The scanner thread

Messages
8,757
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
So, what's the deal with scanners ?

It depends on what format'(s) you want to scan and the quality you require.
There are three types, flatbed, dedicated and drum, for this exercise we discount drum scanners since the cost upwards of 20K.

Flatbeds -
Flatbed film scanners are the same design as the ordinary scanner you use to scan reflective material, such as documents, photo's and newsprint, except they have a selection of film holders into which you can place negatives that lay on the scanner in the same way a document would.
Advantages of flatbeds are the ability to scan generally a bigger range of formats including reflective material, and cost.
Disadvantages include no available slide feeder for bulk scanning, generally a fiddlier experience with film holders, problems with scanning through glass and thus an inconsistent scan, no support for focussing, they are mostly fixed focus.

Dedicated -
Dedicated scanners scan only film, generally they have a slot into which the film holders are transported, there is no lid like a flatbed.
Advantages are a glassless scan, this isn't entirely true, some film holders sandwich the film between two pieces of anti-newton glass to keep it perfectly flat, this isn't the same as the glass in a flatbed because the flatbed needs to still be able to scan reflective material.
Support for focussing, slide feeders on some models and scan consistency.
Disadvantages are cost, they're more expensive than flatbeds, they don't cover the same range of formats, and they don't scan reflective material.

There are other differences that may or may not matter to you, such as the number of frames scanned in one pass, the time taken to scan, the maximum resolution of scans, Dmax value (Dynamic range - the darkest area of an image that a device can reproduce and still have detail), but these specs differ from model to model and across both types of scanner.

The full range of scanners is open to 35mm, its only when you need to scan larger formats that the choice begins to narrow.
Whilst flatbeds can accommodate negs as big as Large Format 8x10 inches, dedicated scanners as far as I know will only scan Medium Format up to 6x9 (60mmx90mm).

I'm going to write my experience with the scanners I have used and what I thought of them.
This thread is open to anyone who wants to take the time to write theirs. Maybe we can get some actual user coverage of specific scanners, scan software and technique all in one place.
 
Such a good thread idea :)

Some info about scanning and how to get sharp scans. This is just the way I do it but some people might have different ways


1.Scan at 3200dpi, make sure you set the film type and stuff up before scanning
2.Scan into Photoshop, then shrink it down to 2400dpi using Bicubic Sharper
3.Do any Photoshop work at 2400dpi (cloning neg dust, cropping to much black from the boarders out . . etc.)
4.Shrink it down to 300 dpi or 600dpi using bicubic sharper
5.Save file

This photo was scanned using the method above

2800951836_6e9515719d.jpg
 
Don't get dpi for scanning & printing confused. Changing your dpi in tattyshop will not alter the resolution of the image file, merely how large or small it will print.

And don't forget to clean your slides & scanner glass before scanning, this is where a rocket blower and lens cloth come in handy. The devil is in the dust!
 
Just another quick point. When you place your neg into the carrier make sure you use a puffer brush and give the neg a brush and a blow both sides to remove any dust. You'll always get one idiot "well what do you think photoshop is for haha" :nono: theirs no replacement for a nice clean scanned neg, you'll still have some on it, but its less stuff and for a couple of brushes you'll have saved a good 10 minuites working in photoshop! (y)

Great thread Joxby :)
 
Such a good thread idea :)

Some info about scanning and how to get sharp scans. This is just the way I do it but some people might have different ways


1.Scan at 3200dpi, make sure you set the film type and stuff up before scanning
2.Scan into Photoshop, then shrink it down to 2400dpi using Bicubic Sharper
3.Do any Photoshop work at 2400dpi (cloning neg dust, cropping to much black from the boarders out . . etc.)
4.Shrink it down to 300 dpi or 600dpi using bicubic sharper
5.Save file

This photo was scanned using the method above

2800951836_6e9515719d.jpg

thanks i'll try all those steps (y) as all my scans seems to come out distorted/off focus when they look perfect on the actual slides..

I have a epson 4490 I bought it because I shoot both mf and 35mm it scans mf quite well but not 35mm hoping to get a dedicated film scanner soon cheaply off ebay.
 
Thats what I'm doing, making the image smaller!


Not wanting to derail the thread too much (sorry joxby) but what you are doing is changing the physical dimensions of the printed document, not the resolution, therefore bicubic sharpening will have no effect as your image will still be 3300 x 3300.

As you were...
 
Not wanting to derail the thread too much (sorry joxby) but what you are doing is changing the physical dimensions of the printed document, not the resolution, therefore bicubic sharpening will have no effect as your image will still be 3300 x 3300.

As you were...

No it will not.....

OG size of the scan - 2152 x 3272
After doing all the stuff above - 583 x 818

But I don't want to go into a thread stealing fight :LOL:

Just thought I'd let people know how I scan

:):)
 
I have a Canon Canoscan 8800F scanner which for £150 can scan 35mm, 120 format up to 6 x 12 and slides and includes holders for all of these. The resolution it scans up to is 9600dpi and can also scan at 48-bit. It comes with 3 bits of scanning software for free as well as a free copy of Photoshop Elements.

Of the 3 bits of software, I've found that the standard CanoScan package is the easiest to use, though also included is the high acclaimed Silverfast, which I tried for hours to get working correctly, but gave up after not being able to figure it out :( Nevertheless, the standard Canon software is great.

I'm scanning B&W in at 2400dpi which takes about 5-10 minutes for a loaded holder - either 12 x 35mm frames or 4 x 6x4.5 MF frames. The software allows you to save the software as thumbnails (auto-detects the edges) or make your own frames for chopping up later on. For 35mm colour I'm scanning at 3200dpi (about 10-15 mins for 12 frames) and MF at 4800dpi (about half an hour to 45 minutes for 4 frames). All the times given here include the extra dust and scratch removal process. Without this option switch on, scanning takes half this time, though leaves you with stuff to pp out.

Once my negs/slide film are scanned I then open them up in PS for final cropping/balancing and extra processing. I usually save them as jpegs (at maximum quality) and reduce in size as required as a separate save.

Please feel free to ask any other questions about this scanner.

EDIT: couple of months later and finding weird artifacts in scans. Inconsistent and there have been reports of this on other people's 8800F's... might be worth avoiding...

ANOTHER EDIT: Fixed the weird problem by setting it to calibrate with every scan. Scanning fine now.
 
Before I chuck my stuff in the ring, I'd just like to say one thing about scanning-

Scanning with the equipment we are talking about cannot reproduce the same content you see in the film with you're eyes, some can get close but generally optical printing is much more successful.
Moving from digital to film, its easy to create un-realistic expectations, film is always dis-advantaged being forced to compete as a digital file.
Nobody would shoot digital, inkjet print it, scan it on a flatbed and then present that as their final product expecting it to look like the original, yet we do that with film.
It doesn't actually matter to me that my scanned film only display's a taste of the original.....I still own the original I played a part in creating, and it exists as a real object, by necessity.
 
So I've used two scanners, bought to scan medium format.
An Epson 4490 flatbed and a Minolta Dimage scan multi dedicated.

The Epson is a decent flatbed that will cover 35mm and M/F, it scans two 6x6's at a time with reasonable speed (depending on resolution).
The Epson scan software is quite good, I wouldn't say it was simple to use out of the box but if you spend a little time figuring it all out, it becomes easy and does a decent job, I tried Viewscan as an alternative but couldn't see much difference in the scans though the interface was easier to master.
Colour and exposure was always good even when left to choose its own levels.
The film carriers are fiddly to use, they don't always pull the film tight across the frame, which results in a variation in focus, 6x6 film tends to sag in the middle if it isn't tight, I reckon 35mm would be much more reliable in this respect, but I don't know I never scanned 35mm with it.
The problems I had were with sharpness, this was due in part to the carrier design, I spent a lot of time re-scanning duff/miss-aligned frames, and found it generally a bit inconsistent, which is ok if you have the patience to scan the same slide five times.
On the whole, its a good budget flatbed that covers M/F with great max resolution and average blacks detail reproduction, good software but an inconsistent scan.

The Minolta is a dedicated scanner, its at least ten years old, and probably cost a fortune when new.
This thing is much more consistant, the M/F carrier holds one M/F frame of any size sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newton glass, thus the film is completely flat.
The carrier for M/F is easy to use.
It scans one frame at full res which is only 1200dpi for M/F and four frames of 35mm at 3000dpi in 45 seconds.
The software is ok, it looks a bit win 98 but it would do, I haven't used Viewscan on it yet.
It tends to over expose on auto exp, but the colour correction is near enough 9 times out of 10.
It has a focus cycle which operates before every scan on auto, you can manually focus, or focus on a particular portion of the film, I think this and the glass carrier set it apart from flatbeds.
There is a batch scanning feeder accessory available.
Bad points are, scsi connection though there are models with firewire....errr....errr....it makes a racket, they are no longer manufactured and parts like spare lamps are thin on the ground.

I think dedicated scanners are better generally because they don't have to make sacrifices in design to accommodate reflective material like flatbeds do.
Thats not to say you can't get a good scan out of a flatbed, I just think its trickier.
Everyone is waiting for the flatbed with a manual focus function.
 
Intereting thread joxby.

I have 2 scanners both dedicated film ones. a Nikon CoolScan IV and a Microtek 120tf.

Nikon CoolScan IV

The Nikon is a 35mm only scanner and I used to use it on the PC but now I run it on a IMac with Tiger 10.4.8 installed. The latest Nikon software works fine within that environment.
I scan at 100% + 2900dpi (max it will go to) which gives me a 58Mb file. Takes approximatly 2-5 minutes to scan, with those settings. Connects to the Mac via USB.
The film holders are fine for this machine doing a reasnable job of holding the film flat. Mind you I have a habbit of sticking film inbetween book first to make them really flat.
The Nikon software is fine to use, like all software you need to get used to it. It has Color Recovery and Digital ICE with it. These work very well but do require a little bit of fiddling with to get right. Over do it and it looks a mess.
Overall I am very pleased with the scanner, as it gets it right 99% of the time.

Microtek 120tf.
This will take a variety film sizes from 35mm all the way to 6x17.
It will scan up to 4000dpi and if you use the 48bit HDR function can give you a file size of 450Mb when scanning 6x6 colour slides. Connection is by Firewire and is fine as far as I can see.
On this I use the Silverfast software and TBH I find it a bit of a pig. It has a fair number of settings and it is not that easy to navigate around. The biggest issue is it has probelms detecting 'frames'. Meaning you can scan the first one ok, but the second one will be slightly off and the third one can be a real pain to sort.
It is a slow scanner and very noisy and can take over 5 mins to scan an image.
Is it worth it?
Yes, when scanning in HDR mode it can produce fantastic images.
 
I think that Microtek 120TF, Polaroid 120, Minolta Scan Multi PRO, and the Coolscans 8000 and 9000, are the best you can buy to scan M/F.
There is something to be said for the software too.
 
I just got an Epson V500 and I'm finding scanning more difficult tan i thought. I cant seem to get the colours to look right using the epson scan software. I dont want to have to open the picture up in lightroom or photoshop to correct things as it seems to go against the reason I wanted to try film in the first place.

This is the scan from peak imaging
2852295373_5b1ee59751.jpg


and from the v500
2891658067_b4a8fb46ff.jpg


Higher resolution of the v500 scan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanw89/2891658067/sizes/o/

Ive tried messing about with the software but cant seem to get it how i would like it, anyone got any tips for getting better results.
 
Alan, I'm unfamiliar with the Epson software, but I imagine that it's probably quite simple compared to Lightroom and Photoshop. With film you obviously don't have the ability to adjust your white balance for your shot and it's a case of simply setting your exposure/aperture/shutter speed against whatever speed film you've got loaded.

I'd say if you can't get your Epson software to scan your film correctly and you aren't happy with the results, it may be worth spending 2-3 minutes in Photoshop to get your levels right for every scanned shot.

Took me less that 2 minutes to remove the colour cast on your V500 shot (sorry, I was bored)

edited_version.jpg


Also, of course, a professional scanning company will have far superior scanning equipment than the Epson V500....
 
Yeah I wasnt expecting it to be the same but the colour cast was annoying me, I guess I'll just have to spend a few mins in photoshop with each one. These ones I just dont want to spned the time on though as none of them catch my eye as being worth spending time on.

I think I'll sit down and do some reading up on film photography before I try any more rolls and hope for some better results.
 
Don't diss the V500!! :LOL: Hopefully getting mine tomorrow :):) Birthday :D

I'll hopeful have a little review/tip thing up sometime next week on how I found it and stuff

Whoops - it's rubbish BTW!






















Just kidding! :naughty:

Looking forward to your review (y)
 
Got my scanner yesterday and love it soo much!! :D:D

Scanned in some old rolls to see what the difference between the lab scans I had and these scans, I like my scans more as they are more natural and the colours are more like the negs really

Here is a little Polaroid I just scanned to see what document scanning is like

2899803134_0704154be8.jpg

Flickr Link

This looks so much the actually Polaroid in my hand right now, and thats just a straight scan no Photoshoping
 
Looks good cherryrig. Will be good to see how it compares with lab scanning when it comes to film ;)

BTW - I think we should start a polaroid pics thread somewhere - who's with me? :cautious:
 
I'll be down with the Polaroid pic thread

About the lab scanning - I rescanned some photos I got scanned a couple of weeks ago and the scans from the V500 untweaked were better and not washed out!!

Lab
42210012fv1.jpg


V500
montyop2.jpg
 
Happy Birthday Matt..

This time next year, you'll look twenty years older.......scanners do that to you..

Its scientifically proven.....honest..

:D
 
I've only had one roll of 35mm scanned by a lab, and I didn't like them either.
Had to twiddle in edit, unfortunately they were such low quality, there was hardly anything to work with :(
To be fair, they don't know how you want them, its just guess work - default auto setting.

Thats a tidy scan, btw
 
Develop and scan was like £8.50 for colour neg and that only gave me a fil size of 109KB which gave me a picture size of 1039x1024. Not the biggest of files to work with. Where as now I can do whatever I want with my photo :D
 
I'll be down with the Polaroid pic thread

About the lab scanning - I rescanned some photos I got scanned a couple of weeks ago and the scans from the V500 untweaked were better and not washed out!!

Looking at those I think my exposures must have been quite off, my scans werent as vibrant as that.

Must try harder with my next rolls.:bang:
 
Thats the same as I did, Ive pretty much given up with my first couple of rolls (there was nothing decent in them anyway) and will start afresh when i get around to using up a couple more. Hopefully I'll be able to get some better results and see if they scan any better.
 
I went back to film from digital cameras Have a Mamiya RZ67 I let pro labs process the film and then use A Epson V750 A4 flatbed scanner When you consider a pro digital image camera is circa 12 million pixels a 35mm neg is 20 million pixels and a 6x7 neg is 4.5 times bigger Results are stunning I scan at 3200DPI and print at A2+ never a problem with resolution
 
I'll be down with the Polaroid pic thread

About the lab scanning - I rescanned some photos I got scanned a couple of weeks ago and the scans from the V500 untweaked were better and not washed out!!

Lab
42210012fv1.jpg

Now, I'm no expert on dogs, but that's not a labrador.

Any words of warning before I go and pick up a V700? Any mutterings of a new product coming out?
 
>>Now, I'm no expert on dogs, but that's not a labrador.

You make I larff!!! ever grabbed the wrong end of a stick?

S.
 
Hi guys. Sorry if this is answered elsewhere... I did search but...

Thinking of getting a scanner after my venture into film. I guess I want to scan prints sometimes but also scan negatives. I know I need to buy a scanner that will hold the negatives but what happens next?

Do you store your scanned negatives? Do you store them as TIFF / JPEG?
If you do store I guess the next thing is you might 'invert' them - to get a print? Do you do this in Photoshop (Elements?). Can you do this in lightroom?

Or is this electronic stage sacrilege and we should stay with traditional processing / printing methods?

So many questions - sorry.

TIA

Mark F
 
Chasing you round :LOL:

Scan and save as Tiff, if you're lucky the scanner software will spit em out nice, if not, a big ole tiff is good to work with in lightroom.
 
Do you store your scanned negatives? Do you store them as TIFF / JPEG?
If you do store I guess the next thing is you might 'invert' them - to get a print?
Mark F

Normally there is a setting with in the scanner software that you set so when you scan a Neg you will get a positive image. No need to invert.

Mine systems scan straight to TIFF, then will change the size to what ever I want, still retain as a TIFF then work on it in PS if need be.

The orginal scanned Tiff is usally saved as well.

I only save as a JPEG if I am going to upload to the web.
 
Back
Top