Why do my slides scan less sharp...

A

aad

Not so new now.
Local time
11:17 AM
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
1,229
...than my negatives? At first I thought I was discovering that my shots weren't as good as I thought-so I grabbed a loupe and set them on the light table. They're fine, so something is going on.

Scanner is Epson 4490 flatbed.

Thanks!
 
I'm not an expert on the Epson 4490, but I think it is generally true that dedicated film scanners do a better job with slides than do flatbed scanners.
 
I have exactly the same problem. My slides are always blurry (slightly) and the contrast, color, exposure, etc. are all cruddy. I want a Nikon Coolscan for this very reason.
 
I had this problem with my flatbed as well. A dedicated film scanner solved the problem for 35mm film, still looking for an affordable MF solution.
 
Always another reason to spend money,eh? Any model recomendations-within the Nikon line as well as other suggestions?
 
Minolta and Umax should be good choices as well, in my unexperienced humble opinon.

I started another thread about this here .

I'm sure there are plenty of pitfalls when scanning slides on a film scanner, though. Getting the workflow down with your chosen equipment and individual film types will probably take some experimentation. From what I've read on the web, (which we know contains all the truth,) grain aliasing can be a problem.

Earl
 
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV, it is a little slow and noisy but solid, reliable and the autofocus is very sharp. It also has ICE which is great for color or chromogenic B+W.
 
Not all Flatbed Scanners are Bad

Not all Flatbed Scanners are Bad

In every photgraphy forum on the WWW, people always say one should avoid flatbed scanners for film. I think there is at least one flatbed scanner that does a great job on 35mm film.

I use a Canon 9950F ($360, US) to scan all my 35mm negatives and slides. I run the scanner with Silverfast AI (version 6). In my tests the Silverfast driver is far superior to Canon's. The Canon software is very useful when scanning old color faded slides. I make 16 bit "raw" (actually silverfast HDR) 4800 dpi tif scans. I am very pleased with the quality of these images. The resolution with this set up works well for me.

I have learned that under exposed negative film becomes noisy (alias noise) with this setup. Underexposed ASA 800 film can be very noisy. Slightly overexposed negatives are no problem though. Slide film works really well.

The HDR images are easily adjusted on PS using standard techniques that can be readily automated. Film negatives are corrected (decompressed) very easily.

Look here for an example of the resolution possible with this setup: http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/sets/1551353/

I do not have a dedicated film scanner so I can not make a direct comparison. There is at least one review of the 9950F using Canon's software driver you can find with Google. Note that this review was written before Silverfast's 9950F driver was available.

Because I must scan non-film media too, the Canon was a great choice for me.

Willie

Mamiya-Sekor 500TL
Nikon F3
Cannonet G-III QL 17 (as of 12-25-05!)
 
I'm actually considering a Canon scanner to handle my MF needs, thanks for the link, Willie.
 
That's a good result on negatives-do you have a slide?

My negatives actually look pretty god, and for black & white I'd say excellent. The slides look as if they're mildly de-focused, so mabe I should de-mount a slide and scan it like a negative to see if that's a reason. Maybe tonight!
4800 dpi! Must be an enormous file.
 
aad said:
...than my negatives? At first I thought I was discovering that my shots weren't as good as I thought-so I grabbed a loupe and set them on the light table. They're fine, so something is going on.

Scanner is Epson 4490 flatbed.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Owning the 4490 since a week I could not confirm your impression from what my own experiences are so far.. This is Provia 100, and a CV 4/25:

Scanned Provia 100

In general slides generate a different "raw" output , different from the C41 neg
output. Both need a different postprocessing.

Maybe I should add that I don't let the scanner do anything than just scan the neg or slide. No additional settings like USM, color restauration, grain reduction. ICE only if severe scratches must be repaired , to big and too numerous to get them out later by PS retouche.

Regards,
bertram
 
aad said:
Always another reason to spend money,eh? Any model recomendations-within the Nikon line as well as other suggestions?
Click to expand...

I definitely like my Nikon Coolscan 5000. Not "thrilled" with the software but growing used to it.

But there is no "perfect" solution - I need a flatbed for prints. :bang:

Any recommendations appreciated.
 
I've had much the same issue with an epson flatbed scanner and a film scanning attachment. The only way I could get anything like a reasonably sharp image from a slide was by removing the film from the mount and inserting the film into the negative carrier. Even then the scanned image was not close to the film's clarity.

This past weekend I purchased a Minolta Dual Scan IV dedicated film scanner and I'm absolutely amazed. Just by playing around with the basic idiot settings, I"m producing scans that are incredible. All for the cost of a mediocre digital camera ($250). I haven't scanned anything at a low enough setting to post yet, but will soon.
 
Bertram, that's a nice image. How do you feel it compares with the slide for detail and such? I don't do much with the scanning tools, either.

Tom, I've seen the Minolta film scanner, and it is a good price. How fast per frame?

Aaron
 
aad said:
Bertram, that's a nice image. How do you feel it compares with the slide for detail and such? I don't do much with the scanning tools, either.
Aaron
Click to expand...

Well, the slide itself is sharper of course projected to a screen , colours are pretty precisely reproduced tho and one can speak of an absolutely adaeqate monitor presentation.
.
That's what I bought the 4490 for, for MF and printscanning too.
I would not use it for inkjet printing of 35mm film, in this case a Minolta 5400 II would be my choice.

Regards,
bertram

P.S.: I general I have not found for the 4490 slide output is less fine than neg output, concerning the colours it is rather the opposite, colour reproduction seems to be better with slides.
 
aad,

It's advertised at something like 38 seconds, but I suspect that's with all of the software off. I was batch scanning on Sunday and four slides at the highest resolution with the pixel polish on were taking 9-10 minutes. I do not have USB 2 ports though and they're suppose to make the scanner a lot faster. Compared to the flatbed, a couple minutes per scan is lightning fast, especially when producing a 35 MB file. A slide takes about as long as exposing, developing, stopping and fixing a B&W print. You just don't need to wash it. :)
 
Bertram, my color accuracy depends on the type of film, and I can "punch up" the saturation to match how I see the slide. It's the loss of definition I dislike-though there are some that look good, so it may be a variance in the mounting.

Here's an example-color corrected. (slr photo, sorry). I'll try to find one that looks good all-round later on.
 
aad

I just added two 3mm slide scan images:
( http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/sets/1551353/) from the Canon 9950F with the kit 35mm slide holder. I tried to use the same workflow and processing parameters applied to the Kodak Porta 400 negative scans.

The Kodachrome-64 transparencies were developed with a Kodak mailer in April, 1975. The lack of grain in the KC-64 is amazing. I may never use negative film in my F3HP again.

I think most of the grain in my negative scans is due to aliasing artifacts. Aliasing noise comes from scattered light bouncing off of particles in the film dye . Maybe there are ISO 400/800 films out there with particle characteristics that mimimize the aliasing noise for the Canon 9950F sensor.

I believe the Kodak Porta 400 negative was properly exposed. But it is clear that Kodak Porta 800 should be overexposed by least one stop on my F3. Some of those scans are ruined by the grain.

There are digital darkroom tools to filter this type of noise noise. Unfortuntely anytime you filter data , all the data in the file image is changed. The signal (everything that should be in the image) will be altered much less than the noise (aliasing artifacts). But the signal is altered. I do not use post-processing noise reduction software–although I might if I was desparate. I may rescan one of the bad ISO 800 negative using the Canon driver to see of thier acquistion software reduces (filters) the aliasing noise. Anyone who uses lens filters for B&W negative exposures already knows that acqusition filters always work better than post-processing filters.

On Dec. 25 I will have a Canon G-III QL-17 to explore. I guess I'll use up all my negative film learning how to use the QL-17. If ISO 400/800 film just doesn't work for me, then at least I'll know how to make decent exposures with the QL-17 and I'll waste less of the more expensive and less connvenient slide film.

Anyway, I can't wait to get my hands on the QL-17.

Argus C3, Cintar 50mm f 3.5
Mamiya-Sekor 500TL
Nikon F3
Cannonet G-III QL 17 (as of 12-25-05!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom