Epson V850 Pro

[grat]

You might try Darktable (free). One advantage is being able to take settings that you like from one photo, and applying it to a stack of photos. Affinity is another nice package (not free, but has trial period, and once you buy it, you own it. Fairly inexpensive (and on sale until Aug. 1st). I usually use it for fine-tuning once I scan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You might try Darktable (free). One advantage is being able to take settings that you like from one photo, and applying it to a stack of photos. Affinity is another nice package (not free, but has trial period, and once you buy it, you own it. Fairly inexpensive (and on sale until Aug. 1st). I usually use it for fine-tuning once I scan.

Lightroom works that way too.

 

[George Collier]

I agree with grat and Brad on Silverfast (I keep one iMac at an old OS, just to run Creative Suite 6 for free - 3 years of software rent pays for a computer). The control is magnitudes better than Epson Scan, and it's much more stable. It offers a great variety of options for file format and scanning control, eg curves and levels settings.
You can finesse everything, and it has a great dual scan option, which evaluates shadows, runs a second scan (at different "exposure") for them, then integrates it into the main scan, for very good shadow detail.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I have a v850Pro but use Vuescan with it. It's easily one of the best you can get new.

 

[George Collier]

Adrian - do you know if there is a dedicated film scanner in production that will achieve sharper results at high scaling - eg 35mm scanned to 16" - 18" on the short side?

 

[SodaAnt]

Developed my first roll of 120 Pan F Plus and scanned it, using both Epson Scan and SilverLight, letting the software use default settings.

The resulting digital files in Photoshop look disappointing—very flat and dull. Is this what I should expect, or are there settings on the scanning software to generate a scans that look more like the proof sheet? Or is this normal when scanning B&W negatives with the assumption that you need to use a curves adjustment layer in Photoshop to set the black level and contrast?

SilverLight generates a negative image, which I convert to positive using Photoshop’s invert menu option—is that the best way to do this?

 

[blee1996]

Please show us an example, so we can tell if it is the settings.

 

[SodaAnt]

Please show us an example, so we can tell if it is the settings.

Here's the image with no manipulations in Photoshop.

 

[mshchem]

Have I said how bad I am at scanning anything negative, color or black and white??? It's just not fun

 

[blee1996]

@SodaAnt since Photrio cannot support any file bigger than 2mb and no TIFF support, I cannot upload my example file. But my Epson Scan settings look like this. This is as basic/default as I get for B&W.

 

[MattKing]

Here's the image with no manipulations in Photoshop.

This looks like a fully usable, nice flat scan - easily and quickly made to look whatever way you want it to.

 

[Duceman]

^-- Agreed. At a minimum, adjust the levels of top ends of the black and white spectrum, and this should bring some life to it. Granted, from the hills in the background, it looks to have been a hazy day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@SodaAnt since Photrio cannot support any file bigger than 2mb and no TIFF support, I cannot upload my example file. But my Epson Scan settings look like this. This is as basic/default as I get for B&W.

View attachment 345499

I never use auto exposure. Epsonscan Auto tends to clip. I set the levels (black and white points) manually so that they're just to the left on the left side and just to the right on the right side. You can do this either in the scan program or in your post editing program and scan flat with no adjustments at all during the scan. Picture will look very flat and dull until you adjust levels. Then tweak with the other sliders after levels. I also uncheck sharpen for the scan and use my post editing program for those edits as well. Note you have to check on Configuration link on the bottom the then on the subsequent page uncheck any auto adjustments to scan flat.

 

[SodaAnt]

Since I plan to always scan negatives and use a hybrid workflow and never print the negatives using an enlarger, should I expose the negatives differently for this workflow? I've read that people decrease exposure resulting in thinner negatives when the end goal is scanning them. Any truth to this?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since I plan to always scan negatives and use a hybrid workflow and never print the negatives using an enlarger, should I expose the negatives differently for this workflow? I've read that people decrease exposure resulting in thinner negatives when the end goal is scanning them. Any truth to this?

Probably not. Must be based on what someone had for breakfast. A thin negative does not have data and that data can never be retrieved. Expose and develop film normally.

 

[SodaAnt]

Probably not. Must be based on what someone had for breakfast. A thin negative does not have data and that data can never be retrieved. Expose and develop film normally.

Thanks. I knew that advice sounded a little suspicious.

 

[MattKing]

Since I plan to always scan negatives and use a hybrid workflow and never print the negatives using an enlarger, should I expose the negatives differently for this workflow? I've read that people decrease exposure resulting in thinner negatives when the end goal is scanning them. Any truth to this?

It reflects a truth, but it reflects it incorrectly .
What is true, is that if you have overly thin, or overly dense negatives:
1) scanning may be slightly better at getting acceptable prints out of the thin negatives; and
2) printing with an enlarger may be slightly better at getting acceptable prints out of the dense negatives.
If you have good negatives, either approach can lead to good prints.

 

[MattKing]

An oft posted example from a negative that looks very thin, but prints and scans very well:

 

[SodaAnt]

If you have good negatives, either approach can lead to good prints.

Thanks for the additional clarification. This is my first experience scanning negatives and it’s good to know that I don’t need to alter how I expose them.

 

[SodaAnt]

Another issue I’m having is sharpness of the scans due to the film not being held flat by the negative carrier in the scanner. The negative appears very sharp when viewed with a loupe on a light box, but the scan doesn’t. Still trying to figure out a workaround for that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

An oft posted example from a negative that looks very thin, but prints and scans very well:
View attachment 345543

Yes, but it is harder to print in a darkroom and there is no shadow detail and so no depth. Just very flat. That is not good for most compositions.

 

[MattKing]

there is no shadow detail and so no depth

Your monitor must be set differently than mine.

 

[SodaAnt]

Your monitor must be set differently than mine.

Agreed. It's anything but flat on my monitor.

 

[jeffreyg]

As mentioned adjustments can be made with levels and curves. In addition I suggest you have your files as RGBs and 16bit. You can then go to “adjustments “ and click black and white. That will give the image a slight zip. Another thing you can do is to copy and make a duplicate (new) file, change it to grayscale and 8bit then go to mode duotone. Play around to get a warm tritone that looks right and more contrasty than you might want. Save the shade you created. Change back to RGB and 16bit. Copy it then go back to your original and make a new layer. Paste into the new layer and with the fill slider reduce the fill amount to your taste. Maybe to 20 or 30%You will have a slightly warmer and more contrasty image. All the adjustments depend on taste and what paper you print on
It sounds complicated but it really isn’t especially once you get the tritone that works for you and save it.

 

[grat]

Some very quick tweaks with "levels" and the "Local contrast" setting in Darktable, produces a much better image, with a few caveats-- there's what appears to be a light leak, there's waves in the sky(?) and a whole lotta white dots that were in the original, but not as noticeable.



Aside from the artifacts, it seems to be an OK first attempt. Personally, I don't let the scanning software do any sharpening, as I prefer to do it own my own in post. I also typically set the endpoints on the histogram to match the scan. Have you adjusted the height on the transparency holders for maximum sharpness?