What do you use for scanning your negs?

[tedwhite]

dfoo: I resize the neg in Silverfast (output) to about 5X7, then scan. I have no idea whether I'm doing anything properly or not (no manual). I have resized to 8X10 and gotten an acceptable B&W print.

 

[venchka]

Ted, somewhere in all the menus or screen windows there is a place to change resolution. It's there. You just need to find it. Try 2,400.

QUESTION: Knowing that the hardware in these consumer flatbed scanners is limited to about 2,000 SPI, are the users who say they get better results at 7,200 ever tried 2,000 to 2,400? Besides making HUGE files, is 3,200, 6,400, 7,200 or larger really making better scans? Are the prints better? Forget what you see on the screen at 72 DPI. Prints at 360 DPI are the only way to judge scanner output.

MULTI-PASS: Again, these are consumer scanners. They don't have precision stepper motors. Keeping multiple passes registered is iffy at best. Has anyone tried multi-pass scanning at lower resolution? It might work in the area of 1,800 to 2,400 SPI.

 

[Rprice]

I use a Canon Canoscan 8800F I am able to do 32mm 120mm and slides. It is a good scanner for my limited use that I need it for.

 

[Nate Butler]

I've been using an Epson 4490 for 35mm, but have been underwhelmed by the results. I could purchase a Coolscan, but I don't know that it's worth the price for me, so I'm trying something different: use the Epson to scan for web and to create indices of each roll, and any shots I'd like to have at a higher res I can have done at my local photo shop (which uses a Coolscan IV ED) for about $1.25 each. I usually end up with only 1 shot per roll that I feel is worth getting a higher-res scan made, anyway.

 

[Gradskater]

I have a plustek 7300 that gets the job done. you can see pictures here if you are really bored

I scan at 3200 to a tiff, then convert that tiff to jpeg (highest quality). No particular reason why 3200 and not 3000, or 3400. Scanning directly to jpeg in silverfast gave funky colors.

That gives me a jpeg about 7-9mb in size thats easy to adjust in iphoto. I scan it in color, then convert to black and white. My eyes can't see any difference in the tiff vs. the jpeg, and the prints from the jpegs look great to me up to 8x10. I haven't tried anything larger. I do use the scratch and dust software in silverfast, and I think it works well.

This picture shows what I end up with using this workflow. Good range of tones in the picture, window just a little blown out. I use this scanner and method based on price, speed, and convenience, not necessarily the best 300% crops and such.

 

[Olsen]

get it done at a lab? it might be a bit pricey but usually less so at dev time and saves a tonne of effort if you can find a good lab. scanning is hard work.

This is very well put. I have a Nikon 8000 ED which I hardly have time to use - and learn how to use well. And I have 'tons' of negatives from 30 years of photography that I want to scan. I would come a long way if I spent the money I could get for the scanner on having a pro lab scanning for me. Just imagine the time I would save....

 

[johnwnyc]

Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the stock Minolta software. The Dimage has great carriers, particularly the glass multi-format carrier (which you can use to scan Xpan negs, BTW). I usually use Scanhancer.

It resolves very well (is that English???), right down to the grain with 400 speed films. Many Fuji films require some additional noise reduction in the blue channel with this scanner.

The scanner is long discontinued and the software could stand to have some things improved. But I've used it for many years and I've been quite happy with it. I do quick scans of an entire roll, six frames at a time. I import those into Aperture to archive. After editing I go back and do high quality multi-pass scans of my picks.

 

[venchka]

Gradskater-Why convert the TIFF before editing? I would suggest that you edit the original TIFF file. Unless storage is a concern, or your editing software won't open a 16-bit TIFF file, there is no need to make a JPEG.

 

[robert blu]

Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED , Nikon software, Lightroom and sometimes PS CS3. HP9180B as printer, mainly B&W.
for me it's ok.
rob

 

[dfoo]

I have a plustek 7300 that gets the job done. you can see pictures here if you are really bored

I scan at 3200 to a tiff, then convert that tiff to jpeg (highest quality). No particular reason why 3200 and not 3000, or 3400. Scanning directly to jpeg in silverfast gave funky colors.
...

I know I sound like a broken record, but can you upload a full scale (3200 or more) unsharpened jpg of a black & white (and color if you get a chance) to flickr and post a link?

 

[Gradskater]

Gradskater-Why convert the TIFF before editing? I would suggest that you edit the original TIFF file. Unless storage is a concern, or your editing software won't open a 16-bit TIFF file, there is no need to make a JPEG.

I don't have a storage limit, but the tiffs do slow my computer way down when processing, editing them. It just frustrates me, and I can't visually see the difference in the tiff quality vs. the jpeg. Just makes things run quicker, and also won't fill up my ipod which I use for an additional backup.

 

[venchka]

OK, fair enough. I was just curious. I trudge along with the TIFF files thinking that I might loose something if I convert to JPEG. maybe I have a problem.

 

[dfoo]

With JPG you have to be careful. If all you do is save the JPG once and then you are done, that is fine. But if you want to make changes later, then you can run into problems with image degradation.

 

[Gradskater]

I know I sound like a broken record, but can you upload a full scale (3200 or more) unsharpened jpg of a black & white (and color if you get a chance) to flickr and post a link?

Ok, these are about 9mb each, jpegs from the plustek 7300. The second one with the trees is distorted and out of focus a bit on the left side. I dont think the negative was completely flat when I scanned it. I am surprised at the scratches that show up at that size!

These are most likely walgreens film, iso400, so not the smoothest film by far. I don't know if the scanner is resolving grain or if its just noise. What do you all think?

One

Two

 

[kipkeston]

LS-50>vuescan>PS3

 

[morback]

ok, I hope I'm doing this correctly.

Top one is uncontestably the drum scan, and then comes plustek. The further down you go, the more multisampling it has (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x and then 16x).

I realized the sharpness is equal, but the tonality is so-so...

These are 5000dpi scans, as you can see the Plustek picks up the grain and all the external particles. I'm not seeing a difference in the multi-sampling, are you?

 

[Gradskater]

I forgot to add, those 2 pictures I posted were only scanned once. I don't use the multi-sampling feature. I could not see a difference with multiple passes.

If I really want to get rid of grain, I just use noise ninja, like in this picture.

 

[topazbullet]

I'm lucky enough to have access to a Heidelberg Nexscan where I work!

 

[dfoo]

morback, it looks quite sharp! Are those 100% crops? Are you sure the tonality is not just due to the difference in the scan gamma? Did you look at the histograms of both scans?

Gradskater, the scans look pretty good also. I think what you are resolving there is the film grain. If you tried ISO 100 film I'm sure it would be much smoother. Do you have a tri-x 400 sample to try? That would be interesting... I worry about the limited dmax of the plustek with real silver film.

 

[mh2000]

with my Epson 4990 I scan at 4800ppi and then immediately downsample to 2400... seems smoother and less noise than if I just scan at 2400... hard to tell though since the images are already pretty smooth (IE. soft) and noise isn't a problem.

Ted, somewhere in all the menus or screen windows there is a place to change resolution. It's there. You just need to find it. Try 2,400.

QUESTION: Knowing that the hardware in these consumer flatbed scanners is limited to about 2,000 SPI, are the users who say they get better results at 7,200 ever tried 2,000 to 2,400? Besides making HUGE files, is 3,200, 6,400, 7,200 or larger really making better scans? Are the prints better? Forget what you see on the screen at 72 DPI. Prints at 360 DPI are the only way to judge scanner output.

MULTI-PASS: Again, these are consumer scanners. They don't have precision stepper motors. Keeping multiple passes registered is iffy at best. Has anyone tried multi-pass scanning at lower resolution? It might work in the area of 1,800 to 2,400 SPI.