Scanning problems

Jeremy there are better dedicated 135 and 120 scanners than the Epson V500. However going that route you have to ask yourself what you will do with these images after scanning. If you plan an exhibition of your work and it's on 15 x 22 or or 22 x 30, then a high end scanner will be worth it. If you plan to print 8x10's then the V500 should be capable. Alternatively think about joining a photogroup or visting a pro lab. They often have excellent equipment and you have to book your time but you get access to the best scanners like an Imacon for a nominal fee of say 20$/hr as long as you go prepared you can do a lot in one hour. Thats making the assumption you know how to use these scanners. That's a significant point because the staff may well not be free to help you operate the equipment. Some places here in Toronto have a separate area for the users and it's separate from the staff and the store retail functions.

If you're not prepared you may end up spending a lot and getting less done, but it is a solution.

I'll close for now with the observation that whether you scan BW or C41 or RVP the scanner is capable of each medium and it really shouldn't matter to the scanner or you. If you are experiencing visible changes in the image after scanning I would really recommend you visit some of the PS user groups and start reading. It takes time but there isn't any better way to ramp up except a tutorial.

FWIW I took a tutorial and it was worth it.
Whatever you decide, Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Jeremy: Flatbeds certainly have their limitations, particularly with 35mm film. But I still think you can get better results with that V500 than you're currently getting (and without beating yourself to a pulp in the process).

Looking again at those comparison scans, yes, the Wally World scans have more "pop" (as we used to say at the photo agency I worked at), but too much of what I see is simply wrong. The home-brew-scan, while obviously in need of a little punching-up, only commits sins of omission, if you will. More saturation would be welcome.

Also, there's the matter of some films being more scanner-friendly than others (yes, even this late in the game). The better scanners can strike a workable image file from almost anything (but, remember, I said "almost"), while cheaper scanners can be rather picky. Your V500 scans can likely be improved quite a bit with some rudimentary PS tweaks, and it would be good to give that a try before thinking hard about a dedicated film scanner. Not that investing in one would be a waste of money (anything but, even if your photographic goals are relatively modest), but, to very reluctantly invoke an automotive analogy, you should try and master the Fiat before straining for the keys to a Ferrari*.


- Barrett

(*Okay, a Howtek or Imacon is a bit closer to a Ferrari than a Nikon CS V is, but y'all grok my meaning, right?)
 
Ok. Heres another test I have performed where yet again, I feel like the Epson V500 is holding me back from my desired goal.

Here is the image that I came up with after Walmart scanned my roll to a cd. This is one of my favorite pictures so I am trying to get it in best condition for web use. I have done a bunch of photoshop work to get the image how I like it including brightness, levels, color balance and an Unsharp Mask to get the image as sharp as possible. I had no trouble at all with this image and I love how it turned out completely.

eped2.jpg


And here is what I came up with after I scanned the negative with my Epson V500 at 1300 dpi to a TIFF file. In photoshop I applied a grain reduction to help match the quality of the Walmart scanned image. I also did the same type of brightness, color, and levels work. Once I tried the last Unsharp Mask, out came a ton of grain and imperfections. I am not at all happy with the final result I got but is the best I could do given the scanner.

epv500bg9.jpg


Conclusion: The Epson V500 does not cut it for me (At least for 35mm Negatives). Because the scans have so much grain and noise, I cannot get colors how I want them and I can't get the image very sharp at all without things looking very crappy.

I am hoping that buying a Nikon dedicated film scanner will get me more accurate, sharper scans and allow me to edit my picture in photoshop more and get the colors how I like them because there is less color noise. Also if the pixels are more accurate and less grainy, I am hoping to be able to get my final pictures as sharp as the Walmart scan posted above.

Any comments or recommendations for a new scanner?
 
Last edited:
JeremyLangford said:
I am hoping to be able to get my final pictures as sharp as the Walmart scan posted above.

Any comments or recommendations for a new scanner?
Click to expand...

Hi Jeremy, I'd recommend not getting a new scanner, but sticking with Walmart. I have a V500 for papers and prints, and a Coolscan 9000 for 135 and 120. I've learned to use both well and like the scans better than those from chain stores. There's a slight advantage with the 9000 if I were going to blow 135 things up, but otherwise they both get a lot out of a negative when used properly.

Stick with Walmart and you will be less frustrated.
 
Jeremy,Ive just bought a minolta dimage 5400 mk1 scanner,its absolutely brilliant.Mine is the best for b&w.The mk11 is possibly better for colour.
 
MikeL said:
Hi Jeremy, I'd recommend not getting a new scanner, but sticking with Walmart. I have a V500 for papers and prints, and a Coolscan 9000 for 135 and 120. I've learned to use both well and like the scans better than those from chain stores. There's a slight advantage with the 9000 if I were going to blow 135 things up, but otherwise they both get a lot out of a negative when used properly.

Stick with Walmart and you will be less frustrated.
Click to expand...

So why are you staying to stick with Walmart. I want to scan myself so I can stop paying Walmart and because they sometimes crop out big chunks of my negatives on accident.

How bout the Coolscan V ED. Do you think it would match up with the Walmart scan posted above?
 
For color images the Coolscan V will blow away the Walmart scans... but I still think your Epson should be able too.
 
Why do you guys feel like my Epson is capable of matching the quality of a Walmart scanned image. I have compared and compared over and over and have always got similar results to the test I showed on the previous page. Once I do any type of Photoshop processing, the Epson scan just gets worse and worse.
 
All-righty: let's expand on this a little.

Jeremy: would you kindly describe your scanning setup, including computer (including stuff like processor speed, RAM and HD capacity) and monitor, plus software involved in scanning and post-scan editing? I'm just trying to pinpoint potential problems in the chain.

Mind you, I do believe investing in something like a Nikon V, long-term, is a great thing. But, conducting this public "audit", if you will, of your entire system might reveal some important things before making such a decision.

I got into the film-scanning game half a dog's-age ago, lashing a second-hand Nikon LS-10 (slow, by modern standards) to a PowerBook 2300c/DuoDock combo (slower), and printing on an Epson Stylus Photo 1200 (the only part of my setup that was screaming state-of-the-art, at least at that moment). It took forever to scan and print, but I damn near fainted at how gorgeous the results were. I'm presuming, with the possible exception of that V500 scanner, that the rest of your setup is at least a light-year or two ahead of my very first system. That doesn't mean there aren't parts that might need attention before you drop the hammer on a new scanner. Let's check it out.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I have a mac mini with various upgrades. I have Photoshop CS3 and Adobe Lightroom. I never used Lightroom anymore after I started learning so much about Photoshop. I have a 17 inch Samsung monitor. This is all I can tell you because Im not at home right now.

I think I am pretty knowledge of digital images and how Photoshop works. I also feel that I am using my Epson V500 to its fullest ability. The fact is, my Walmart scans allow me to get the exact desired result I want with ease. The Epson just seems to hold me back and not allow me to get the colors and/or sharpness exactly how I would want it. I don't think I am making any flaws in my technique. I just think that I am maybe doing more editing than most people on this forum which just brings out the imperfections of the V500 compared to a lab scan. I can't really complaing though because the Epson was so cheap and the difference in the test results are not completely mind blowing.

I now hope to maybe go somewhere and get that same negative used from my last test on the previous page scanned with a Nikon Coolscan and bring it back home for editing and comparing to the Walmart scan to to see if that is what I need to buy.
 
Last edited:
mh2000 said:
maybe try Vuescan and see if that gets you the results you want?
Click to expand...

{clicking stopwatch} Three days! 🙂 🙂

But seriously, the one thing you just said about the scan of the guy on the escalator ... and I must admit that on my monitor (home, this time) the lab scan looks better. ... You said "grain" and "1300 dpi".

I found the hard way that scanning on the film scanner at 1200dpi will exaggerate the apparent grain (grain aliasing) on some films. I noticed this in particular on the Walgreens/Agfa 200. Boosting this to 1600, not really much more actually, fixes it.

Now when I scan negatives or slides, I'll do it at 1600dpi if for web, or 3200dpi if for prints ... which brings up a point, are you mainly trying for images to be used on the web, or viewed electronically, or for images to be used for prints? Forgive me if you already said and I missed that. 🙂
 
Ah, a Mac guy...this should be easy. 🙂

Firstly, from reading the spec sheet on the V500, I think you're scanning at way too low resolution. I wouldn't necessarily go for max optical resolution, but I would at least double or triple your current settings.

- A Samsung monitor...well, I can't say a lot that's good about their standard-issue LCD models...like a lot of US$200-300 monitors, they'll do a good job with general-purpose stuff, but photo/graphics stuff comes up a bit short on a cheap LCD. (This is why I've sought out late-model high-end CRTs like LaCie monitors for my photo work.)

- And, of course, there's the real possibility that you've simply run up against the limitations of your V500 scanner. I've been playing devil's advocate mainly to make sure (as much as I can, via the Internets) you've exhausted most, if not all possibilities before going all-out for a new scanner. I'm dead-to-rights certain you'd be happy as a pig in that-stuff-that-pigs-love-to-wallow-in with a Nikon V, but there was this need to sort certain things out beforehand. 😉


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Dmr: I have tried Vuescan before and soon after trying it I got rid of it because I remember thinking that it didn't have enough manual control. Also, I am only scanning negatives for web use. No prints.

Thank you both for the suggestion about trying a higher dpi to reduce grain. I will try 1600 dpi when I get home.
 
Last edited:
JeremyLangford said:
Dmr: I have tried Vuescan before and soon after trying it I got rid of it because I remember thinking that it didn't have enough manual control.
Click to expand...

My cynicism about Vuescan is that, in my not so humble opinion, it seems to be too often than not suggested as a universal one-size-fits-all solution for any possible scanning issue.

My scans have too much grain. Get Vuescan.
My scans have dust and noise. Get Vuescan.
My scanner is on fire. Get Vuescan.
My car won't start. Get Vuescan.

I did try Vuescan. I found it to be bloated and with a steeper learning curve than the standard software (Konica-Minolta) that came with the scanner.

But seriously, if Vuescan works for you, all the better, use it. If everybody in the world did things my way, it would be a boring world indeed. 🙂

My minor issues while learning to scan were solved by experience and attention to detail.

Another thing I quickly learned as a best practice is to use the scanner software ONLY to get the image off of the film and into a working file, then use Photoshop (or Gimp or whatever) to tweak and edit as needed.

The stock software (and Vuescan) has all kinds of bells and whistles. I found it best to do things as minor levels only in the scanning software and not try to do anything other than scan with it. No fix-this, fix-that, sharpen, etc. Just get a good image.

I don't know if your scanner supports 16 bit, but I'm in the habit of scanning in 16 bit and then reducing to 8 bit as one of the last steps. I also scan in a higher resolution than is necessary. 1600 if for web, 3200 if for prints.

Also, I am only scanning negatives for web use. No prints.
Click to expand...

With the typical web-size print (say 800x536 at 72 dpi) your scanner should give you scans that look quite nice. It's really hard to visualize what's going to show on a web viewer's monitor, since there are so many variables involved, but you shouldn't have trouble getting images that look nice.

Thank you both for the suggestion about trying a higher dpi to reduce grain. I will try 1600 dpi when I get home.
Click to expand...

If you can go higher than 1600, you might try it as well.

One thing I picked up from the scanning jocks here early on is that you want your scanner to be able to resolve the grain, but you don't want it to exaggerate the grain, which it will sometimes do when you scan at a lower resolution.

For web, I get good results at 1600. Many of my blog photos (link should be below) were done at 1600 on the K-M. (Some of them are lab scans, though.)

I hope some of this helps. 🙂
 
Jeremy: Interesting...the one thing I hear people griping about with VueScan is that it has too many options. Were you perhaps using it in its minimum-options mode.

I'm not trying to paint VueScan as a sort of magic bullet. In fact, the Pro version, with its myriad options, can be a bit overwhelming to many. What it does offer is the ability to fine-tune things that the scanner's packed-in software often totally ignores.

And, again, it might just be the limitations of the scanner; dedicated film scanners (the good ones, anyway) are more expensive for a reason: short of a drum scanner or Imacon, they'll dig out information from that chip of film better than most anything else. But, as dmr makes clear, they require experience to get the most out of them.

One approach, as she also mentions, is to not let the scanner software do a lot of tweaking to the scan at all, and save the heavy lifting for Photoshop. This, however, will require some fairly heavy PS lever-pulling. I prefer the idea of getting most of the scan info right at the point of the actual scanning, but leaving a good amount of running room for tweaking in PS. Where the line gets drawn here depends solely on the individual and his/her comfort level.

One idea: have you tried resetting the default setting for the scanner driver? Once in a while, when things aren't looking quite right to me, I'll do a reset, then re-scan.

One way or another, I think there's a chance at improved results. If not, there's always that Nikon scanner.


- Barrett
 
JeremyLangford said:
Dmr: I have tried Vuescan before and soon after trying it I got rid of it because I remember thinking that it didn't have enough manual control.
Click to expand...

Jeremy: the reason I have used Vuescan for six years is because you do have manual control of all the parameters unlike the scanner manufacturers software.

Now I don't tweak all of those manual controls on each scan, I simply work to capture all the data then adjust it in Photoshop. But I do that by making sure both of the end points of the histogram are not clipped. But that is not a parameter you can manually adjust in the Minolta software. I've never used a Nikon scanner.

But there are many ways to skin a cat, you use what works best for you.
 
>>Why do you guys feel like my Epson is capable of matching the quality of a Walmart scanned image.

Because I have a long experience with Epson scanners that are lesser than yours and get superb web scans. Sure, my Coolscan V is much better for 35mm, but still...

I'm not a huge Vuescan fan, but find it easier to use than the Epson stuff for some reason, for the Coolscan I just use NikonScan. One thing that Vuescan has is built in profiles for different films, using these may make a big difference in your processed scan... I've had problems with certain films sometimes. Another thing, if you get a target, Vuescan will allow you to actually calibrate your scanner (I don't know if you can do this in the Epson software).
 
why aren't you willing to try scanning at the scanner's max resolution? If you do this and down sample in PS you will average out your grain, if you scan at a low resolution you do a spiratic sampling and grain can easily be exaggerated. I always scan at full resolution, even with 4x5" and then down sample, smooths everything out wonderfully.
 
Jeremy

I bought the V500 to be able to scan 120 film, which it does well enough, but have not tried it with 35mm film. My friend has a previous generation Epson flat bed scanner that he uses for 35mm and his scans seem more than acceptable at 8x10 inch print size never mind in web size. As frustrating as it is I think you should persevere with the V500 a little longer before dropping big coin on a dedicated film scanner considering your main purpose is to scan for web use. Getting a dedicated film scanner in order to use it for web output is similar to hunting rabbits with an elephant gun, just a bit of over kill. OTH if going that route is the only thing that will satisfy you go for it.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom