Same here. I'm not sure it makes any difference to IQ. At least I'm hoping not, though it could soften things a little.which has a filthy (misty) underside platen -- this needs to be cleaned one day,
Alan, Sorry about the slow reply. Haven't logged in for a while.What scanner were you using? How did you process the scan (sharpen, etc.)? what dod you mean "except for matt/glossy surfaces"? Thanks.
You are conflating the aesthetic with the technical. A poor print of a great image is still a poor print.Not from using "the best scanner".
Not from using "the best printer".
But by making a blood good photograph at the start that will scan and print well, without floss, artifice or arguing about resolutions.
There is no mystery to beautiful prints. It all starts with the photographer's knowledge and understanding of the subject, and his/her ability to best bring it across to film.
At that stage it has nothing at all to do with scanners and printers.
I previously used an Epson 4990 with a fluorescent tube, took forever to heat up but made beautiful scans. I wet mounted and scanned my 6x7 rodeo negatives, then printed them all with Eboni carbon pigments (OMG! DID I JUST SAY THAT ON APUG???) and everyone who saw them said they were just gorgeous. You could see the threads in the weave of their shirts.Interesting indeed...I know of at least six photographers who still scan with Epson 4990s, but it may be asking too much to also include this venerable veteran in the list...
... the apparent grain gets much smaller scanning at 4800 dpi, and can be sharpened a lot more.
I previously used an Epson 4990 with a fluorescent tube, took forever to heat up but made beautiful scans. I wet mounted and scanned my 6x7 rodeo negatives ... and everyone who saw them said they were just gorgeous. You could see the threads in the weave of their shirts. This was all done at 2400 PPI. We all think more is better but when scanning film you soon run out of scannable data. Cranking up the resolution doesn't give you more data after a certain point, just a much larger file. 6x7 at 2400ppi gives around a 16" file at 300 dpi. It's plenty of data.
said
2. I scan to TIFF also to avoid jpeg artifacts.A good point. A film archivist I know and have great respect for (having seen his finished work) once gave me the following advice on scanning which he applied to both 35mm and roll films for a university library archive. I have to say his results certainly spoke for themselves.
1. Use the professional mode but turn off everything on the scanner. especially sharpening. Go for a basic scan. This will (usually) be quite gray.
2. Scan to TIFF.
3. Set 120 at 3600 and 35mm at 4800.
4. Reduce your scan to a sensible size for storage.
5. Never do any work on your original scan.
6. Number your scans, keep a notebook with detailed notes.
7. Be ultra selective. Don't scan every image in your negative files. Life is too short!
I have followed this advice and produced some excellent scans, but have never put any of these points to any in-depth testing.
Anyway, FYI. I am particularly interested in others' comments on points 2, 3 and 4.
At least with my film scanner, I have to scan at 6400 to get the maximum actual resolution, which is 4300. If I scanned at 4800 or 3600, I would actually get less.3. If you think you're getting resolution at 4800 for 35mm, why not use 4800 on 120 film instead of 3600? I use 2400 because someone once said I'm not going to get more than 2400 on my Epson V600.
At least with my film scanner, I have to scan at 6400 to get the maximum actual resolution, which is 4300. If I scanned at 4800 or 3600, I would actually get less.
I was responding to point 3 of Alan Edward Klein's post. If he is scanning at 2400, he likely isn't getting the maximum resolution of his V600. According to filmscanner.info, the maximum resolution of the V600 is 1560, and is achieved by scanning at 3200 or higher. However, there is no benefit of scanning higher than 3200; you won't get more resolution than 1560.
I've seen this information before, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.It's confusing, however the point I am trying to make is that for example even though Alan Edward Klein may set 2400dpi in his scanning program, the scanner still works the same, or at least almost the same (as I am not sure if pixel shifting is used below 3200spi).
i.e. it scans at its maximum resolution, then the image is re sampled to the new resolution.
That is my experience is well. The lower the selected resolution, the faster the mechanism physically scans.I've seen this information before, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.
The reason? With my scanner(s) if I scan at lower resolution they actually scan more quickly - the scanning head travels more quickly to the end of its travel.
The reason? With my scanner(s) if I scan at lower resolution they actually scan more quickly - the scanning head travels more quickly to the end of its travel.
Are you suggesting at a 300 setting it scans at maximum resolution and downsamples so you end up with less information in the resulting image?Yes but the sample size does not actually change, the sensor does not change size and there is no zoom lens. Epson use a technique called pixel shift, I am not sure exactly how it's implemented, but it will defnitely be in use at 6400dpi.
At the higher resolutions it requires the stepper motor to move in smaller increments, plus more processing power, and sent over USB 2.0 to your pc.
Are you suggesting at a 300 setting it scans at maximum resolution and downsamples so you end up with less information in the resulting image?
That is certainly counter-intuitive.Yes, as the sample size does not change. The algorithm maybe well be simpler.
Regarding image quality when scanning at different ppi, are there other benefits to scanning at higher ppi? For example, even if resolution does not increase, do you get other benefits, such as less grain aliasing or better signal/noise? Does the picture look less pixelated? Does sharpening work better if you scan at a higher resolution than the ppi limit?
Ted, What do you mean by re-sampling outside of Epson scanner/software?In summary yes, however the image is already scanned at the highest resolution in the first place. What I am interested in if you can get a better result if you do the re-sampling outside of epson scanner/software.
Ted, What do you mean by re-sampling outside of Epson scanner/software?
Thanks for the link. I have been looking for something like that.This is old diagram that shows the internals of this type of scanner. http://content.epson.it/maco/technology/scanners/ccd.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?