was pretty impressive . It has ICE which does a wonderful job of cleaning up E6 and C41 scans - doesn't work on silver film though.
Last edited:
MIkhail
-
Jordan W. said:
Jordan, when I read your comment, I got interested, because I am looking for scanner right now myself, so I went to see your pictures. Let me tell you - you have some wonderfull images there, I just wanted to compliment you. Just the style I love to shoot too.
I have a question, thouthg.
How large did you ever try to print your image after scanning?
Thanks!
anselwannab
Well-known
On the SD-IV B&W scanning, I was having real problems until this week when I started a new work flow. B&W negatives always seemed too dense to scan with blown highlights and no detail in the shadows. I use the Minolta software and Photoshop Elements 3.
1. Scan as Color Positive
2. In Exposure control, move main slider until the you get as much of the exposure in with out clipping the high and low.
3. Go to Image correction, the first button on that tab is for "Tone curve and histogram". Move the sliders for the black and white up to the exposure, and then move the gray point back and forth keeping an eye on highlight and shadow control (remember, everything is reversed B&W) I have more of a problem with blowing high lights so get curves with humps rather than dips in them.
4. I have the settings under "Open preferences dialog box" at the top of the screen (little hand pointing towards a checklist. I have:
- Exposure control for negatives set to manual.
- Of the next four check boxes I only have Autofocus at scan checked.
-4x sampling
- 16 bit color
-adobe color space
I then scan it at 3200dpi (why screw around with having to come back?)
I then open it in PSE3, use:
-Filter- adjustments -Invert
-Image -Mode -grayscale
-Enhance - Adjust Lighting -Levels (you can adjust the black, white and midpoint)
Maybe not the best way, and I've heard that the Invert and grayscale can be done in diferent ways. This method lets me level it in 16bitmode all the way through. After the last step you can convert to 8 bit and use layers to adjust different parts of the picture.
Like I said, just the way I've been doing it, it seems better to me. None of the scans in my gallery were done this way, but I might even redo some of them since I think it might address some of the highlight/shadow issues.
As to size, a full frame 35 negative at 3200dpi gives about 3000x4400 scan when you get done cropping out frame and edge funkyness. That's good for almost an 11x14 at 300dpi.
Mark
1. Scan as Color Positive
2. In Exposure control, move main slider until the you get as much of the exposure in with out clipping the high and low.
3. Go to Image correction, the first button on that tab is for "Tone curve and histogram". Move the sliders for the black and white up to the exposure, and then move the gray point back and forth keeping an eye on highlight and shadow control (remember, everything is reversed B&W) I have more of a problem with blowing high lights so get curves with humps rather than dips in them.
4. I have the settings under "Open preferences dialog box" at the top of the screen (little hand pointing towards a checklist. I have:
- Exposure control for negatives set to manual.
- Of the next four check boxes I only have Autofocus at scan checked.
-4x sampling
- 16 bit color
-adobe color space
I then scan it at 3200dpi (why screw around with having to come back?)
I then open it in PSE3, use:
-Filter- adjustments -Invert
-Image -Mode -grayscale
-Enhance - Adjust Lighting -Levels (you can adjust the black, white and midpoint)
Maybe not the best way, and I've heard that the Invert and grayscale can be done in diferent ways. This method lets me level it in 16bitmode all the way through. After the last step you can convert to 8 bit and use layers to adjust different parts of the picture.
Like I said, just the way I've been doing it, it seems better to me. None of the scans in my gallery were done this way, but I might even redo some of them since I think it might address some of the highlight/shadow issues.
As to size, a full frame 35 negative at 3200dpi gives about 3000x4400 scan when you get done cropping out frame and edge funkyness. That's good for almost an 11x14 at 300dpi.
Mark
Last edited:
djon
Well-known
Epson photo printers default to 720dpi if you tell them to do something they don't like, such as 300dpi. If for some reason you do want very low resolution (ie the 300dpi concept) the general belief is that you should select an even factor of 720dpi, such as 360. I thin the 300dpi suggestion made on some websites has to do with non-photo printers...it's certainly a bad idea for photo Epsons.
Most who use Epson printers for B&W select 1440dpi because thats maximum practical resolution. 2880 is possible, but doesn't seem to contribute anything visually IMO, does sometimes block up shadow detail.
Most who use Epson printers for B&W select 1440dpi because thats maximum practical resolution. 2880 is possible, but doesn't seem to contribute anything visually IMO, does sometimes block up shadow detail.
anselwannab
Well-known
DJon,
By the way the 300dpi I was talking about was for the file, not the setting on the printer. Just to clarify for newcomers, the dpi of your .tiff file isn't the same as dpi of printers. A 300dpi setting on a printer would look pretty bad. I studied all that a few years ago when starting and I won't insult the guru's of that field with my simple explanations anymore than I have.
I've just seen the 300dpi as the standard for high quality press printers. When I print on my Epson 2200 I set my .tiff file to 288dpi for high quality (in common with 1440 and 2880 native dpi to the printer). I like 2280 over 1440 because on glossy paper it seems to hide the "grain" better, but I don't doubt that shadows could get blocked up, plus it takes a lot longer and uses more ink than 1440.
Mark
By the way the 300dpi I was talking about was for the file, not the setting on the printer. Just to clarify for newcomers, the dpi of your .tiff file isn't the same as dpi of printers. A 300dpi setting on a printer would look pretty bad. I studied all that a few years ago when starting and I won't insult the guru's of that field with my simple explanations anymore than I have.
I've just seen the 300dpi as the standard for high quality press printers. When I print on my Epson 2200 I set my .tiff file to 288dpi for high quality (in common with 1440 and 2880 native dpi to the printer). I like 2280 over 1440 because on glossy paper it seems to hide the "grain" better, but I don't doubt that shadows could get blocked up, plus it takes a lot longer and uses more ink than 1440.
Mark
Jordan W.
Member
MIkhail said:
Thanks for the compliment, Mikhail! As far as printing is concerned -- for Frontier-type prints (labs that accept a digital file for printing) I think I've gone to 11x14", tops. Usually more like 8x12". For these systems, the rule of thumb is that you want close to 300 dpi at the print size. My scanner gives me 2800 dpi files (IIRC) which translates to a "theoretical" maximum of about 9 inches on the short side if you want to stick to the 300-dpi rule. In practice, you can "push it" a little and still get decent results.
I also do inkjet printing on an Epson C86 -- I try to use files sized for output at 360 dpi for this printer (I use the MIS EZ inkset from www.inksupply.com) as mentioned in other posts in this thread. The same rule applies here.
I believe that the newer scanners in the Scan Dual series have higher resolution, enough to get you an extra inch or two on the short side in prints.
djon
Well-known
Jordan, I've not even tried to have "Frontier-type" prints made, but I know many digital labs do a great job FAR beyond the dpi limits you've mentioned, simply by applying Fractals-like interpolation. It's amazing how well they can enlarge very small files...a close friend who has DEEP silver printmaking skills and training, is getting absolutely staggering and very cheap 20" prints from his 4 mp digicam from one such lab....
I do think that 300dpi figure is a sign of a lab's lack of skills, if it insists on that limit.
I do think that 300dpi figure is a sign of a lab's lack of skills, if it insists on that limit.
Jordan W.
Member
djon said:
djon -- I certainly don't doubt that that's the case. I think it's probably a matter of finding the right Frontier-type lab with the right operator. I haven't tried very hard, but I've recently gotten some recommendations for excellent local Frontier labs that I may give a try with.
peter_n
Veteran
I'm with you there Gene! My KM SD IV is in the shop (under warranty) and that Nikon is just incredible. Unfortunately there is also that incredible price...GeneW said: