Scanning advice: High end machine operated by monkey vs. low end operated by me

[froyd]

ANT:
Looks like I’m running out of options for commercial scanning now that the lab manager at my local Cosco left. She was an avid photographer and took good care to provide good scans (all for the princely sum of $4.99 per 35mm roll!); however, under new management, the lab scans have taken a turn for the worse. Contrast and grain are hurting my eyes, it’s like somebody turned a dial and maxed out all the sharpness and contrast settings. Yuck! All my highlights are blown and my shadows are deep pools of black with no gradations, even though a look at the negs on my light table reveals that the detail is definitely on the film strip. The local mom and pop shop is even worse: drunk blind monkey could generate better files.

I understand that home scanning has its limitations, especially with lower end models, but at this point I feel anything I would produce at home would beat the crap I’ve been getting back from the lab.

QUESTION:
Would an Epson 600 allow me to extract more information from negatives (especially highlight areas where the neg is dense)?

I tend to use XP2 most of the time, and I skew my exposures for the shadows, rating it usually at 320 or even 200. I could alter my metering approach, if it would help, but the bottom line is that I’d like my scans to capture a bit more of the detail that’s on the negative, and I’m not sure if a low-end scanner could ameliorate the situation, or if I have to move to something with better D-Max to see an improvement.


PS_ I’m NOT looking for recommendations about specific scanners (I am well aware that there are much better units than a low-end flatbed) but the heart of the question is whether the operator of the scanner (me) can make enough of a difference to produce better results than crappy lab scans even on a low-end machine.

I’ll try to post examples of what I consider disappointing scans later tonight.

 

[Pablito]

There are just too many variables to give a coherent answer.

 

[jbielikowski]

I'd say yes, because after you master the PP of scans (it all comes down to downscaling and sharpening), a good quality A4 print wont be a problem.

 

[icebear]

Maybe the best option would be to ask the Costco store manager to get the new person running the scanner a basic training course, ideally the same training the former lab manager has gone through.

I guess even if your scanner is not ideal (no experience with that type) with some effort you might get better results than the latest scans from Costco that are poor to unacceptable.

 

[Godfrey]

Scanning negatives is as dependent upon operator skill and technique as it is upon equipment quality. So sure: a skilled operator working with modest equipment can produce as good or better scans than a circus monkey running the finest high end equipment.

But the key thing to learn is how to set your expectations. If you are looking for perfect, finished images directly out of the scanner, then the better equipment, best scanning software, AND a lot of practice and skill are essential.

Getting perfect, finished results directly out of the scanner is, to me, a hopelessly difficult endeavor. I set my scanning expectations to capture all the data in the negative (or print). My scans directly out of the scanner look pretty flat and lifeless (even with very good equipment), but have all the data that's there. This is the best data to then bring into an image processing application (Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, GIMP ... what-have-you) and render into a finished high-quality image.

So ... the answer to your question ...

Would an Epson 600 allow me to extract more information from negatives (especially highlight areas where the neg is dense)?

... is "yes", given that whatever scanner you are using has sufficient dmax to capture the tonal scale, and you become proficient with both the scanning and image processing portions of the task.

G

 

[brbo]

Just tell your lab not to make any adjustments and post process those files by yourself.

 

[williams473]

I agree that it depends on what quality you want. If you are willing to think of scanning in more of a traditional "printing" conception, it really doesn't take too long to produce very nice scans at home. I have the Epson V500 photo and it does a very nice job (better on 120 than 35, but still nice) when I control the exposure and apply a little sharpening at the time of the scan. Use the "professional" profile within the software and you can take control over most aspects of the scan.

The main thing is to make sure your scan includes all of the highlight and shadow detail available in your neg. When you do your preview scan, make sure you slilde the highlight and shadow markers to the very edges of the histogram. This will generate a "muddy" scan but it will have all the information in it, which is what you want and what a machine printer isn't smart enough to do well or consistently. Then you adjust your levels in Photoshop using Levels or Curves if you like.

I have tried the easy (costly) way - professional labs that process film and run scans at the time of processing, but no matter how expensive the processor/scanner you will never get a "custom" scan, because the machine is taking a best guess and going with that for each scan. It is going to clip some highlights and lose some shadow detail... All this fancy technology we have these days still doesn't mean we can cut corners. To get the best work you need to practice sound technique and spend some time on your work to get the best results. Good luck!

 

[froyd]

Just tell your lab not to make any adjustments and post process those files by yourself.

that was in the old days, with the old lab thech. The new person is more concerned about cartridge refills and other more profitable services offered by the photo desk. For all I know, the shift in priorities might be why the old person left.

 

[froyd]

I agree that it depends on what quality you want. If you are willing to think of scanning in more of a traditional "printing" conception, it really doesn't take too long to produce very nice scans at home. I have the Epson V500 photo and it does a very nice job (better on 120 than 35, but still nice) when I control the exposure and apply a little sharpening at the time of the scan. Use the "professional" profile within the software and you can take control over most aspects of the scan.

The main thing is to make sure your scan includes all of the highlight and shadow detail available in your neg. When you do your preview scan, make sure you slilde the highlight and shadow markers to the very edges of the histogram. This will generate a "muddy" scan but it will have all the information in it, which is what you want and what a machine printer isn't smart enough to do well or consistently. Then you adjust your levels in Photoshop using Levels or Curves if you like.

I have tried the easy (costly) way - professional labs that process film and run scans at the time of processing, but no matter how expensive the processor/scanner you will never get a "custom" scan, because the machine is taking a best guess and going with that for each scan. It is going to clip some highlights and lose some shadow detail... All this fancy technology we have these days still doesn't mean we can cut corners. To get the best work you need to practice sound technique and spend some time on your work to get the best results. Good luck!

That's what I thought; the advice to scan "flat" and "develop" the flat file in LR or PS is one I keep hearing, and will take to heart. I might get my feet wet with a cheaper flatbed and see how it goes.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I started with a Canon 4400F WAY back in the day. After the scanner was just not matching the level of quality that I was after I splurged for a V700. I won't look back. I'm very happy with my scanner. The software on the other hand... Can be a little bit of a pain in the ass. I'm a Silverfast User.

 

[jbielikowski]

(...)
The main thing is to make sure your scan includes all of the highlight and shadow detail available in your neg. When you do your preview scan, make sure you slilde the highlight and shadow markers to the very edges of the histogram. This will generate a "muddy" scan but it will have all the information in it, which is what you want and what a machine printer isn't smart enough to do well or consistently. Then you adjust your levels in Photoshop using Levels or Curves if you like.
(...)

Yup, quick example from Canon 9000F, 16bit@4800dpi TIFF.

and after:

 

[willie_901]

The scanner software is relevant as well. For instance, multiple exposure passes can make a difference for some negatives. Some people find IR dust removal.

I too adhere to the scan flat and process later workflow.

 

[DougK]

Once I stopped using the default scanner software with my Scan Dual IV and switched to Vuescan, my scans got much better.

 

[Godfrey]

Once I stopped using the default scanner software with my Scan Dual IV and switched to Vuescan, my scans got much better.

Yes. I have not used anything but VueScan since 2000, for all my scanners.

G

 

[dmr]

I most definitely get better scans from the now seven year old negative scanner than from any minilab scan.

 

[clayne]

Fundamentally minilab scans should overall win as they're typically using the same design as a dedicated film scanner - heck, it is one. It's when they start screwing with things that things go south.

 

[Photo_Smith]

If they are using a Minilab like a Fuji Frontier there are only limited adjustments they can make.
As far as I can remember the base software (supplied to minilabs) doesn't have any pre set tone curves like the Pro software; control is limited to density and colour.

The whole Idea is these things don't need a pro to operate them, you just feed the negs in the machine does a calibration scan of the film base and off it goes. I would be amazed if the operator made any adjustments to your images, probably feeds them in on auto advance...

It should do a morning self check and auto MBL every few hours-keep them full of chemicals and go being the idea.
The scanner units on the Frontier are actually pretty good and you can buy them as stand alone units the last one I bought was an SP2500 I think which we outputted to a Durst Epsilon for Portrait packages (you know 2 8x10 and 4 4x5's)

That said I have no idea what machine your lab uses, or the level of software; but if they are giving you poor service change lab; if you scans are rubbish I hope they are taking more care with your negatives!

I also think having your own scanner will give you more control, along with a learning curve.
Here's a scan I made from Fuji Velvia on an Agfa DLab 3 just before I sold my Lab...

I think I scanned everything on Auto...

 

[furbs]

What's the end result for most of your photos? If you're just posting online, a V600 should be fine - if you put the time into learning how to use it. I use Vuescan and find it gives me the control in scanning that I wasn't getting with even pro lab scans.

You can always send a negative away for drum scanning if you want to make a large print. A V600 should pay for itself after a few dozen rolls, and you'll have better scans to boot. That said, there are better, reasonably affordable options on the market if you want higher resolution scans.

 

[tsiklonaut]

PS_ I’m NOT looking for recommendations about specific scanners (I am well aware that there are much better units than a low-end flatbed) but the heart of the question is whether the operator of the scanner (me) can make enough of a difference to produce better results than crappy lab scans even on a low-end machine.

Hard to answer question indeed. Like with all photography, the straight answer would be: it depends. 🙂

You have to start with some basis: so you have a very good or techincally excellent shot exposed on film and you need to scan it (so we can elliminate "a bad original photo" case for the following text that would create another complicated set of problems).

There's no doubt high-end equipment run circles around any consumer or prosumer equipment, yet it takes skill to use this equipment and the operator is probably the biggest factor. But there's another another factor: PP and everyone's personal "connection" level with PPing.

I think many beginners expect scans to have already some PP done on them - levels etc (i.e. "auto-functioned" scans that already set these values automatically). So they have a good starting point just to adjust simple things such as contrast and be done with it .

Yet advanced photographers want the flattest scan possible with loads of "headroom" and only the optical sharpening provided by the equipment, there's a strict "no" answer to any additional digital manipulations what so ever. If a beginner sees this kind of "flat" scan the pros like to start working with, they would simply throw up 😀

So ultimately there's no true answer. Since it's individual, depending on what anyone expects from a scanning service and what PPing skills they possess themselves.

We can make a scanning song and it goes probably along these lines...


VERSE:
When a poor scan meets a good PP - the results can be fair to acceptable.
When a good scan meets a poor PP - it's probably poor to fair results

CHORUS:
When an excellent scan meets a good PP - the results are very good
When an excellent scan meets an excellent PP - then there's nothing that compares 😀


With maybe couple of exceptions, there's still huge difference between a cheap batch scanning service and a fully manual high-end service.

The thing with high-end scanning these days is that the operator has to communicate with the client in-depth for each project or often even each picture. Unless you do for archival purposes - large quanitiy batch scanning almost always brings bummer results IMHO and you're better off with home scanning DIY style. The only "but" here is that you're capped with prosumer or consumer equipment's limits. Which is fine for many i.e. not printing large or is perfectly fine with web/monitor viewing which is very common these days.

But if you look for the ultimate quality while you don't want to mess with your own I'd say have your first work batch-scanned by a random cheap service to see what you have and then have the best selected frames done by a trustworthy and proven high-end service.

This way you get the best possible digital copy of your best analog work that surpasses any home-scanner in quality yet it doesn't brake your bank. IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Margus

 

[Murchu]

Yes, you can do a good job easily yourself.

Get a scanner with ICE, buy Vuescan, scan at 16 bits, and adjust the histogram when you are scanning to pull all the shadow and highlight data out of the neg. Take your flat 16 bit file, and bring it into image editing software. First, crop each frame, and then use the levels command to pull in the black point to where shadow detail starts, and the white point to where highlight detail ends. With shadows and highlights set, simply adjust the midtone point until the image looks pleasing.

All scans will be soft to some extent, so with your scanner experiment a little until you find a good default level of sharpening that alleviates that softness from the scanning process and that specific scanner, and then apply that level of sharpening to each scan by default.

Post process further if you wish, but your basic workflow will be scan at 16 bits, crop, level and sharpen.

A flatbed will give you speed, and a negative scanner better quality. Also a negative scanner will lessen dust (enclosed scanning unit vs open flatbed), the dirty word most neglect to mention when they talk about scanning.

EDIT: 16 bits above refers to 16 bit TIFFS, which will be your working files/ scanned originals. Once you've done your cropping, levelling and sharpening, you can output to a more user friendly or final output format.