Some from my New Film Scanner - Updated Images Added

[s162216]

Hi,

I recently took delivery of a Reflecta Proscan 7200 35mm film scanner and have been getting to grips with getting some quality images out of it. From my use of it over the last week or so, I've been able to get some very good quality out of it and here are a few scans on it from my negative/slide archive. All were scanned at the maximum 3600 dpi and then resized down to 3250 dpi to compensate for the effective resolved DPI of 3250 from test charts, multiexposure was used for the slide and 4 passes for each of the B&W negs. Some slight colour correction and sharpening has been applied in Photoshop Elements.

Pylon Insulators - Fuji Sensia 200

Pentax Spotmatic F, Lens likely Vivitar Series 1 70 - 210mm f3.5 (Kiron Version)

Aperture/shutter speed unknown

The insulators of one of the numerous electricity pylons in the fields near my parents home. Some shadow/highlight detail recovered with Kodak Digital SHO Professional plugin, slight grain reduction with Kodak Digital GEM plugin.

Lake Post - Fomapan 100, Aculux 3 1+19

Pentax Spotmatic F, SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8, Orange filter; Tripod

F8, scale focused, 1/8th second.

Aculux 3 used at 1+19 to compress tonal scale.

This is at the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park (also known by its old name of Stewartby Lake) near my parents home. I intended to make the focus fade away beyond the post to make it stand out by scale focusing but unless you look at it 1:1 its difficult to see and I slightly mis-focused so the foreground is slightly OOF.

Wilford Suspension Bridge - Fuji Acros 100, Aculux 3 1+9

Minolta Dynax 5, 35 - 70mm f3.5 - 4.5, Orange filter.

F11, shutter speed unknown.

This was one of my first B&W scans and I was not too careful before scanning it, hence the dust. The scratches were because of my clumsy loading of the film on to the spiral however and I have yet to remove all the dust/scratches from the scan (damn it why couldn't IR cleaning work on B&W!!).

What do you think? Comments and critique are very welcome.

 

[s162216]

Bump - come on someone must have something to say....

 

[Andysnap]

Patience Samuel, we move very slowly in this section. No rushing about in a digital way.

Anyway, I think you are right and you are getting some good results. I particularly like the first one.

Andy

 

[menthel]

Dynamic range, tones and colour all look good but all of the pictures look a little soft to me. I always find that scanned photos need more sharpening than digital camera ones. What sharpening settings did you use?

 

[RaglanSurf]

Bump - come on someone must have something to say....

Patience Samuel, we move very slowly in this section. No rushing about in a digital way.

Anyway, I think you are right and you are getting some good results. I particularly like the first one.

Andy

It's true, while all those modern digital types would have typed out some crit and moved on to the next post, here in the dusty forgotten corner that is photo's from film we're still trying to work out where we put our specs, only to discover after 30 minutes of harumphing around getting increasingly more grumpy that they were on our heads all the time.

Things move slowly round here

Now I've spent all that time finding my specs I'm a bit too tired to give meaningful crit so I'm off for a nap but I'll be back later.

 

[s162216]

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

I used USM at about 1.5 pixels I think, with fairly low (100 - 250) amount settings and threshold of 3 or 4. I'm not too experienced with sharpening, the problem might be that I looked at it 100% when sharpening, I've now realised that you need to look at it at the actual size your working with to gauge sharpness. I'll re-sharpen them and post some updated ones later.

 

[menthel]

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

I used USM at about 1.5 pixels I think, with fairly low (100 - 250) amount settings and threshold of 3 or 4. I'm not too experienced with sharpening, the problem might be that I looked at it 100% when sharpening, I've now realised that you need to look at it at the actual size your working with to gauge sharpness. I'll re-sharpen them and post some updated ones later.

Agreed, looking at 100% is not good for your sharpening. Looking at the whole image lets you see the effect and also judge when you have enough. It is easy to go overboard but looking at the whole image (and I find foliage quite good for this) will tell you when there is too much and artifacts have crept in.

 

[s162216]

Here are the updated sharpened versions:

Slightly different as this is a re-scan utilising my newly profiled scanner, I decided not to open the shadows/highlights a but this time as I liked them as they came out and the Digital GEM plugin was unneeded as there was hardly any visible grain.

(USM 70, 1.0, 4)

(USM 80, 1.0, 4)

(High Pass Filter 8 pixels, hard light, opacity 50%)

 

[menthel]

These look better to me!

 

[Jao]

Me too, I think these do look better. As I am discovering this scanning mularky is a dark art!