Scanning Files from Folders

DwF

Well-known
Local time
4:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,856
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.

13883878742_9ff5fa7685_b.jpg
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom