DwF
Well-known
In the Post Your Photos here, there are some really nice images. I am wondering what people are using to scan and also at what DPI.
I pulled my Epson out from under a pile and began scanning again. Here is maybe the more vibrant of files I took off a recent role. It was late sun in Eastern Washington west of the gorge.
I pulled my Epson out from under a pile and began scanning again. Here is maybe the more vibrant of files I took off a recent role. It was late sun in Eastern Washington west of the gorge.

hanskerensky
Well-known
Nice image !
I use a Plustek Opticfilm 120 and at this size scan at 2650ppi.
I use a Plustek Opticfilm 120 and at this size scan at 2650ppi.
DwF
Well-known
Scanning
Scanning
Thank you Hans.
The charts I have seen indicate that for print purposes 8x10 or less, even with slower film, I will do well with 2400 but 11x14 might want to go to 4000ppi. I tried 6400 on my scanner as an experiment but file size was huge and it took too much time.
David
Scanning
Thank you Hans.
The charts I have seen indicate that for print purposes 8x10 or less, even with slower film, I will do well with 2400 but 11x14 might want to go to 4000ppi. I tried 6400 on my scanner as an experiment but file size was huge and it took too much time.
David
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Either the Nikon 8000 or the Epson V700. Both at the highest sampling rate setting + 2x sampling, 16 bit. Wet mounted film on both. After that any type of sharpening that compensates the folder lens quality without sharpening artefacts showing. For B&W negatives the Epson V700 is in favor now, shows less grain/noise and more detail in the shadows.
Ernst Dinkla
Ernst Dinkla
hanskerensky
Well-known
Thank you Hans.
I tried 6400 on my scanner as an experiment but file size was huge and it took too much time.
David
David, the real Optical Performance of the V700 lies somewhere around 2300 ppi so making scans with much higher resolution will only result in files eating more HD space but not contributing to the images quality.
Guess a scan at 3200 ppi should be enough.
DwF
Well-known
Thank you gentlemen!
Thank you gentlemen!
I have access to try a V750 so I will be doing that and if I get back to working with silver film, will look for something other than the 2450. From the recent files I have done, I think that 2400ppi is adequate for my needs.
David
Thank you gentlemen!
I have access to try a V750 so I will be doing that and if I get back to working with silver film, will look for something other than the 2450. From the recent files I have done, I think that 2400ppi is adequate for my needs.
David
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
David, the real Optical Performance of the V700 lies somewhere around 2300 ppi so making scans with much higher resolution will only result in files eating more HD space but not contributing to the images quality.
Guess a scan at 3200 ppi should be enough.
That real optical performance is achieved at the highest sampling rate of the V models in my opinion. Epson dpi's or ppi's actually describe the Sampling Per Inch which is not the same as PPI's or say true MTF optical resolution. The oversampling sensor and oversampling steps in scanning deliver optical quality nevertheless which is not achieved by setting a lower sampling rate.
To pull out most information and the least noise from a 6x9 folder B&W negative on a flatbed scanner with the idea to make a large print I use all the hardware pixels I can get from that scanner. However it should not be extrapolated pixels, The pixels will not have the quality that is available with a Mamiya 6 or 7 lens + a drum scanner. It will be garbage-in. But with all the tricks in the book: carrier at the right heigth, wet mounting, glass up, film-emulsion side down > film carrier V700 lens = 6400x9600 SPI > Vuescan RAW/DNG 16 bit scan, ACR import, Green-Cyan channel choice for monochrome, ACR deconvolution sharpening, exposure compensation, vignette reduction etc but no grain/noise reduction in ACR > Photoshop Neat Image film grain halved and the rest of the PS tools to enhance an image,... I am sure there is more gained than by starting with a scan that sampled at 3200 PPI. Prints at 2'x3' show that. In the end that 3200 PPI scan will be way more upsampled to meet the printer's PPI input request at that print size than the higher sampled scan is. Good upsampling algorithms and print sharpening are still the best choice, Qimage Ultimate goes a long way then.
If a choice for lower scan resolution output is preferred then check whether an odd custom resolution setting is not better. In the past Epson resolution choices in the driver could influence the stepping rate: 1200-1600-2400-3200 etc dpi divided easily on the highest stepping rate and the scanner then skipped sampling steps in hardware. Faster scan but did not deliver the same quality. By selecting a slightly higher odd resolution like 1750 dpi the scanner was forced to do the highest sampling and made the requested resolution by downsampling. Better scan in my experience with the Epson 3200 than going for 2400 or 1600 dpi. I avoid that too now as I do not expect the downsampling routines to be as good as the (on the fly) one in Qimage Ultimate if a smaller print is needed.
Sure when a Mamiya 7 negative goes through that workflow there is a visible better quality output. My Nikon 8000 scanner has a more straight path to quality but needed enhancements too and sometimes still is worse on B&W (aliased) grain depending on the negative. I think that digital photography right now has better quality than what can be achieved with analogue or hybrid analogue photography so going this route is not the most sensible one. But mediocre tools like folder cameras and flatbed scanners can be improved a lot with the right attention to detail.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Share: