Lilserenity
Well-known
Hiya,
More problems, first with 35mm that turned out to be the camera, and now with my Epson 4870 which I use for 120. I'm close to scooping all the scanners up and throwing them in the bin (since my LS2000 is also very tempremental....) and wincing as I use the credit card to buy a Nikon Coolscan 8000 or 9000....and I do ask myself if I'm spending this much, why not buy a digital camera (serious question that...sadly... anyway)
I seem to be having a hard time scanning 120 Portra 160, the roll of 400 seems fine, it was shot on my Minolta Autocord and that is fine as I have scans made from that before I went away and after I went away that are just fine. This is the problem:
Crop from the sky, as this always shows the problem at its worst
Now the problem:
I have introduced a couple of variables here which may be the cause:
1. I used a firm I've never used before for processing but one that had a good reputation locally, some of the slides I had mounted and got back were badly mounted but that's an aside (but one I'll take up if...) -- however could something like this be down to the processing? It seems unlikely to me.
2. Which leaves the scanner. I use the betterscanning insert from Doug Fisher, I have cleaned and cleaned the glass, I have tried the film both ways up, I have tried taping the film to keep it dead flat, I have checked the pulley inside the lid to make sure it wasn't visibly slipping.
I am at a loss, this seems to be happening to I'd say pretty much all the frames of Portra 160 I have tried so far.
I'm utterly stumped. It would help if I had another scanner to prove this with but I don't
Has anybody seen these kind of artefacts, any ideas/tips on what I could do? (Apart from close my eyes and stump up for a Coolscan?)
Thanks,
Vicky
More problems, first with 35mm that turned out to be the camera, and now with my Epson 4870 which I use for 120. I'm close to scooping all the scanners up and throwing them in the bin (since my LS2000 is also very tempremental....) and wincing as I use the credit card to buy a Nikon Coolscan 8000 or 9000....and I do ask myself if I'm spending this much, why not buy a digital camera (serious question that...sadly... anyway)
I seem to be having a hard time scanning 120 Portra 160, the roll of 400 seems fine, it was shot on my Minolta Autocord and that is fine as I have scans made from that before I went away and after I went away that are just fine. This is the problem:
Crop from the sky, as this always shows the problem at its worst
Now the problem:
I have introduced a couple of variables here which may be the cause:
1. I used a firm I've never used before for processing but one that had a good reputation locally, some of the slides I had mounted and got back were badly mounted but that's an aside (but one I'll take up if...) -- however could something like this be down to the processing? It seems unlikely to me.
2. Which leaves the scanner. I use the betterscanning insert from Doug Fisher, I have cleaned and cleaned the glass, I have tried the film both ways up, I have tried taping the film to keep it dead flat, I have checked the pulley inside the lid to make sure it wasn't visibly slipping.
I am at a loss, this seems to be happening to I'd say pretty much all the frames of Portra 160 I have tried so far.
I'm utterly stumped. It would help if I had another scanner to prove this with but I don't
Has anybody seen these kind of artefacts, any ideas/tips on what I could do? (Apart from close my eyes and stump up for a Coolscan?)
Thanks,
Vicky
maddoc
... likes film again.
I had these artefacts a couple of times and it turned out to be a simple hardware problem in my case, aka not enough computer power. I think most probably the RAM was not suffiecient, scan resolution and color depth set to high and the scanner hicked-up after every couple of scan lines. My scanner is the Epson V700.
In my case 3200dpi / 48Bit for 120 film was not possible if the computer had only 1GB RAM, a similar striped pattern appeared.
In my case 3200dpi / 48Bit for 120 film was not possible if the computer had only 1GB RAM, a similar striped pattern appeared.
Lilserenity
Well-known
That's interesting, I did wonder if the computer was the issue. It's been fine until now, and I have a 2.6GHz Core2Duo, 2GB RAM (Windows 7 32bit), which should be good enough.
I'm scanning 48bit 2400dpi.
I'm scanning 48bit 2400dpi.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I've had this happen to me on my v500 when scanning big negatives. My theory at the time was that it was caused by the fact that I had no holders for 6x17 and had to put the negative straight onto the glass. I've not seen any sign of it on 35mm, not so sure about 6x6 and 6x12 now that you mention it.
The 6x17 in question. Look to the sky:
EDIT: Sorry if the size of the picture ruins the thread, I can link to a smaller version if requested.
The 6x17 in question. Look to the sky:
EDIT: Sorry if the size of the picture ruins the thread, I can link to a smaller version if requested.
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
I would suggest scanning at scanner native scan resolution of 4800 dpi. Then downsize by 50% on one dimension using bicubic sharper (or no sharpening and sharpen afterwards.
When you scan at less than native resolution the scanner has to discard some lines (or just not scan those lines) which means you are at the mercy of the scanner firmware which isn't always the best.
Also do you really need a 48 bit scan? I mean you can't see it all on your monitor and you will always have to reduce to 16 bit for output. (I've never been convinced of the need for 48 bit).
When you scan at less than native resolution the scanner has to discard some lines (or just not scan those lines) which means you are at the mercy of the scanner firmware which isn't always the best.
Also do you really need a 48 bit scan? I mean you can't see it all on your monitor and you will always have to reduce to 16 bit for output. (I've never been convinced of the need for 48 bit).
Lilserenity
Well-known
I have tried doing the scan at 4800dpi but to no avail.
48bit is the same as scanning at 16bit, it's just a different way of measuring the same result, a 24bit image is 8bit per colour channel (R, G and B) and 48bit is 16bit per colour channel, so scanning at 48bit does make some difference to me for controlling print output, less abrupt changes when changing curves etc.
That said, I have tried and tried tonight to get a result, but to no avail. I guess perhaps something is amiss.
Given my LS2000 also has trouble (requires at least a twice yearly clean and lubricate, and it's getting worse), and that photography is the most important thing in my life (apart from family and friends), I bit the bullet to spend out on a Nikon LS8000. If I really want to produce end to end good results, then I have to spend, my savings have taken a hit but that's a small price for something that may set me up for the future, hopefully in 20 years time I may think, that scanner got me the prints that got me properly set up for making (regular) money from photography.
Vicky
48bit is the same as scanning at 16bit, it's just a different way of measuring the same result, a 24bit image is 8bit per colour channel (R, G and B) and 48bit is 16bit per colour channel, so scanning at 48bit does make some difference to me for controlling print output, less abrupt changes when changing curves etc.
That said, I have tried and tried tonight to get a result, but to no avail. I guess perhaps something is amiss.
Given my LS2000 also has trouble (requires at least a twice yearly clean and lubricate, and it's getting worse), and that photography is the most important thing in my life (apart from family and friends), I bit the bullet to spend out on a Nikon LS8000. If I really want to produce end to end good results, then I have to spend, my savings have taken a hit but that's a small price for something that may set me up for the future, hopefully in 20 years time I may think, that scanner got me the prints that got me properly set up for making (regular) money from photography.
Vicky
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Have you tried scanning a slide you have scanned before and definitely know to be okay Vicky?
Lilserenity
Well-known
Sadly yes
The problem is the scan artefacts are random, not always in the same place, but on negatives I scanned say only 5-6 days ago, they now have lines down them, sometimes very defined and one line alone (or definite banding) or in various patches as on the attached example where there was none before.
I have changed nothing about the PC in that time, I might work with computers as a day job but I am no computer fiddler at home (I spend all day fixing websites, I just want them to work when I come home!) so I can't see what else has happened except that the scanner has developed some form of fault.
I have closed down apps before scanning, and left the computer solely to scan, no differences.
I tried moving the position of the negative holder and the scanner still worked (surprised me as I always thought it must be in the top right) and the artefacts still appear, not in the same place as that would indicate something with the negative.
I also scanned the same negative twice, 4800dpi, one scan, no discernable problem, second scan, done exactly the same, same negative same everything, there was a streaking issue...
*sigh* It's a shame as actually the 4870 is a very decent scanner and with the BetterScanning insert, it's very good. I'm sure the Coolscan will pleasantly surprise me on what I have been missing out, but I will stand by the fact that when working, this Epson 4870 has turned out large prints from scans at an excellent quality, 24x24" with no problems.
Bad run of late, one OM2n playing up, Autocord needing a service, and now this. Hopefully after this, I'll have a few years where things just work.
Stop laughing!
Vicky
Last edited:
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I feel your pain Vicky. I have a 4870 and have just obtained a better scanning insert for 120. I'd be devastated if it started playing up.
Have you removed any possible sources of interence, such as power cables crossing data cables, and tried swapping the USB cable?
Have you removed any possible sources of interence, such as power cables crossing data cables, and tried swapping the USB cable?
Lilserenity
Well-known
I had fiddled with the cables, make sure they weren't snagged, loose, tried looking in the lid to make sure the pulley was at least properly in place, even unplugged things from my PC and changed which USB port the scanner was in. Admittedly I have not however changed the USB cable itself though...that said I doubt that's causing an issue but I'll give it a go after work,
Thanks
Vicky
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Probably not, but desperate times etc...
Oh and don't let the scanner influence your decision whether to go digital or not. I went digital because by developing technique was rubbish. Now here I am developing again (properly this time) and finding that (for me) my digital images fall well short of what I'm getting from film.
It's always worth experimenting with new things, of course, but personally I don't think digital would suit your style.
You're welcome to try my M8 if we ever make it to the same meet.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Probably not, but desperate times etc...
Oh and don't let the scanner influence your decision whether to go digital or not. I went digital because by developing technique was rubbish. Now here I am developing again (properly this time) and finding that (for me) my digital images fall well short of what I'm getting from film.
It's always worth experimenting with new things, of course, but personally I don't think digital would suit your style.
You're welcome to try my M8 if we ever make it to the same meet.
Wise words Bob, I think I was looking at it purely from the way many others would look at it, spend £1200 on a single piece of equipment or spend that on a digital camera and in their eyes "get the same result", but that takes no account of my distaste for using heavy SLRs with bulky lenses etc., and I'm not about to sell my OM2ns, my M2 or my Autocord so that whole idea had about as much logic in it as I had in trying to pass my GCSE maths exam a few years ago..... (i.e. very little!)
I don't think digital suits me either, I haven't been aware I was developing a style per se but I am far enough down the line to know what I like, what look I am after and how to get that, other folks have said it too, and I take it as a compliment and I don't want to lose that or waste time trying to do so. So I'm sticking with film, it gives me the results I want time and time again.
I used an M8 a couple of years ago in London, and I'll be honest, didn't get on with it as well as my M2, I found the RF patch was harder to see at some angles and as for my exposure (going by what was on the back screen), I was soon pining for my M2 -- I'm sure with enough time I'd have easily got used to the M8.
But there is very little like processing your own roll of FP4+, looking at a new batch of Elite Chromes or seeing the gorgeous muted tones of Portra come through on a piece of 6x6.
So I bought a Nikon 8000. I hope it's worth it
I'm used to scanning, the process involved, the time it takes, I'm in no hurry, I'm not a press photographer, I just loaf around snapping away in my own little world haha, love it Vicky
tlitody
Well-known
you can get a copy stand from SDS for £30 and put your neg/pos on a lightbox and photograph with a digital camera (if you have one).
Lilserenity
Well-known
Nope, no digital camera, apart from my phone.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Congrats on the new scanner Vicky.
I'd be very interested to hear what you make of it. I keep wondering about a Nikon scanner myself. Though, like you, I probably won't make the leap until my old scanner dies.
I'd be very interested to hear what you make of it. I keep wondering about a Nikon scanner myself. Though, like you, I probably won't make the leap until my old scanner dies.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Sure will!
Maybe I could actually get on with setting up a blog on my website and close down or move some of my old one which I seem to only post to about twice a year now
I have the Nikon LS2000 but the double whammy of that tetering somewhere between life and death (never good when you have to bang the lid of something to get it to work, and also take it apart twice a year to keep the running gear lubricated) forced my hand.
I think the main thing that miffed me about the flatbeds was the artefacts (not these ones) but sometimes blotchiness of the scans in say the sky, that was mostly if not entirely solved by Doug Fisher's insert, and resolution wise as I say I cannot fault the Epson 4870. I'm sure the Nikon 8000 will be wonderful, and yes I am sure I'll be initially "How did I put up with the previous quality" but I come back to the feeling that unless you have room to plaster your walls with loads of 24x24 prints (which I don't), the "good enough" factor certainly applies to the Epson scanners in medium format.
That said, I want to get a good 10 years out of this Nikon given what I have paid out! Hopefully more
Vicky
Maybe I could actually get on with setting up a blog on my website and close down or move some of my old one which I seem to only post to about twice a year now
I have the Nikon LS2000 but the double whammy of that tetering somewhere between life and death (never good when you have to bang the lid of something to get it to work, and also take it apart twice a year to keep the running gear lubricated) forced my hand.
I think the main thing that miffed me about the flatbeds was the artefacts (not these ones) but sometimes blotchiness of the scans in say the sky, that was mostly if not entirely solved by Doug Fisher's insert, and resolution wise as I say I cannot fault the Epson 4870. I'm sure the Nikon 8000 will be wonderful, and yes I am sure I'll be initially "How did I put up with the previous quality" but I come back to the feeling that unless you have room to plaster your walls with loads of 24x24 prints (which I don't), the "good enough" factor certainly applies to the Epson scanners in medium format.
That said, I want to get a good 10 years out of this Nikon given what I have paid out! Hopefully more
Vicky
Lilserenity
Well-known
Well it arrived today, I knew it was big, but boy is it a big box of tricks!
I've only done one scan so far (I only have the standard 120 holder but I believe it can be modified to accept glass) and so far, very good, excellent in fact.
Maybe that's another idea, a blog post/forum post on scanning exploits...Some day I'll have the time
Anyway the negatives are indeed just fine, scanner problem for sure
I've only done one scan so far (I only have the standard 120 holder but I believe it can be modified to accept glass) and so far, very good, excellent in fact.
Maybe that's another idea, a blog post/forum post on scanning exploits...Some day I'll have the time
Anyway the negatives are indeed just fine, scanner problem for sure