Scanning 35mm Negatives

[COZ]

As an alternate to those two models, I'm going to try the Minolta 5400. I'm hearing that it has similar quality to the coolscan but at a lot lower price lately. The coolscans are getting really bid up these days.

 

[Paddy C]

Another vote for the Epson V700 ... it's easy to use and holds twenty four negatives at a time and produces very good results if you're not obsessed with detail.

I've had mine for a couple of years now and understand it's quirks well ... the film holders are OK if you know how to keep your negatives flat and curl free while scanning. I've never felt the need to get glass inserts or different holders.

Keith, the photo is a nice one and looks great.

I would love to know what your workflow is with the V700. I've been playing with it lately, but I'm not sure I'm getting the results I think I might be able to get.

Do you use Epson Scan or Vuescan? Do you scan as a neg or a positive, b&w or RGB?

I was intended to post once I had some samples to show what I was getting and what I was able to do with it (using curves etc). And ask for some guidance. I probably still will but it might take me some time.

 

[Richard G]

I think there are some advantages of the 9000 over the 5000, possibly the ability to use a bulk feeder (?). I second the V700 for B and W or the reasons above. I have only scanned some FP4 and loved the results. Resolution more than satisfactory. Not yet happy with any of my B and W scans with the Nikon. I think the contrast with the transparencies is better with the Nikon. My one gripe is that the Coolscan can get lost amongst the junk on my desk, very compact unit, but the V700 takes up a lot of real estate and boxed is even more difficult to hide from my wife's tidying eye.

 

[Keith]

Keith, the photo is a nice one and looks great.

I would love to know what your workflow is with the V700. I've been playing with it lately, but I'm not sure I'm getting the results I think I might be able to get.

Do you use Epson Scan or Vuescan? Do you scan as a neg or a positive, b&w or RGB?

I was intended to post once I had some samples to show what I was getting and what I was able to do with it (using curves etc). And ask for some guidance. I probably still will but it might take me some time.

Hi Paddy,

I use the standard Epson software and scan as a 16 bit black and white negative ... scanning to create a tif file at around 3200 to 3800 ... this gives me a file size of about 35 to 40 megs.

I use ACDSee Pro version 3 for post processing and initially run the images through the batch processor for minmal sharpening and a little noise filtering ... at the same they are converted to RGB!

Next I do any repairs needed in the form of cropping, rotation, dust and spot removal etc then go on to adjustments of the contrast, shadow detail and highlight control etc. ACDSee has numerous tools for fiddling with this sort of thing apart from the basic curves adjustment.

That's about it ... there's no secrets to decent post processing IMO but you do need to be consistent in your approach and be very familiar with whatever software you choose to use. I'm no fan of photoshop as I find it too intimidating to be honest and the lack of complexity but extreme capabilty of ACDSee Pro suits me better.

I meant to mention I generally leave all my keepers from a roll as full sized tif files ... only converting them to jpeg for web use as needed.

 

[Paddy C]

ACDSee has numerous tools for fiddling with this sort of thing apart from the basic curves adjustment.

This, I think, is my main problem. The scans I produce need a good deal of adjustment. But in making these adjustments, I'm loosing valuable information in the highlights and the shadows. (I'm using Photoshop curves) I can end up with something decent, but I know what's been lost and how much better it could be.

Glad to know you aren't using crazy magic (my head started to spin reading all the opinions and processes that people use).

I'll have to muck about some more and see where I can get.

 

[kipkeston]

I just did this comparison. Partly to satisfy my own curiosity. The comparison was totally unscientific but here it is.

Setup: Coolscan V vs V750. Vuescan, 3200dpi, locked exposures (both@2.0), Tiff-dng files, Converted to jpeg in PS4 (to match a grad2 print I have here). Sharpening was smart-sharpen@150/3rad.

Camera was a Leica M6 with 50mm summicron current version (1983), f/11 and 500th, Tri-x in Xtol 1:1.

V750, sharpen-no

original

LS-50 sharpen-no

original

V750 sharpen-yes

original

LS-50 sharpen-yes

original

There you have it. I bought the CS-V a couple of years ago when I became tired of scanning curled 35mm negs in flatbed. If silver negs were perfectly flat after development, I would probably sell the CS-V because for web results, the V750 is fine.