scanning MF color

Hi all. I'm usually on APUG, but I don't print my own color, so I'm going to go hybrid for that. I have an Epson 4870, which I know is old and a flatbed. Neither is a characteristic that will get me greatness - I realize this. But if I want to get what I can with it from medium format negs, should I scan as TIFFs and then only save as jpegs right before sending them to be printed? So far, I've only scanned as jpegs and I have had good results - even to 11x14. I've mostly just used the scans to get things onto my website, but I have some I'd like to get printed - maybe even to sell. So far, I've only had maybe 5 printed at 11x14 (by MPIX) and they were all fine. I'm not working, so I can't afford a new scanner or drum scans.
Thanks in advance!

Though I've never used anything between an ancient 1640 and the V750, my understanding is that there isn't much difference from 4870 ---> 4990 ---> V700/V750.

Most people consider the usable resolution of this family of scanners to be 2000-2400 dpi, good enough for at least 6x (if not 8x) enlargement. 6x is a 13.5" square image from a 6x6 and 8x is 18" square. So unless you want to print *really* large, a flatbed, good scanning technique, and careful sharpening (capture and output) will probably do everything you need to do.

Good luck!!

--Greg

Thanks! I think the main part I'll have problems with is the "good scanning technique." I do what I can to avoid dust, but some seems to be inevitable and there's some on the underside of the glass. I usually scan at 11x14 at 360dpi - figuring that's more than the output, but not so much above to be wasting more time and hard drive space than necessary. Is that good reasoning? I'm only planning to print at 11x14.

just a couple of quick points. I would recommend you scan and print in TIFF format - particularly if you are planning to print 11x14, or larger. JPEG's are fine if you are only concerned about printing for the WEB, or attachments for E-Mail. Secondly, dust on negatives is a fact of life, as is the resulting "spotting" or "cloning" that results.

Good luck with your printing efforts.

Gotta agree with ctscanner's comments.

I have an Epson 4990, which is just about the same as yours, and I use it for scanning color MF negatives quite a bit. I scan at 2400 ppi, because any more than that is just needless file bulk. I use the regular old Epson Scan software and I've found that if the negative is properly exposed, I can just scan at the defaults and I'll get a good image. 11x14 is no problem at 2400 ppi with a MF negative.

Thanks much! I'll be doing some scanning today. I know dust is just a fact of life. I have a tablet, so at least that's much easier than using a mouse (or spotting on prints).

Hi

winger said:

I have an Epson 4870, which I know is old and a flatbed. Neither is a characteristic that will get me greatness - I realize this.

Click to expand...

sure, but as I have the 3200, 4870 and 4990 and had negs scanned by mates with 700's I can say they're all close with the biggest change being the 4870 ... so you have the best of the oldies

its good for 2000 genuine dpi but then again getting more than that requires things which I don't think you can get easily (read drum scans)

But if I want to get what I can with it from medium format negs, should I scan as TIFFs and then only save as jpegs right before sending them to be printed?

Click to expand...

that's largely unimportant, what is more important is what you scan to in DPI at the scan and what you do with your scan.

Try reading my suggestions here. You may also find some of my other comments on Epson scanners on that blog helpful, for example

So far, I've only had maybe 5 printed at 11x14 (by MPIX) and they were all fine. I'm not working, so I can't afford a new scanner or drum scans.

Click to expand...

sounds like you're having fun there. In case you get caught up in trying to squeeze higher DPI out of your epson, I'd say put the effort into taking pictures you like. Even comparing smaller formats of 35mm film to one of the older Nikon LS-IV ED scanners which at the time people raved about how better they were (while Nikon was claiming only 2700dpi anyway) I found they were quite close to the Epson. There are some reasons why you just have to accept them as they are. But follow those steps above and I'm sure you'll get the best results.

Pellicle, thank you! Your tutorial is easy to understand. I'll try that as soon as I get a chance to get back to the iMac. My "free" time is quite limited these days (1 year old child who is very mobile and doesn't like naps).
Do most people scan at the original size of the neg at a high dpi or do they use around 350 dpi at the size they intend to print? Does it matter?

Rather then try to answer the specific questions you have asked. I'd rather share my own ideas on them, with the thought in mind that you will have to eventually develop a process that you are comfortable with. That being the case here goes:

"Do most people scan at the original size of the neg at a high dpi" Scanning the full size of the negative, or print/document, insures you you recording all the image elements. Rather you opt to retain the full image, or do selective cropping is a matter you alone can decide. Quite often I end up doing a certain amount of cropping for no other reason then I wear eyeglasses and quite often will have problems with edges in the viewfinder.
As to scanning at a high dpi; This is a little trickier in that I am shooting 35mm so that the resulting file size of the neg or slide scanned at 4000ppi on my Nikon is only going to be in the range of 45/55Megs. You obviously are dealing with much larger files and will have to consider issues of storage capacity and your Computers ability to handle the files. Having said that, and assuming there aren't the aforesaid issues: I would scan the Negs in the highest resolution my scanner affords - because so far as I know that is the best way to pull the maximum picture detail out of the scan.

"do they use around 350 dpi at the size they intend to print" I would not! I have seen recommendations for Inkjet printing at 240dpi all the way up to 360dpi, so why limit yourself to 350. IMHO, far better to scan a Master Image, and then depending on how, or where you print it, or what you want to use it for - do a Save As and rename the file, and then resize that file to what you need it for. That's my own particular philosophy.

I am not going to comment on your last question for a couple of reasons. First of all, I honestly don't know if it does, and secondly; I think you have to decide that depending on your own approach to digitizing and using your images.

Best of luck with what you are doing!

Hi

winger said:

Pellicle, thank you!

Click to expand...

welcome

Do most people scan at the original size of the neg at a high dpi or do they use around 350 dpi at the size they intend to print? Does it matter?

Click to expand...

my experience of this is that bureaus scan to the dpi of the output and have not the faintest idea of what original dpi means (try asking for 4000dpi scans of 35mm and see the looks you get).

Scanner operators who don't come from the print world either think / speak in scanner native values or know who they're talking to and convert.

does it matter? Well I normally scan at something which exceeds my output needs and down sample it. Even scanning at 2400dpi (which seems a sweet spot for all my Epsons) and down scale to the desired print (including some sharpening specific to what's happening) and its perfect

as to does it matter, I did some prints done differently and personally could see the difference. Try a few and see how you go.

A good starter for your personal experiment would be:

in my view ...: digital vs (35mm) film, scans screens and prints

in my view ...: Nikon, Noritsu, Epson: a comparison of scans and prints

happy scanning

Thanks for starting this thread Winger, there's more than just you being educated here. This is a web reference somebody posted on another thread you might find useful.

Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images

The site that Johnnywalker provided the link for is the one that I visited after getting my first scanner, an Epson 2450. It was an excellent place for me to start: being absolutely new to scanning and needing a grounding in the basics. At the time I found it, you could buy Wayne Fulton's book thru the site - an excellent reference to keep by your scanner.

))

A good starter for your personal experiment would be:

in my view ...: digital vs (35mm) film, scans screens and prints

in my view ...: Nikon, Noritsu, Epson: a comparison of scans and prints

happy scanning


-----------------------------
Test shown in the link above is wrong from very beginning . This so called "test" is Digital vs Digital .Film Scan is a digital copy of analog media carrier. Why it is not clear ? Even when folks trying to show "how many lines in mm" they can get from Lens or film - is just a joke .
Resolution test is Transparent and must be tested in High contrast lighting condition 1: 1oooooooooooooooooo
test handheld ? 'cmon ,- get a heavy tripod and bag of sand

Put a film into ENLARGER , / not on PC Monitor! / -get a 20x Mag Loupe and have a fun with line pairs per millimeter

Hi

JS 2011 said:

Test shown in the link above is wrong from very beginning . This so called "test" is Digital vs Digital

Click to expand...

correct ... and welcome to hybrid where we embrace digitisation. If that is offensive please head over to APUG where you can embrace fully analog pathway. That is not to say I don't have an enlarger, do contact printing, develop my own film and such, just I didn't write of that in that article above.

To help you join the 21st century and explain a bit of the premise of my "test" (which was more of an examination of what things can look like) there is already much written on the photo chemical process, many dozens of good books. However you will find far less done in comparing using C-41 negative for capture and comparing that to a digital camera. This forum is about scanning in case you didn't spot that.

21st century Forum about Scanning ?
...as I see above there are not so many who can scan . Just 35 mm film at flatbed scanner @ 300 dpi ))) .

You've lost me JS 2011.

I've found that Silverfast's resizing algorithms leave quite a bit to be desired. Regardless of the scanning software you're using, I would recommend only scanning at resolutions native to your scanner. These are usually whole number dividends of its maximum, non-interpolated resolution. As always: Consult your scanner and software documentation to see what these numbers are and how to access them. The reasoning behind this is that not every piece of software uses the same math to change the size/resolution of a digital image, so it is better to make a scan that has not been altered in this way and to experiment with different software for resizing.

At least to start! If you can't see a difference, there you go. However, after I started doing this, even with my old Microtek i900 flatbed, I saw the clarity in my images go up dramatically. I think that this had more to do with the fact that I wasn't even aware that image resizing and/or sharpening was occurring during the scanning stage, so that by the time I resized and resharpened in PhotoShop, the image had been through the wringer a few more times than was optimal.