Tired of scanning....

I much prefer the second image, I picked it instantly before I enlarged either. Sharper, more punch, more detail. Enlarge both, then look at the mouse on the train, as well as the child's face in the train. But you don't even need to enlarge it to see that.
 
To me, #2 looks a bit too oversharpened. This reminds me scans I got from minilab.
#1 is from what I'd like to start working.
 
Skiff said:
Honestly, I've never really understood all the marketing hype about "The Find Lab", "Indie Film Lab" etc. in the US,
and the labs like "Carmencita", "UK Film Lab" and at last "Mein Film Lab" who just copied the American marketing idea 1:1.

They are concentrating on scans. And not on high resolution scans, but only minilab scans.
Click to expand...

? I have only used thefindlab from that list. Their largest scans from 35mm are 4500 by 6800 pixels. Their scans are stunning.
Minilab is 2000 by 3000 tops.
 
#1 looks like more noise reduction was applied to the scan.
Esp noticeable on the building surfaces and the child's face.
 
f16sunshine said:
Frank

I'm confused now. Are we comparing straight scans packaged into the same size jpeg or edits of said scans?
What is the end game you are seeking here?
Click to expand...

Ok, here we go: they are scans from my Canoscan 9000F MkII for Number 1 at 4800 dpi, and an XL scan (3649×5444) from MeinFilmLab.de for Number 2!

The Canoscan was treated to a dose of clarity, contrast and sharpening in Lightroom to allow it to compete at all with the pro-scan. I doubt I'd be able to coax more detail and sharpness out of it.

The XL scan is the original jpeg, delivered by MFL. No additional fiddling with the file.

I guess the professional scan wins here!

I just want to make sure that going the pro-scan-way is the right one for me! I won't be able to afford a more expensive scanner, if anyone would suggest that.
 
I use USM in PS twice when dealing with CanoScan 9000F files, first 300; 1(or 1,5); 0 for input file, and in the end 33; 0,3; 0 for 1050x700 files (I use "bicubic with smoothing gradients" for downsizing). Your 1600px file need additional USM at 77; 0,7; 0 to look better but not oversharpened as the lab file. YMMV
 
The problem for me was the process...sure the lab used a better machine, but I was able to get scans much closer in tonality to what I wanted. For instance, you could further process the first image to have highlights and contrast that look more like the second scan, but not the reverse. Who should decide to whether to lose highlight or shadow detail to get higher contrast, you or the lab worker? I eventually got a lab to give me flat scans, but not all offer that option, and by then I got used to home scanning and have not looked back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom