 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / May 2007Scanning Negatives
Hello All. Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need with a google search and a few hours, but I'm hoping to speed it up a little I'm getting back into photography and I am playing around with a scanner and PS instead of traditional wet printing. What resolution do most of you use when scanning neg's into photoshop. I've got 4 gig of ram on a windows XP machine and 300 gig plus of hard drive space and PS CS3 I'm using a Mamiya 645 Pro TL Thank you in advance Mike Mueller > Hello All. > Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thank you in advance > Mike Mueller resolution and what not won't do you any good without a good "film" quality scanner. i just recently got an epson 4990 photo, and it is fabulous. i mainly scan 6x6 and up, but 645 would look great with that scanner too. they also have a v700 that works really well too, but that was another hundred more when i got mine. if you are planning on doing a lot, i'd consider the 700. you can find prices all over the net. it will reinvigorate your film work. i sold a digital camera to get a mamiya rb67 system last week, due to the quality of scans i can get with the 4990. and get a usb external 300gb hard drive...you'll need it! good luck >>Hello All. >>Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need with [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > good luck Thanks Joe Yes I have an epson 4990. Scans at 192000 take a lot of disk space,time (25 minutes) and photoshop did not want to enlarge from original neg size. What resolution do you scan at? 300, 600, 1200,2400, 4800, 9600?? I want to do 11 x 14 max enlarging. Thanks Mike Mueller > Thanks Joe > Yes I have an epson 4990. Scans at 192000 take a lot of disk space,time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > Mike Mueller I scan 6x6/7 stuff @ 800, and 1200dpi. The 800 dpi scans take less than a minute, and the 1200s about a minute. I have not printed anything larger than 8x8, but would not hesitate to think that 11x14 (or larger) would not be out of the question. Sampling is all calculations. You can download any number of excel spreadsheets that do all the math. Make sure also in CS3 to use the bicubic smoother option when enlarging files to print. > Thanks Joe > Yes I have an epson 4990. Scans at 192000 take a lot of disk space,time > (25 minutes) and photoshop did not want to enlarge from original neg size. The 4990 is a decent scanner to get started with. Note that this scanner has a maximum native resolution of 4800dpi and is reputed to have a true optical resolution of around 2400-2800dpi; so scans at 4800dpi and above are a waste of time and disk space. I'd suggest scanning at 2400dpi, or scanning at 4800 and down-sampling to 2800 dpi, which might squeeze just a bit more real resolution out than 2400 dpi (I tried this with my 4490 and think the results were better). Also note that the negative carrier in these less-expensive flat-bed scanners may not always place the film the correct distance above the glass for optimum focus; Doug Fisher makes an adjustable negative carrier that may be quite worthwhile: see http://www.betterscanning.com/ for more information. You can experiment with increasing the negative carrier height by using stacks of small Post-It notes to shim the carrier above the glass. Be sure to keep the glass clean, of course :-). The optical density range of the Epson scanners has been tested, according to one credible report I found on the web but didn't keep a link to, to something better than 3.8, which is pretty good. So, for reasonably-exposed negs and chromes, you can get very good scans with a little practice. An 11"x14" print represents about a 6.3x enlargement of a 6x4.5 neg, which works out to about 440dpi resolution to the printer from a 2800dpi scan (or 380 dpi from a 2400 dpi scan), which produces a good continuous-tone print. In other words, you have plenty to work with. I eventually upgraded from a 4490 to a Nikon LS-9000ED dedicated film scanner, which was quite a bit more expensive, but offers somewhat greater dynamic range *and* the ability to adjust the analog gain to deal with really dense or thin negs (and is quite amazing in that respect). True optical resolution on the LS-9000 seems to be quite near the optical scan resolution of 4000dpi. Multiple-pass scanning provides a real benefit, as well. At 11x14, the resolution is over 600dpi, which is certainly nice and gives more margin to crop/enlarge from the neg. However, the 4990 will give you fine results with a little practice, it's really quite a nice scanner and a relative bargain at the price. Dana > However, the 4990 will give you fine results with a little > practice, it's really quite a nice scanner and a relative > bargain at the price. > > Dana Yes, it does a very credible job. I'd love one of the Nikon's but for now, will use this until it goes kaput. Which I don't expect any time soon. Most of my stuff I just scan to post online, but the 6x6 and above size stuff really makes my day, and I jhave no problems printing to 8x10. It actually made me keep my Mamiya C330 system, when I had debated getting tid of it! >> However, the 4990 will give you fine results with a little >> practice, it's really quite a nice scanner and a relative [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > really makes my day, and I jhave no problems printing to 8x10. It actually > made me keep my Mamiya C330 system, when I had debated getting tid of it! It's ironic you mention this. I'd never made a big investment in MF gear, I just have a couple of inexpensive TLRs, but setting-up a decent MF scanning solution totally re-invigorated my interest in MF B&W capture. I keep thinking a GW690 is in my future. Dana >> Thanks Joe >> Yes I have an epson 4990. Scans at 192000 take a lot of disk [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Dana Thank you Dana I have tried a few scans already at the very high DPI and was impressed with the clairity and sharpnes that it produced. Focus of the 4490 seems to be ok right now. Since it's not a glass carrier , I assume that temperature will effect the neg just like a traditional enlarger will cause distortion if the neg gets too warm. AS for a bargin. I bought it on line from Staples. I had a $50.00 off coupon as well as a rewards check. The 4490 was only $100.00 and shipping was free. I'm really enjoying getting back into this hobby Thank you Mike Mueller > Thank you Dana > I have tried a few scans already at the very high DPI and was impressed > with the clairity and sharpnes that it produced. Focus of the 4490 > seems to be ok right now. My experience with the 4490 was similar, though I did go ahead and get one of Doug Fisher's adjustable negative carriers to experiment with. If you get curious, you can always try using stacks of Post-It notes to experiment :-). > Since it's not a glass carrier , I assume > that temperature will effect the neg just like a traditional enlarger > will cause distortion if the neg gets too warm. Perhaps, but I wouldn't expect too much distortion of the negative since the scanner's light source doesn't generate much heat. I certainly never experienced a problem with negative "pop" on the 4490. It *was* a challenge dealing with curled/bowed negs, though. At least one or two people have made glass carriers for the Epson flatbeds, and I know I use a glass carrier in my LS-9000 (the results are quite obvious in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness). > AS for a bargin. I bought it on line from Staples. I had a $50.00 off > coupon as well as a rewards check. The 4490 was only $100.00 and > shipping was free. Now, *that's* a bargain. For me, the combination of a 4490 and an Epson R2400 was better than most enlargers I've ever used in terms of image quality, and the LS-9000+R2400 is even better. > I'm really enjoying getting back into this hobby > Thank you > Mike Mueller Glad to hear it! Dana > Hello All. > Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thank you in advance > Mike Mueller Thank you to all for helping me out with this question. Now If I can only get PS to stop freezing. Mike Mueller > Thank you to all for helping me out with this question. Now If I can only > get PS to stop freezing. There's a "number of history states" (or something like that) setting somewhere. Set it to it's _lowest possible value_, which should be 1 or 2. You'll have to be careful to save copies of states you might want to go back to. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Hello All. > Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drive space and PS CS3 > I'm using a Mamiya 645 Pro TL From affordable to less so (n/i very high end commercial eqt.) The recent flatbeds are very good (Epson) The film scanners are great (Nikon 8000, 9000; used Minolta Multi-pro) The drum scanners are fantastic. I have the Nikon 9000ED. I haven't had time to expoit it, but just received the glass film holder and will start kicking out scans shortly from negative and slides. (This replaced my Minolta 5400 scanner which could not do MF). For most film shots 4000 - 5000 dpi is a good upper limit, 'though 3200 (Minolta multi-pro) is adequate for most. The CPU of your machine will determine how fast scans using ICE will occur. ICE is a requirement you should not pass up as it will reduce your time processing and touching up scratched or dusty film. Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Hello All. >> Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need >> with a google search and a few hours, but I'm hoping to speed it up a >> little >> I'm getting back into photography and I am playing around with a >> scanner and PS instead of traditional wet printing. [...] > The CPU of your machine will determine how fast scans using ICE will > occur. ICE is a requirement you should not pass up as it will reduce > your time processing and touching up scratched or dusty film. Just in case mueller is talking about B&W film, note that Digital ICE is useless with B&W film. I'm in the habit now of cleaning negs before making a high res scan if I'm concerned about dust. I use Edwal Anti-Stat cleaner and it has been excellent on both B&W and color film for me. Dana >> The CPU of your machine will determine how fast scans using ICE will >> occur. ICE is a requirement you should not pass up as it will reduce >> your time processing and touching up scratched or dusty film. > > Just in case mueller is talking about B&W film, note that > Digital ICE is useless with B&W film. Good point. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. I can't comment on MF scans as I only scan 35mm at the present, but.. > What resolution do most of you use when scanning neg's into photoshop. > I've got 4 gig of ram on a windows XP machine and 300 gig plus of hard > drive space and PS CS3 You need drive space. I have an 800GB RAID setup (2x400 GB drives) which is almost filled due to 35mm neg scanning with a Coolscan V (Average filesize is ~130MB/file). I can't even think how much space I would need with MF negatives. Your machine should be fine for the task at hand. I got along fine with 1.12GB of RAM, CS2 and a 733Mhz Macintosh for a few years, and that was useable -- you'll probably have a much more enjoyable and productive experience. :) > I can't comment on MF scans as I only scan 35mm at the present, but.. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (Average filesize is ~130MB/file). I can't even think how much space > I would need with MF negatives. You raise a very good point; how to manage all those scans. I haven't even investigated off-the-shelf solutions for managing large numbers of high-res image files yet, but I can see one problem right off the bat; you're using a RAID 0 volume to save the files. RAID 0 is great in that it generally improves read/write performance to the RAID 0 volume (the 2 disks basically work in parallel). RAID 0 has a very serious disadvantage; if one of the disks fails, *you likely lose the entire pool*. Depending on who you ask, this could mean your RAID 0 pool is twice as likely to fail as a single hard disk. For this reason, I would say you're better off running two 400GB disks rather than a single 800GB volume; if one of the disks fails, you won't lose all of the contents of both. [ I do use RAID 1 to create high-reliability volumes, for example, by pairing a couple of 500GB drives into a single 500GB drive. RAID 1 is the total opposite of RAID 0; you lose the capacity of a disk drive in exchange for higher reliability and about the same performance as a single disk ] It sounds like you're saving 48-bit TIFF files for every single scan you make at 4000dpi. Depending on how often you access the scans, perhaps you'd be better-off archiving them to offline storage - for example, DVD. A single DVD will hold 35 or so scans at that res, maybe 36. So it might be convenient-enough to burn a DVD of each roll of film that's scanned (make sure to use the "verify" option"). That way, you might not feel so bad deleting the full-res TIFFs after you've edited the scans and produced high-res JPGs at < 10MB each - you'll still have the high-res TIFFs on DVD when you need them. I mean, do you really need all those 5,0000+ scans available as high-res TIFFs all the time? MF scans are larger; a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x4.5 frame is around 63MP, or 380MB as a 48-bit TIFF. You'll only fit maybe 11 of those on a single DVD. 6x6 gives about 81MP or 483MB 48-bit TIFF, and 6x9 is something like 127MP or 763MB 48-bit TIFF. Just burning a DVD isn't a long-term archival solution, though it's way better than just trusting a spinning hard-disk alone. You might want to *also* back-up your disk to an external disk drive as well. Since we're talking about scanning negs here, don't forget that the neg itself is an archive of the image; take care of it, in case you need to re-scan it someday. I presently shoot film for the band images - I use both 35mm and 120 mm For 35 mm I use a dedicated film scanner and on medium format film - 6x6 I use the Epson 4990 I got it refurbished from Epson for 300 bucks - no tax or shipping - got it withing the week. The quality has been very impressive on medium format but when scanning 35mm I would rather get the sharper scans from the 35mm film scanner. You shooting 6x4.5 may be in a middle area but I would go with the 4990. I scan my 6x6 at 300 ppi and 14x14 inches. :-) David6of7 > I scan my 6x6 at 300 ppi and 14x14 inches. > :-) David6of7 If you're making 14 x 14 @ 300 from 6x6 (56x56) then you're image is at 1905 ppi. You're probably scanning higher (2400 or 4800) and then down sampling in the image editor or scan capture s/w. Cheers, Alan > Hello All. > Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thank you in advance > Mike Mueller My Desire is too scan negs as I'm going to use them. I'm not looking to keep them on the computer when I'm done printing. Right now I have the lab process contact sheets since 50% of my shots are usless. I'm still in the relearning mode. I spent 20 years shooting 35mm mostly. I had a Yasica Mat, that I used through out my Junior and High School years. The twin lens was fun. Just limited. I played with a Speed Graphic for while. Loved that for Architectual work. Getting accustomed too the larger format is taking time. Framing is different and I'm still wasting 30% of the frame. I need to get closer to my subjects. It's all part of the learning curve. Right now I'm shotting both B&W and color. Part of the process is learning how too use Photoshop. The freezing problem is just from scanning my negs at too high of a resolution. I'll start playing with 2400 and 4800 DPI to see how they enlarge and print. I'm probably going too still play in the darkroom, since part of the fun is developing and printing B&W. The idea of scanning was to have an alternative to a lab processing color prints and having control over cropping. I'm still a fan of doing 90% of the work when the shot is taken. I'm not interested in using photoshop to fix a poorly framed or exposed shot. The fun of the hobby is being able to compose the shot before, not after. Mike Mueller > I'm still a fan of doing 90% of the work when the shot is taken. I'm not > interested in using photoshop to fix a poorly framed or exposed shot. > The fun of the hobby is being able to compose the shot before, not after. I shoot both film and digital and find that my film shots are generally better than the digital because I still *think* when I'm shooting film. <G> >>I'm still a fan of doing 90% of the work when the shot is taken. I'm not >>interested in using photoshop to fix a poorly framed or exposed shot. >>The fun of the hobby is being able to compose the shot before, not after. > > I shoot both film and digital and find that my film shots are generally > better than the digital because I still *think* when I'm shooting film. <G> Thats a good way of putting it.. I find that when I use my daughter Digital SLR, I just shoot away. If I don't like a shot, I just hit delete. it costs nothing to shoot a few hundred frames in digital. Film requires "thought". Thanks again for all the assistance Mike Mueller > Thats a good way of putting it.. I find that when I use my daughter > Digital SLR, I just shoot away. If I don't like a shot, I just hit delete. > it costs nothing to shoot a few hundred frames in digital. Film requires > "thought". Digital requires thought also, if one wants images worth showing people. Whether or not one has a personality flaw that prevents one thinking when one has a digital camera in one's hand is the photographer's problem... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Thats a good way of putting it.. I find that when I use my daughter >> Digital SLR, I just shoot away. If I don't like a shot, I just hit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > when one has a digital camera in one's hand is the photographer's > problem... Oh dear, must we bracket the light hearted remarks with [humor on] and [humor off]? >>Thats a good way of putting it.. I find that when I use my daughter >>Digital SLR, I just shoot away. If I don't like a shot, I just hit delete. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan I did notrealize, making fun of myself was going to invoke such a response from anyone. It was not directed at this newsgroup or it's members. Mike Mueller >>>Thats a good way of putting it.. I find that when I use my daughter >>>Digital SLR, I just shoot away. If I don't like a shot, I just hit [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > response from anyone. It was not directed at this newsgroup or it's > members. Mike Mueller Obviously. :o) > Hello All. > Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thank you in advance > Mike Mueller The rule of thumb for making prints is the degree of desired magnification is (scan resolution)/300 dpi. So to do a 4x enlargement you would scan at 1200 dpi. I have lots of tips about scanning on my web site: http://robertdfeinman.com follow the tips link on the home page. Another go resource is scantips.com > The rule of thumb for making prints is the degree of desired > magnification is (scan resolution)/300 dpi. So to do a 4x enlargement > you would scan at 1200 dpi. A rule I go by is scan at the highest resolution that still gives more details so you don't have to rescan when you need to make a larger print. HD space is cheap is scanning is so bothersome I don't want to scan the same frame several times. This is an easy rule to follow because I just scan everything at 3200 DPI without having to think about the size of my enlargements. >>The rule of thumb for making prints is the degree of desired >>magnification is (scan resolution)/300 dpi. So to do a 4x enlargement [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This is an easy rule to follow because I just scan everything at 3200 > DPI without having to think about the size of my enlargements. Which scanning software do you use. Epson does not recommend scanning above 1200dpi with the dust removal running. As a mater of fact, the program will not let you scan above that with dust removal. They also do not recommned anything above 9600dpi. Their software can not handle higher resolution scans. Thank you Mike Mueller > Which scanning software do you use. Epson does not recommend scanning > above 1200dpi with the dust removal running. As a mater of fact, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thank you > Mike Mueller I haven't obviously followed the thread from the beginning and was just commenting generally on this "rules of thumbs for selecting a scanning DPI depending on the enlargement size" thing because I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I use an Epson V700 and there's nothing against scanning at 3200DPI, either with Epson Scan or Silverfast. ICE works. > Which scanning software do you use. Epson does not recommend scanning > above 1200dpi with the dust removal running. As a mater of fact, the > program will not let you scan above that with dust removal. They also do > not recommned anything above 9600dpi. You don't want to ever scan at 9600 dpi. That is an interpolated resolution. If the scanner software is balking when you try to scan over 1200 dpi with ICE, I am wondering if your output settings are set incorrectly where the resolution number is reasonable but your output size is not (e.g. 1200 dpi but your output size is 8x10 or something which would create a huge file)? Doug Signaturewww.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa, Microtek and Epson Scanners >>Hello All. >>Let me preface this by saying I know I can probably find what i need [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > magnification is (scan resolution)/300 dpi. So to do a 4x enlargement > you would scan at 1200 dpi. I agre with Toni: Scan at max for detail and save that as the basic scan. You can always down sample cleanly for a required print size. You can never upsample and get detail. Re-scannning sucks. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.