scanner workflow

[fralexis]

I shoot film and have always used a wet darkroom. I just purchased a used Epson V850 and have made a few scans. Firstly, I did not realize how terribly long it takes to can three strips of 35mm!

I have scanned the negatives (black and white) and when I enlarge them to adjust things I see no longer the familiar grain pattern of film, but sort of a "confetti" grain made up of tiny specks of black and white. To me it seems the results are somewhat fuzzy even though the negative appears to be sharp.

I scanned at 6400 8 bit depth as well as 16 bit depth and couldn't see too much of a difference. Are there recommended settings for this scanner set up? I can live with the results for proofs, but would prefer something cleaner for art prints. Any ideas? Thanks!

Alexis

 

[Alan Klein]

Duplicate-see next.

 

[Alan Klein]

Welcome to the frustrating world of scanning. The CIA has replaced waterboarding with scanning and has actually found it more effective.

First off, 2400 is more than you'll need as the scanner cannot resolve more than that for all practical purposes. That'll reduce the scan time and the size of your files.

Grain takes on a weird pattern but I find Tmax with its T-grain makes for a really smooth picture if that's what you want. Here a few of mine. These are medium format 6x7 120. I;ve found 35mm just doesn't resolve as well and the tonal range stinks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157642492618713

Scan results do not look sharp at all. It looks like you've been shooting through Vaseline. You have to sharpen them to the max. But even there, don't expect to get large prints. Good for the web though. I have some 35mm slides here (Ektachrome) https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625526207614 and here https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157627032961729

and here (Kodachromes) https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157626911395064


I'm using an Epson V600 not a V850 which has a higher Dmax, so shadows details are better in yours. At least that's what others have said.

I usually scan flat and do all post processing afterwards including sharpening, spot removal, and lighting adjustments.

I wouldn't let scan frustration get to you. It takes awhile to develop some scan skills and post processing that works for you. Be patient and don't blow your brains out.

 

[fralexis]

Thanks for your encouragement. Perhaps I will continue and when I want a fine art print I'll go to the darkroom. Meanwhile, the scans can certainly be used on the web and for proofing. Maybe someday I might even get good at scanning!

 

[Doug Fisher]

I would scan at 3200 because a well calibrated scanner can sometimes achieve more that 2400. Scan at 16 bit for better post processing results.

Work through this tutorial:

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php

Doug

 

[artobest]

I agree, 2400 is too low for the Epson as long as you are using one of Doug's brilliant BetterScanning film holders, appropriately set up for your specific machine. As far as I can tell, the 2400 figure derives from a single review that used the stock holders - not best practice in my experience. In fact, I generally scan at 6400 and downsize, which will increase your signal:noise ratio.

Also, and this is important, scan in colour but keep only the green channel (I use Channel Mixer in PS). This is by far the sharpest channel on these machines, and using only one channel removes softness introduced by colour fringing from the scanner lens. Just converting from RGB to grayscale will not mitigate it.

 

[artobest]

I agree, 2400 is too low for the Epson as long as you are using one of Doug's brilliant BetterScanning film holders, appropriately set up for your specific machine. As far as I can tell, the 2400 figure derives from a single review that used the stock holders - not best practice in my experience. In fact, I generally scan at 6400 and downsize, which will increase your signal:noise ratio.

Also, and this is important, scan in colour but keep only the green channel (I use Channel Mixer in PS). This is by far the sharpest channel on these machines, and using only one channel removes softness introduced by colour fringing from the scanner lens. Just converting from RGB to grayscale will not mitigate it.

 

[Alan Klein]

How would you keep just the green channel using Lightroom?

 

[cooltouch]

Regarding scanning at higher resolutions, I've found this to be a rather puzzling matter with my Epson 4990. First of all, I don't use the Betterscanning holders because I determined, based on my own empirical findings, that my scanner's optimum focal point is exactly the film height of my film holders. And I've also conducted tests with it that confirm that its output resolution is right around 2000 ppi. It's a 4990 after all, and not a V7xx. But I've also scanned slides at higher resolutions -- like 4800 ppi, which is still an optical and not interpolated value -- or so Epson claimed with that model. And what I noticed had to do with color depth, I guess you would call it, but not necessarily sharpness. At these higher resolutions, I was definitely noticing a greater detail in the colors of an image than at lower resolutions. So it caused me to rethink the entire process when it came to scanning images with this scanner. Previously, I was scanning at 2400 ppi, reasoning that, even at this setting, I was dealing with a small but acceptable amount of file bloat. But after noticing the differences in color detail, I began to rethink things. I use a digital camera to duplicate my 35mm output these days -- at 24mp, this gives me 4000 x 6000 pixel images, same as a top-of-the-line Nikon Coolscan. But I still use my 4990 for medium format. So what I do now is, if I'm scanning B&W, I'll still scan at 2400 ppi, but if I'm scanning color, I'll often scan at 3200 ppi, and sometimes even 4800 ppi. I don't have the software convert them to tiff files though -- they just become too big. I have them converted to jpgs. At these file sizes, you really have to pixel peep to tell the difference between jpgs that are configured for sharpness and tiff files anyway. So anyway, don't take my word for it -- check for yourself and see if you don't see more color detail at the higher resolutions.

 

[removed account4]

if it is 35mm or 120 i scan a strip, just to look at it, and then
scan each individual frame that i want to scan. i use either an old 4870
or perfecta640 with a sheet of white paper behind it ...
i usually scan at 1200, or 2400

 

[Saganich]

I've been scanning B&W negs for 10 years and still feel like a fool much of the time. The kennethleegallery link was helpful. It took me about 6 years to figure all that out on my own. In a world of endless manipulation reducing that workflow to only the necessary adjustments with minimal impact is the goal. The bit about sharpening only the mid-tones for example was an eye opener for example and not letting the software make any adjustments. All of this suggesting that being led by the technology is easy but can obscure the potential of an image (for lack of better words). When skills such as reading the negative start to feel unnecessary, look out. Scanning workflow 101: Step 1 - understand the tonal values of you negative prior to scanning. Darkroom skills are still greatly useful in the digital world.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I shoot film and have always used a wet darkroom. I just purchased a used Epson V850 and have made a few scans. Firstly, I did not realize how terribly long it takes to can three strips of 35mm!

I have scanned the negatives (black and white) and when I enlarge them to adjust things I see no longer the familiar grain pattern of film, but sort of a "confetti" grain made up of tiny specks of black and white. To me it seems the results are somewhat fuzzy even though the negative appears to be sharp.

I scanned at 6400 8 bit depth as well as 16 bit depth and couldn't see too much of a difference. Are there recommended settings for this scanner set up? I can live with the results for proofs, but would prefer something cleaner for art prints. Any ideas? Thanks!

Alexis

Those of us who scan a fair amount of film discovered a while ago that unless you invest in a good dedicated film scanner ($$$$), it's often a lot faster to "scan" the film with a dslr and a macro lens mounted on a copy stand. You get comparable results and a dslr is orders of magnitude faster than even the fastest dedicated film scanners. I blast through a Roll of 36 exposures in minutes.

Even a relatively recent low end dslr body is at least 6000x4000 pixels. Do the math for how many dpi that is for the area of film you're scanning. Not to be sneezed at.

 

[Richard Man]

BTW, one trap of scanned image is that they can look unsharp when viewed at "100%". The larger the negative, the worse it is: my 4x5 scanned at 2800 on the Epson gives ~10,000 pixels across so it's pixel peeping to the max. So don't get discouraged viewing at 100%. View at lower magnification, or print to see for sure. After a while, you will find the right way to do things

 

[pdeeh]

How would you keep just the green channel using Lightroom?

You can't, but that's not what was being suggested.

The suggestion is that you scan your black and white negatives using a colour setting, but set your scanner software to use only the green colour channel to make the mono image. (Certainly possible in Vuescan)

An alternative might perhaps be to scan in colour but then use ImageMagick to extract the green channel and convert to mono, but that requires one to be comfortable installing and using command-line programs.

My feeling is that only if one is using a hybrid 'workflow' (how I hate that word) to produce large 'fine art prints' (how I hate those words) is it necessary to worry too much about extracting deadly sharpness from a scan. But then I'm an awful person and probably shouldn't really be let near a discussion like this in the first place.

 

[cooltouch]

Those of us who scan a fair amount of film discovered a while ago that unless you invest in a good dedicated film scanner ($$$$), it's often a lot faster to "scan" the film with a dslr and a macro lens mounted on a copy stand. You get comparable results and a dslr is orders of magnitude faster than even the fastest dedicated film scanners. I blast through a Roll of 36 exposures in minutes.

Even a relatively recent low end dslr body is at least 6000x4000 pixels. Do the math for how many dpi that is for the area of film you're scanning. Not to be sneezed at.

Yeah, I "discovered" this several years ago, and found that, even with a 10.1mp camera, I was getting great results. Now I use a Sony NEX 7 with 24mp, which gives me that 6000 x 4000 pixel level of detail. Rather then mount my rig to a copy stand, I use a handheld slide duplicator rig I've cobbled together. At its heart is a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIs set to f/8. This aperture setting I've found to be right in this formidable lens's sweet spot. For a light source, I use an off-camera flash arrangement with the flash set to 1/16 power, typically. At this setting I can hold my rig about a foot away from the flash. And yes, this is a very fast process. Once focus has been dialed in, it usually doesn't have to be checked again,. although I will check periodically, just to make sure the lens wasn't bumped or something, which might have shifted focus.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I shoot film and have always used a wet darkroom. I just purchased a used Epson V850 and have made a few scans. Firstly, I did not realize how terribly long it takes to can three strips of 35mm!

Alexis

For the Epson V700 I have 2 Epson 35mm film holders. they hold all the negatives from 1 film.
Each loaded holder negatives are scanned all at once at 800 dpi to make a digital contact sheet, from which 1 or 2 negatives are selected to be printed or scanned at high resolution.
The strips containing a negative to be printed are held flat in the Epson holder using Betterscanning ANR glass jammed down against the plastic posts with card to keep flat.
IMO Ilford film dries the flattest, the Betterscanning glass may not be needed for some films.
I scan 35 mm negatives as transparencies at 4800 dpi, invert them in photoshop, sharpen heavily, increase midtone sontrast etc till happy.The true resolution is about 2300dpi, details at scandig.com.
This will give good prints up to about 12"x8", for bigger prints I scan the selected negatives in a Plustek, in agreement with Scandig,com, this gives higher dpi.
It takes about an hour from loading the film holders to having the final 2 selected prints.As you say, you cannot see the grain, but what you can see is in proportion to it IMO.
I regard it as a craft, it has some advantages and disadvantages over my previous silver gelatin printing.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yeah, I "discovered" this several years ago, and found that, even with a 10.1mp camera, I was getting great results. Now I use a Sony NEX 7 with 24mp, which gives me that 6000 x 4000 pixel level of detail. Rather then mount my rig to a copy stand, I use a handheld slide duplicator rig I've cobbled together. At its heart is a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIs set to f/8. This aperture setting I've found to be right in this formidable lens's sweet spot. For a light source, I use an off-camera flash arrangement with the flash set to 1/16 power, typically. At this setting I can hold my rig about a foot away from the flash. And yes, this is a very fast process. Once focus has been dialed in, it usually doesn't have to be checked again,. although I will check periodically, just to make sure the lens wasn't bumped or something, which might have shifted focus.

Similar here, canon 80D, 100mm macro Cine lens with a declicked aperture mounted on a copy stand with a lightbox lit by a studio strobe. I use the copy stand because I also use the same getup to digitize documents, again comparable results, quite a bit faster than a paper scanner.

I've been waiting for Canon to release the next iteration of their 50Mp 5Ds camera to make that the heart of my next rig. I'll be able to get stupid resolution out of 35mm film, and really good resolution out of medium format, and totally usable resolution out of 4x5.

 

[blockend]

Scanning is a PIA, a real quality bottleneck that should have been resolved for domestic users years ago. It hasn't been because "no one uses film anymore". I'm scanning three colour films now, and it's a solid half day's effort at 3200 on the Epson V500. Yes, I could scan at lower resolutions and sometimes do, but it's almost as much effort returning to lo-res scans for high-res repeats as doing the strip properly first time. Even scrupulously cleaning the scanner glass and negatives is time consuming. For black and white users I wouldn't bother. Buy an enlarger, contact print and enlarge the best shots. The quality will be infinitely better and you can scan the print for screen sharing if necessary.

If you absolutely must scan film and you're in any way prolific, you'll have to dedicate half your life to it which would be better spent out photographing, or throw money at the problem and get a shop to do it. Or learn to love digital.

 

[Saganich]

I tend to agree. I've concluded that with 35mm b&w I can use my film scanner at a resolution right for 11x14 prints but any higher resolution I'm just adding grain. So I thought, "I could make a customized grain filter" and then thought why am I investing all this effort in post processing when it's unlikely I'll make these prints anyway? There are technical limitations in 35mm film scanning that are apparent if the goal is printing, especially printing large, but for 11x14 and down it's come along to the point where its difficult to tell between a wet and dry process in a gallery. Sometimes the challenge pushing the limits is appealing. I have friends who do nothing but push the technical limits where all their shooting is just for that purpose. Myself, I just want to gat back to making fine prints.

 

[faberryman]

Even scrupulously cleaning the scanner glass and negatives is time consuming. For black and white users I wouldn't bother. Buy an enlarger, contact print and enlarge the best shots. The quality will be infinitely better and you can scan the print for screen sharing if necessary.

I agree that wet print quality is better than scanning at 3200 on a V500 (actual resolution is half that). You can get a dedicated film scanner though for less than a V600 (successor to the V500) that will give you a better scan. Also, some (most) people don't have the ability to set up a darkroom at home, so that's not really an option. You'll also need a scanner if you want to do alternative processors and are not shooting LF and ULF.

 

[blockend]

I agree that wet print quality is better than scanning at 3200 on a V500 (actual resolution is half that). You can get a dedicated film scanner though for less than a V600 (successor to the V500) that will give you a better scan. Also, some (most) people don't have the ability to set up a darkroom at home, so that's not really an option. You'll also need a scanner if you want to do alternative processors and are not shooting LF and ULF.

It depends what you're looking for. My 7 year old Canon 550D/T2i gives a passable impression of pushed Tri-X at 3200 ISO with a high contrast editing pre-set. It wouldn't pass expert scrutiny, but at first glance it looks more like film than digital. However for more serious creative work I prefer film. The problem is I can't get a scan to look more like film than a digital camera film-like edit, because grain aliasing introduces artefacts. Scans are good enough for coffee table sized printed books, which I produce a few of every year (I have two to upload by the weekend), but not to my wet printing standard. I don't think wet printing is that much more inconvenient or expensive than scanning for print.

I develop my own B&W and C41 colour film, but colour printing is a step too far unless I'm printing regularly. I've done it, and Cibachrome in the past but it's hardly any more economical than sending the work out once wastage is taken into account. So I generally mix mono wet prints, digital photography (screen and print), and colour film scanning when I'm feeling particularly patient. By the end of a session I swear I'll never do it again. How people shoot and scan several films a week I have no idea.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been using my old Epson V700 for over 6 years now and it's a great scanner. Yes it does take a lot of time to scan. Scanning images at higher bit depth gives you more headroom when you adjust the tones of your digital image. If you scans are not sharp, you might want to adjust your spacers on your film carriers. Take a look here.
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...50-optimum-resolution&highlight=scanner focus