scanning question

[back alley]

this is basic, i think.

at times, while looking through our gallery or pics on other sites, i'll see a comment about the scanning...'could be a better scan', 'poor scan', 'what a lously scan'! you get the idea.

what makes for a poor scan?
how can you tell it's a bad scan?

are people also talking about the quality of post processing, like removing dust, using levels and unsharp mask? must be.

with my scanner, i put the film in the holder and hit scan. not much to it really -although i guess the initial settings count there too eh?

insights?

joe

 

[peterc]

with my scanner, i put the film in the holder and hit scan.

I find that I usually make a few adjustments on the scanner side ... unless I've been really lucky and got a perfect negative. Usually all it involves is some minor fiddling in levels.

Peter

 

[back alley]

so you make level adjustments with your scanner?

i scan the neg and then play in photoshop.

joe

 

[peterc]

so you make level adjustments with your scanner?

Sometimes. On occasion I find I can pull a little more detail out of the highlights or shadows by making adjustments at the scanner level. I usually don't do the full adjustment, just enough to get the detail into the scan ... then I can work on it in PS.

Peter

 

[back alley]

do all scanners have this capability?

man, have i been out of it...

joe

 

[peterc]

do all scanners have this capability?

My (now departed) Nikon LS-2000 did, as does the Minolta F-2900 that has replaced it. My flatbed, ScanMaker X6 also allows levels adjustment.
For all three I've been using the manufacturer supplied software and plugins.

Peter

 

[back alley]

i need to look into this more.
my scanner is an older canon (of course) fs 2710 and it has some adjustments but i have not noticed any of this sophistication.

joe

 

[taffer]

Joe, look for some histogram / levels adjustment information on the scanning program, I agree that many work can be done in PS, but the 'original' histogram you have for the scan is your start point for that work, so it is indeed important.

In my case (and I guess it's always the same), the scanning program itself tries to adjust automatically after the preview scan, but some times it just needs some extra help for tricky negs or if you're interested in a adjusting a specific part of the image.

 

[peterc]

my scanner is an older canon (of course) fs 2710

I just looked up the 2710 ... appears to be about the same age as my three scanners.
I couldn't see much about the supplied software though. You might want to see if VueScan supports your scanner ... it might bring out features not available in the Canon software. I tried VueScan and didn't really like the results with my scanner, but it does offer a lot of features.

 

[back alley]

new info, more to think about...

but back to my original question, how does one konw if its a bad scan by looking at a web shot?

joe

 

[skipc]

It is common to attribute a poor quality image to a bad scan 🙂 A low end flatbed scanner could provide a poor scan, or the lack of software knowledge, or time, that may lead to a getting a poor scan. Having good scanners and software, if the scan is poor it's my fault! Scanners are just dumb hardware, with a decent, flat, clean neg it's the scanning software and operator who make a good scan...skip

 

[Fred]

Hi Joe,

My vew of a bad scan is a scan that exhibits muddy shadow detail, with an almost blocky texture to it along with blown highlights and colour shift on the same image. This is what I was getting from my Nikon CS IV (out of production a couple of years now) when scanning some Velvia slides partially because the dynamic range of the scanner was not good enough. Scanning B&W was another problem, with too high contrast on most images. I must add that colour negs were fine though and had little complain about (for once 🙂 ).

Given the book deadline and the lack of a new scanner in frustration I downloaded, tried and purchased Vuescan (no afilliate, employee etc yada yada yada...). With little twiddling the results were much better than the SW that came with the Nikon, I still have a lot to learn from this SW but it did mean that the book photos were on time.

It might not be your bag but for me it saved my spending a pile of cash on a new scaner for a while.

Hope this helps.

 

[GeneW]

Joe, as a former owner of a 2710 I can confirm that the Canon unit works a treat with VueScan. The Canon software is okay, but its limitations were what led me to VueScan in the first place and I've been using it ever since ... now on my 3rd scanner.

Gene

 

[back alley]

if anyone has time, maybe have a look at my gallery and throw some feedback my way.

i set my scanner for colour positive and max resolution. all post processing is done after the scan is made on photoshop 7. most of the xp2 stuff is lab scanned.
i have never received poor feedback about the quality of my scans so i'm deadly curious.

i will investigate vuescan soon though.

joe

 

[Bryan Lee]

PRE-SCAN HISTOGRAM

You can check this out.

 

[Fred]

Joe, can't see any problems with the brief look at the gallery, you got some cracking shots there as well. I've got a lot to learn from you composition wise.

My problem was mainly with velvia or Ektachrome slides.

I don't know what the original B&W scans looked like but the contrast looks very good in the gallery. I guess (hope) you tweaked the levels to achieve that otherwise you might be missing some shadow detail in one or two (not that I could tell). As for the mid tones they are still very good. Either way the images look good to me. Keep the scanner and make sure the negs are clean and all is well.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I think scanning is as important as exposure and composition if you plan on digitizing the photo. I usually scan for a flat image (lower contrast) with detail in the highlights and shadows. This allows for easier adjustment in PS. Vuescan is a great tool for this.


Todd

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

what makes for a poor scan?
how can you tell it's a bad scan?

Excellent question, Joe. A poor scan is as poor as you think poor can be, or if you encounter scans that are "better" than your scan (hence, making it "poor").

There are no numbers, no scales, no cookie cutters. But it's like Andy Warhol art: you know crap when you see it.

I think if you're satisfied with it, it's not "poor". Not until you find "the next best thing". And that's actually what Plan Upgrade from The 8-Track Upgrade Bible concocted by the electronic gadget industry wants us to do...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Joe: the only observation I can make is that, if what you're looking for is "fidelity" from the negative, and your negative is developed for "normal tones" (say, "properly exposed" Tri-X developed in D-76 1:1, etc. etc.), then as far as I can tell, in your "The Bar" gallery, the highlights and shadows are clipped, specially the shadows; it almost looks like the roll of XP2 I developed in Diafine by mistake, and all the tones got that way, with rather harsh gradation.

I would say that "Girl with Parachute" was well scanned, with nice details in the highlights, nice gradations in the midtones, and better shadows.

Tonality/detail issues while you work on your images are also be influenced by your monitor/color management settings, where you're trying to compensate for something that we're not seeing. You may want to look into that too as part of your quest into "better scanning".

Is this the kind of feedback you're looking for?

 

[back alley]

yeah!

i'm open to it all, gotta learn.

the bar shots were all done a la merciful and then leveled to get a higher contrast effect.

thanks for looking, you also fred.

my negs can be very low contrast and very good contrast, all on the same roll, depending on what lens i use and if i change lenses on the same roll.
overall, i am pleased with my scans/webshots and prints, but i'm new to the world of the digital darkroom and open to new info.
i am self taught in scanning and photoshop also, i read what i can on the net, have a how to book i plough through on occasion and trial & error.

so for so good i think.

joe