Epson V600 vs V700 vs V750

And yes, even i've got H3DII-39, i went with RZ67 ProII and Hassy501CM, and i am even confused if i should add more [such as 503CW to be my new MF, or RB67 because it is mechanical rather than my RZ, or get something else like Fuji in 6x9 format], but i am just closer to buy my first LF i hope so, then i don't need to think about another film MF as new, in all cases from one thread i read on another forum, all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.

TareqPhoto said:

all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.

Click to expand...

That is about how the cookie crumbles.

Sandy King

sanking said:

That is about how the cookie crumbles.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

So what to do? can you give me money to buy a drum scanner or at least a dedicated film scanner [Nikon 9000]? I will appreciate that a lot from you and i will scan all your film for free

TareqPhoto said:

...all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.

Click to expand...

Unless you print larger than 15"x15", you will not see the difference between a MF scanned on a V700 or V750 and a drum scanner.
Interesting link about scanners : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

maretzo said:

Unless you print larger than 15"x15", you will not see the difference between a MF scanned on a V700 or V750 and a drum scanner.
Interesting link about scanners : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Click to expand...

What about 17x22", or 24x36"?

TareqPhoto said:

What about 17x22", or 24x36"?

Click to expand...

Never tried on MF, I am shooting square. But I guess it would be more than acceptable with a 67.

TareqPhoto said:

Will you do that if you have a digital MF and forget about film or you keep using film even you have the best digital MF?

Click to expand...

NO, but the big difference here is that I am not the one moaning about the scanquality of flatbeds, I know they generally suck... Sorry, don't feel offended, but I do think it is a bit hilarious to start talking about scanquality if your "reference" is one of the most expensive digital camera's ever...

TareqPhoto said:

So what to do? can you give me money to buy a drum scanner or at least a dedicated film scanner [Nikon 9000]? I will appreciate that a lot from you and i will scan all your film for free

Click to expand...

No, but I have the distinct feeling there might be some Hybridphoto members that would be more than willing to trade your H3DII-39 for their drum or filmscanner (not me, I own neither... , I am just a poor artist struggling to get by...)

But seriously: Here is what I would do (and I do it myself!): Get an enlarger (probably for free nowadays), make a small darkroom, and start enjoying printing in a wet darkroom... if you are really serious about this analog stuff next to your XX MPixel MF digital stuff!

The first time you print a 4x5 B&W negative on let's say 20x24 in a true darkroom, you will be caught...

Marco

Marco B said:

NO, but the big difference here is that I am not the one moaning about the scanquality of flatbeds, I know they generally suck... Sorry, don't feel offended, but I do think it is a bit hilarious to start talking about scanquality if your "reference" is one of the most expensive digital camera's ever...



No, but I have the distinct feeling there might be some Hybridphoto members that would be more than willing to trade your H3DII-39 for their drum or filmscanner (not me, I own neither... , I am just a poor artist struggling to get by...)

But seriously: Here is what I would do (and I do it myself!): Get an enlarger (probably for free nowadays), make a small darkroom, and start enjoying printing in a wet darkroom... if you are really serious about this analog stuff next to your XX MPixel MF digital stuff!

The first time you print a 4x5 B&W negative on let's say 20x24 in a true darkroom, you will be caught...

Marco

Click to expand...

The first time one makes a 20x24 inkjet print that exceeds the quality of a silver gelatin print made with an enlarger you'll never want to spend hours enlarging in the darkroom.

If I'm going to be spending time in the darkroom its going to be printing from digital negatives. It is so much better and more efficient.

And I consider myself a really good silver gelatin printer. I don't miss it at all.

Don Bryant

Don Bryant said:

The first time one makes a 20x24 inkjet print that exceeds the quality of a silver gelatin print made with an enlarger you'll never want to spend hours enlarging in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

I was expecting this response, but if you read carefully, I did not disqualify the quality of digital prints at all, as you do with analog...

I have made and seen terrific prints from both media... let's keep it at that, because it is flogging a dead horse...

P.S. I do have an R2400 also... next to my Durst Laborator L1200

[QUOTE from one thread i read on another forum, all film formats will not do much for me against digital MF if i don't have a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner.[/QUOTE]
Reading is fine, but you should make your prints and assess the results yourself. This will determine what *you* are able to achieve with your equipment and your technique for the size prints you make. The Epson 7xx can deliver fine results for modest magnifications, but if you don't have time to develop scanning skills, you may do better shooting digital. Quality tools do not guarantee quality results And bad postprocessing can ruin digital, too, so there is no escape -- craft is required no matter what approach you take.

pschwart said:

Reading is fine, but you should make your prints and assess the results yourself. This will determine what *you* are able to achieve with your equipment and your technique for the size prints you make. The Epson 7xx can deliver fine results for modest magnifications, but if you don't have time to develop scanning skills, you may do better shooting digital. Quality tools do not guarantee quality results And bad postprocessing can ruin digital, too, so there is no escape -- craft is required no matter what approach you take.

Click to expand...

Wise words... especially the last one about craft

What is craft?
I saw my friend film shots scanned by Noritsu minilab scan [even at low resolution] way better than my scanner V750, not sure if that type of scanner is different or they did any calibration or processing or whatever, but the results i've seen from that scanner against my V750 making me to feel either my scan processing is not good enough or my scanner can't match that scanner.
On flickr i saw someone was posted some shots taken by Sinar 8x10 and scanned by V750 and the results were so nice, so it made me more confused as i don't know if he did good job in scanning that i didn't know how or maybe because he was scanning Large Format shots [Sinar and 8x10, sure it is terrific maybe], i will do more scanning later when we settle in the new house and see how can i get the optimal or maximum quality out of V750.

Tareq, I don't actually think you are doing something "wrong", but two things need to be separated here:

First, your remark about the Noritsu:

TareqPhoto said:

What is craft?
I saw my friend film shots scanned by Noritsu minilab scan [even at low resolution] way better than my scanner V750, not sure if that type of scanner is different or they did any calibration or processing or whatever, but the results i've seen from that scanner against my V750 making me to feel either my scan processing is not good enough or my scanner can't match that scanner.

Click to expand...

You are talking about a professional minilab. I don't know what the prices are, but I bet it is in the tens of thousands of dollars. So YES, there is a very high quality scanner in there. You can not compare a 700 dollar flatbed like Epson V750 with that. The Epson has at the most 2400 ppi max, the Noritsu might do 5000 or maybe even 8000 ppi, similar to a Hasselblad X5 or drum scanner. It is like comparing apples with pears... can't be done.

TareqPhoto said:

On flickr i saw someone was posted some shots taken by Sinar 8x10 and scanned by V750 and the results were so nice, so it made me more confused as i don't know if he did good job in scanning that i didn't know how or maybe because he was scanning Large Format shots [Sinar and 8x10, sure it is terrific maybe], i will do more scanning later when we settle in the new house and see how can i get the optimal or maximum quality out of V750.

Click to expand...

So now you wonder why that guy DID get proper results of 8x10. Well, easy, even my cheap Canon 9950F flatbed, with a maximum true optical resolution of 1200 ppi can do it.

What is the case, is that the larger the film format, the lower the needed optical resolution to get a good scan.

As a consequence:

The bigger the film format, the lesser the requirements needed for the scanner to create a good image

So even cheap flatbed CAN make good scans (at least in terms of total image size and captured megapixels of image data), of large format source material.

I know some people here on Hybridphoto may object to my bold generalizations, but my only aim here is that I make it hopefully a bit more clear to you...

Just do the math:
35 mm, 4000 ppi scanning resolution (pixels per inch) = 4000 x 6000 = 24 MPixel scanned image
8x10, 1000 ppi = 8000 x 10.000 = 80 MPixel scanned image

To understand the above calculations, just look the MPixel count and compare it with your H3DII-39 that has 39 MPixel. What is your conclusion? YES, the 1000 ppi scan of the 8x10 image has BETTER image quality than your current digital Hasselblad, and surprise, the higher resolution scan at 4000 ppi from 35 mm has LESS image quality than your hassy...

Maybe a bit counter-intuitive, but as you can see, both scanning resolution and film format determine the final outcome in terms of quality and size of the image captured.

By the way, I strongly recommend you to read two articles by myself, you may find them enlightening:

- Optimal scanning resolution
- Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film test

Marco

Marco B said:

Tareq, I don't actually think you are doing something "wrong", but two things need to be separated here:

First, your remark about the Noritsu:


You are talking about a professional minilab. I don't know what the prices are, but I bet it is in the tens of thousands of dollars. So YES, there is a very high quality scanner in there. You can not compare a 700 dollar flatbed like Epson V750 with that. The Epson has at the most 2400 ppi max, the Noritsu might do 5000 or maybe even 8000 ppi, similar to a Hasselblad X5 or drum scanner. It is like comparing apples with pears... can't be done.



So now you wonder why that guy DID get proper results of 8x10. Well, easy, even my cheap Canon 9950F flatbed, with a maximum true optical resolution of 1200 ppi can do it.

What is the case, is that the larger the film format, the lower the needed optical resolution to get a good scan.

As a consequence:

The bigger the film format, the lesser the requirements needed for the scanner to create a good image

So even cheap flatbed CAN make good scans (at least in terms of total image size and captured megapixels of image data), of large format source material.

I know some people here on Hybridphoto may object to my bold generalizations, but my only aim here is that I make it hopefully a bit more clear to you...

Just do the math:
35 mm, 4000 ppi scanning resolution (pixels per inch) = 4000 x 6000 = 24 MPixel scanned image
8x10, 1000 ppi = 8000 x 10.000 = 80 MPixel scanned image

To understand the above calculations, just look the MPixel count and compare it with your H3DII-39 that has 39 MPixel. What is your conclusion? YES, the 1000 ppi scan of the 8x10 image has BETTER image quality than your current digital Hasselblad, and surprise, the higher resolution scan at 4000 ppi from 35 mm has LESS image quality than your hassy...

Maybe a bit counter-intuitive, but as you can see, both scanning resolution and film format determine the final outcome in terms of quality and size of the image captured.

By the way, I strongly recommend you to read two articles by myself, you may find them enlightening:

- Optimal scanning resolution
- Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film test

Marco

Click to expand...

Thank you very much!

I see, i also believing that scanner is something else, even i saw it it is bigger and huge over that Imacon in the lab [the Imacon is just sitted next a monitor on a table, but that Noritsu is a big machine, WOW], and i said it, i just saw a low resolution scanned by it, not a high resolution [the file size is about 100-300kb and the dpi is 72] but still better than my higher resolution with V750, i don't doubt it will be better then Epson or Canon or even Nikon.

I think about that scans on flickr, i can't judge until i see his way of scanning, also i am not sure if i scan a larger formats i may get better results, i think mounting the film could affect the results, also i got one sharp and nice color once with my scanner but dusty and i forgot what i did as i tried again with same frame and i didn't get it again sharp, so i think i have to experiment more to get the most out of it, and from what i hear from many i think i have to give it more more time and tests then i will see.

Thanks Marco for the links.

TareqPhoto said:

What is craft?
I saw my friend film shots scanned by Noritsu minilab scan [even at low resolution] way better than my scanner V750, not sure if that type of scanner is different or they did any calibration or processing or whatever, but the results i've seen from that scanner against my V750 making me to feel either my scan processing is not good enough or my scanner can't match that scanner.
On flickr i saw someone was posted some shots taken by Sinar 8x10 and scanned by V750 and the results were so nice, so it made me more confused as i don't know if he did good job in scanning that i didn't know how or maybe because he was scanning Large Format shots [Sinar and 8x10, sure it is terrific maybe], i will do more scanning later when we settle in the new house and see how can i get the optimal or maximum quality out of V750.

Click to expand...

craft: skill in planning, making, or executing
OK, it's nonsense to compare the Epson and the Noritsu without defining specific parameters, but if used with judgment and skill the Epson *can* provide quality results.
No disrepect intended, but you are probably right, you have not learned to get the best out of the Epson. The Epson can product a fine 16" print from a 6x6 negative (no cropping, using a decent film holder). It is much less capable scanning 35mm film.

TareqPhoto said:

I think about that scans on flickr, i can't judge until i see his way of scanning, also i am not sure if i scan a larger formats i may get better results, i think mounting the film could affect the results, also i got one sharp and nice color once with my scanner but dusty and i forgot what i did as i tried again with same frame and i didn't get it again sharp, so i think i have to experiment more to get the most out of it, and from what i hear from many i think i have to give it more more time and tests then i will see.

Click to expand...

Tareq, two other generalized points:

- Never compare a low resolution internet image (let's say 600*800 width and height), with the results of looking at your scans at 100% resolution, (called "Actual pixels" in Photoshop). If you reduce the size of an image, for example to display it on the internet, it will ALWAYS look good, no matter how crappy the original scan or digital photo.

- It is generally recommended NEVER to scan above the TRUE OPTICAL resolution of your scanner. If the scanner can not do more than 2400 ppi (pixels per inch), as is the case with your Epson V750 according to most tests I have seen and remarks of other members of Hybridphoto, than scan at maximum 2400 ppi but not above (so no 4800 ppi). It will only add blurry redundant pixels without image information at higher resolution than the true optical one, meaning the image looks less sharp compared to a scan at the true maximum optical resolution of the scanner.

If you scan your 35 mm, but even better your medium format images at 2400 ppi max, like Philip rightly said, you should be able to get acceptable or even good scan results on your Epson V750. Also remember that you will always have to sharpen up scanned images, and more than digital images captured with a digital camera, as these last ones generally had in-camera sharpening already applied, whereas scans, have not (at least if not by default done in the scanning software).

Lastly, I do have the feeling you need to seriously start reading and learning more about digital images and photography. Besides buying a book, I can also highly recommend the following link:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

The author of these webpages really manages to describe a lot of "difficult" subjects concerning digital photography in a clear way, combined with good explanatory images. Should be of some help to you to start to understand digital photography and images.

Marco

pschwart said:

craft: skill in planning, making, or executing
OK, it's nonsense to compare the Epson and the Noritsu without defining specific parameters, but if used with judgment and skill the Epson *can* provide quality results.
No disrepect intended, but you are probably right, you have not learned to get the best out of the Epson. The Epson can product a fine 16" print from a 6x6 negative (no cropping, using a decent film holder). It is much less capable scanning 35mm film.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks!

Marco B said:

Tareq, two other generalized points:

- Never compare a low resolution internet image (let's say 600*800 width and height), with the results of looking at your scans at 100% resolution, (called "Actual pixels" in Photoshop). If you reduce the size of an image, for example to display it on the internet, it will ALWAYS look good, no matter how crappy the original scan or digital photo.

- It is generally recommended NEVER to scan above the TRUE OPTICAL resolution of your scanner. If the scanner can not do more than 2400 ppi (pixels per inch), as is the case with your Epson V750 according to most tests I have seen and remarks of other members of Hybridphoto, than scan at maximum 2400 ppi but not above (so no 4800 ppi). It will only add blurry redundant pixels without image information at higher resolution than the true optical one, meaning the image looks less sharp compared to a scan at the true maximum optical resolution of the scanner.

If you scan your 35 mm, but even better your medium format images at 2400 ppi max, like Philip rightly said, you should be able to get acceptable or even good scan results on your Epson V750. Also remember that you will always have to sharpen up scanned images, and more than digital images captured with a digital camera, as these last ones generally had in-camera sharpening already applied, whereas scans, have not (at least if not by default done in the scanning software).

Lastly, I do have the feeling you need to seriously start reading and learning more about digital images and photography. Besides buying a book, I can also highly recommend the following link:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

The author of these webpages really manages to describe a lot of "difficult" subjects concerning digital photography in a clear way, combined with good explanatory images. Should be of some help to you to start to understand digital photography and images.

Marco

Click to expand...

You should say i need to start to read and learn about film photography, not digital photography, digital photography is not a problem for me and i never asked about digital, scan is related with film mostly even to convert to digital, but the problem is with scanning itself, also why you said that i need to start to read and understand about digital photography?!!!

TareqPhoto said:

You should say i need to start to read and learn about film photography, not digital photography, digital photography is not a problem for me and i never asked about digital, scan is related with film mostly even to convert to digital, but the problem is with scanning itself, also why you said that i need to start to read and understand about digital photography?!!!

Click to expand...

Tareq, it was you yourself who wrote:

TareqPhoto said:

I know this scanner is good enough, but it seems i don't know how to use it as you all use it to get better results, i couldn't understand a lot of tips or steps i see on the net, and i will keep searching where i can get a video tutor about how to use this scanner, i understand by watching more than by reading, and my English is not that good to understand everything i read and even if i ask it will not help me if i still don't understand some words and statements.

Click to expand...

And similar things in other post, now tell me how I need to interpret that?

But one thing: rest assured, it took me a few years to understand the basics too and get a full grasp of what digital photography and scanning is about!

TareqPhoto said:

You should say i need to start to read and learn about film photography, not digital photography, digital photography is not a problem for me and i never asked about digital

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this statement at all. Scanning is ALL about digital photography. The mere fact that you make this statement at all and don't see its wrong, is a sign you need to learn more about digital photography in general. Almost all aspects of digital photography apply to scanning. If you understand concepts like colormanagement, colorspaces, pixels, sharpness and sharpening, curves and histograms, resolution, than you can learn to scan too.

Only when you start printing in a wet darkroom using an enlarger instead of scanning your negatives, could you say that it is for the most part unrelated.

Again: have a look here (I learned a lot of new things there too), it really IS a good website:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

TareqPhoto said:

Thank you very much!

I see, i also believing that scanner is something else, even i saw it it is bigger and huge over that Imacon in the lab [the Imacon is just sitted next a monitor on a table, but that Noritsu is a big machine, WOW]

Click to expand...

Tareq, since your lab has an Imacon, which are excellent scanners too, about comparable to drum and even better than most filmscanners, I would recommend you to try and scan on that scanner once. Since you also wrote that you learn more by "seeing" than by "reading", I can in that case recommend you to download and view the good Imacon video tutorials about the Flextight software used with the Imacon scanners, and located at this university website:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/IT_tutorial_web_site/photography/photography_flexcolour.htm

Marco

I would even be as bold to state that scanning has NOTHING to do with analog film photography, except for using a piece of film to extract digital data.

You will learn absolute nothing that helps you to make better scans by learning about developing your own film, push or pull development, fine grain developers, fixers, stop baths, latent images in silverhalide crystals, silver halide chemistry, variable contrast papers versus graded papers, selenium or sepia toners... because that is analog photography.

You WILL learn to make better scans by learning about the basic concepts of digital photography...

Marco

Marco B said:

Tareq, it was you yourself who wrote:



And similar things in other post, now tell me how I need to interpret that?

But one thing: rest assured, it took me a few years to understand the basics too and get a full grasp of what digital photography and scanning is about!



I don't agree with this statement at all. Scanning is ALL about digital photography. The mere fact that you make this statement at all and don't see its wrong, is a sign you need to learn more about digital photography in general. Almost all aspects of digital photography apply to scanning. If you understand concepts like colormanagement, colorspaces, pixels, sharpness and sharpening, curves and histograms, resolution, than you can learn to scan too.

Only when you start printing in a wet darkroom using an enlarger instead of scanning your negatives, could you say that it is for the most part unrelated.

Again: have a look here (I learned a lot of new things there too), it really IS a good website:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm



Tareq, since your lab has an Imacon, which are excellent scanners too, about comparable to drum and even better than most filmscanners, I would recommend you to try and scan on that scanner once. Since you also wrote that you learn more by "seeing" than by "reading", I can in that case recommend you to download and view the good Imacon video tutorials about the Flextight software used with the Imacon scanners, and located at this university website:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/IT_tutorial_web_site/photography/photography_flexcolour.htm

Marco

Click to expand...

Hey Marco,

I think i have to clarify many things before we go further away.

In fact the scan i get out from my scanner need some workflow no doubt, and i do that always anyway, even with my digital shots out of my DSLRs need workflow, but when i shoot with a digital camera and then with a film camera and then scan it with my V750 then i see the results is not so comaparable, i did say that i love the colors out of my scans, but not the sharpness, i add maybe too much sharpness to my scan and it never come good sharp natural like my digital with less sharpness, even when i apply certain amount of sharpness on both the scan and the digital from DSLR still i prefer the sharpness of the digital DSLRs, about DR sure that film is better, color both are nice sometimes i prefer the DSLR shots and sometimes with film but with color correction i can get good enough, i calibrated all my monitors and i have that calibration devices.
I did shoot one roll with Velvia 50 for landscape and i asked the lab to scan it for me [they did with Noritsu not with digital] and i shoot same the scenes with DSLR, later i scan the roll with my V750, the conclusion was:
- I love my DSLR colors out of the 3, the my scan then the Noritsu [because i did color correction to my scan]
- The DR of the Noritsu was the best out of the 3 then my scan, then my DSLR
- The Sharpness, not sure if my DSLR shot was the sharpest or the Noritsu, but my scan was the least sharpness.
- Details, also my scan was the least of details from what i see
- They scan with Noritsu at 72dpi with i think 1200px, and it is still better than my scan with 1200-2400dpi.

At the end, with color corrections and adding sharpness my scan is coming at last out of three, and i still didn't ask for Imacon scanning which i am not sure if it will blow away that Noritsu.

In all cases, i am not asking my Epson to be the best scanner in the world, but it could be that i expect it to do much better, or it could be that i got used to H3DII-39 and scanning with Noritsu or even Drum scanner making me hate to see my Epson scanner results, maybe i do good job with scanner but to my eyes i may not satisfied, i did scan my friend rolls in front of him and he liked the scans and told me what's wrong? they are all fine, even he bought Canon 8800 for himself later and he is happy with it, so i think the wrong could be me, not the scanner, but maybe i need more time with it to see if i really do something missing for better results, until now i didn't give that betterscanning.com holder more test, also i didn't do fluid mount which many said that it will enhance the scan, even if i read all those links you gave me [which i read some of them before i remember] it didn't help me now, if it did then i will never write those answers here, but i am moving to a new house this week and there i will have all the time to test my scan again and again better and see, also tomorrow Saturday it will start a workshop in my area about darkroom [4 Saturdays, talking about film, equipment, developing/processing, printing, and not sure what else], so will see what will this workshop add for me.

Marco B said:

I would even be as bold to state that scanning has NOTHING to do with analog film photography, except for using a piece of film to extract digital data.

You will learn absolute nothing that helps you to make better scans by learning about developing your own film, push or pull development, fine grain developers, fixers, stop baths, latent images in silverhalide crystals, silver halide chemistry, selenium or sepia toners... because that is analog photography.

You WILL learn to make better scans by learning about the basic concepts of digital photography...

Marco

Click to expand...

I have chemicals to develop my MF film [B&W], so i will start to develop as soon as we move to the new house, and i hope after that workshop i will go for full analog, and about scanning, i think the best way is to try to get into a workshop about scanning if i can find or test different scanners [flatbeds, one dedicated film scanner, one drum scanner] and see the results and then go from there, i am new in scanning and maybe i expected too much, but are you saying to now the basic or concept of digital in post processing? if so then yes i agree 1000%, but if you asking about how to shoot with digital, then again, shooting with film then scan is a bit different even same idea, but scan is like i put my digital shot into photoshop or lightroom, and yes, here it is something i need to learn, but my question was how i can get a good enough ready scan before i play with photoshop or lightroom? i will not waste my time to play with photoshop if the scan itself is crap [but the film roll is fin, same if i shoot with digital and if it is not good enough out of the camera then photoshop will waste my time to try make it better, also photoshop may manipulated the shot too much way far from natural due to not using it properly.

I think the key is to learn about those scanning software, if i get to understand that then it will make my scans easier or better, if not then photoshop will never help me to enhance my scans.

TareqPhoto said:

, also tomorrow Saturday it will start a workshop in my area about darkroom [4 Saturdays, talking about film, equipment, developing/processing, printing, and not sure what else], so will see what will this workshop add for me.

Click to expand...

Tareq, have fun and enjoy the experience , even if you decide to not pursue analog photography in the long run, it should still be an exciting experience to see for the first time how photos develop in chemical baths instead of ink being sprayed on paper by a printer.

Again: enjoy the experience while you still can!

TareqPhoto said:

i will not waste my time to play with photoshop if the scan itself is crap

Click to expand...

Fully agree with this statement Tareq , ensure you have a good scan to start with.

TareqPhoto said:

I think the key is to learn about those scanning software, if i get to understand that then it will make my scans easier or better, if not then photoshop will never help me to enhance my scans.

Click to expand...

Tareq, again see these Flextight software tutorial video's. Although they are specific to the Hasselblad Imacon scanners, certainly many of the recommendations and workflow aspect discussed here, are applicable to other scanners too, so you may learn from this:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/IT_tutorial_web_site/photography/photography_flexcolour.htm

Marco