Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

scanning photos
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Adapters and other accessories
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:54 pm    Post subject: scanning photos Reply with quote
I have had very poor luck (lack of skill or equipment?) digitizing film photos. I apologize if I am at the wrong site but I did look through the lists and could not figure out where to ask this question. I have been taking some decent photos with the Pentax 67 system but my scans look terrible. Judging by the images I see on this forum there must be effective ways to make it work. Currently using a multi function HP 13x19 scanner printer. Any help in this vein would be greatly appreciated.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi jamaeolus,

I've been scanning my 35mm and medium format slides and negatives for over 10 years. First of all, you should know that any all-in-one printer/scanner/fax/copier doesn't usually have sufficient resolution for doing decent scans. Did yours even come with film guides? Or templates or whatever you want to call them. Also, all decent scanners capable of scanning film have a light in the lid as well as the base.

So, really, I recommend you get a dedicated scanner. If you'll be scanning medium format images only, you can get by just fine with a scanner that has "only" 2400 dpi resolution, like Epson's 3170 or 3200. Anything higher than that is most likely just wasting drive space. 2400 dpi works ok for 35mm also, but 35mm benefits from higher resolution scans. There is a limit to the resolution that fllatbed scanners can handle and it's typically well below their claimed resolution. For example, I own an Epson 4990, with a claimed resolution of 6400 dpi, but in reality it's closer to 2000. Even Epson's much vaunted 700-series does scarcely better, topping out at around 2300-2400 dpi.

These days, I use a duplication rig with my Sony NEX 7 for duplicating 35mm slides and negatives. I have't tried it yet with medium format films, but I plan on doing it some day.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael is right. You need another scanner.
To scan medium format negatives or slides any Epson Perfection Photo scanner is very recommendable. I have the V600 which is still in production, though there are cheaper models as well. It's supporting also dust removal features and alike which is very useful. However, they are certainly a little bit more expensive compared to any "normal" scanner. Of course you can use it for 135 film as well.

That's a test scan I've done recently from a 6x4.5 negative (KODAK PORTRA 160NC) on Epson V600 Photo at medium resolution:



It's certainly not looking bad at all.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas, I should have done likewise, to give an idea of a dedicated scanner's capabilities. Interesting. A Cadillac in Austria. Drifting off-topic here, but my son-in-law is from Austria (he and my daughter are living in a small town in western Austria, close to the German border) and this guy is a nut about the old full-size Chrysler products from the 60s. Giant boats of the highway. Gas-guzzlers, to put it mildly. He even had one -- some giant Polaris or something or another -- shipped over there from the States. Sometimes I just don't know about that guy. Cool

In fact, I have some 6x4.5 Portra 160 negatives as well, plus some Tri-X from the same shoot. Both of the following images were scanned with my Epson Perfection Photo 4990, scanned at 2400 ppi.




One aspect of a scanner worth considering is something called DMax. The closer the DMax is to 4, the better the scanner is at separating detail. Some scanners, such as the Epson V700 series, are claimed to have a DMax greater than 4. Here's a link to Wikipedia explaining DMax and DMin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densitometry

Oh, one other thing worth mentioning: since you're scanning medium format negatives, if you choose to get a dedicated scanner, make sure it can handle medium format film. Not all flatbed scanners do. My old 3170 does, and I believe the 3200 does. The 4490 does and so does the 4990. I don't know about Thomas's V600, but I suspect it does.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To get results as here scan film with a photo scanner...

Vuescan software is popular. http://www.hamrick.com/ for tips & tricks for getting best from scanner you have. Results from multi function scan/print device can be ok for web use.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Indeed the Epson V600 handles 120/220 film and 135 film as well including framed slides.
Review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM
BTW, I'm using VueScan which is a very capable scanning software as well.

Michael, since the early 1970's a Cadillac used to be my "dream car" and I managed it more than 30 years later to afford one. It's really expensive in Austria to drive such a car (tax, fuel and maintenance cost). That's the reason why it's extremely rare as well. So that's the picture of my first and last Cadillac of my life shortly before I have destroyed it totally. Wink
Being already a retiree that is already far beyond my possibilities nowadays. However, at least I had it for a couple of years and I really enjoyed this car very much. For my taste there is no other car available which is able to offer more comfort for the driver (it was equipped with every available extra feature besides of the open roof which I don't like anyway).

However, I still have this specific Pontiac Bonneville in my garage (which I had already before the Cadillac):



But it's not my every day car. It' just used on special occasions.... Wink
Anyway, it's not too bad as well, though the Cadillac was by far better. But it's most probably the only one in Austria.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought a second hand Epson V500 some time ago, good quality for a good price! They come with all the film holders you need and the software is okay i think.
For 35mm i use a dedicated Minolta film scanner.

This was scanned with the V500 and Epson software (Rollei RPX100 6x6 frame):

Sherman by René Maly, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent job. I've been using the Epson Scan software from the beginning, some 11 years ago or so. I find it to be flexible yet powerful enough to get the job done, plus it handles batch scans easily. This is one aspect of VueScan I was never able to figure out. In fact, I found VS to be needlessly complex and its interface was a jumbled together hodge-podge with not much organizational thought given to it. So I've just always stayed with Epson Scan. I've never felt that I needed more.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:

For 35mm i use a dedicated Minolta film scanner.


I do it likewise. For 35mm I have the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 which is most probably on of the best (DMax 4.8 ).
However, as there is no updated original software available to work on present day software I have to use VueScan for it.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:01 pm    Post subject: Re: scanning photos Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
I have had very poor luck (lack of skill or equipment?) digitizing film photos.

Have you tried to use a digital camera instead of a scanner? A good camera body (you just need the body), an old photographic enlarger with a good enlarger lens and you're in business. If you want to achieve perfection use RAW format and make any correction in post processing.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:45 am    Post subject: Re: scanning photos Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
I have had very poor luck (lack of skill or equipment?) digitizing film photos.

Have you tried to use a digital camera instead of a scanner? A good camera body (you just need the body), an old photographic enlarger with a good enlarger lens and you're in business. If you want to achieve perfection use RAW format and make any correction in post processing.


I use a digital camera when I'm duplicating 35mm slides and negatives. Except Ektar -- still haven't figured out how to convert Ektar negs so they look right.

I don't use an enlarger, though that's a good idea. If you don' t have an enlarger, you can find bellows style slide duplicators that often use a dedicated (film) camera and lens. I've seen them on eBay. Only problem with using one of these rigs is, if your camera is APS-C, or even u4/3, you'll likely be cropping your images. But if you are using an FF digital, really the easiest way to go is to use a bellows with a slide duplicator attachment and roll film stage. You just attach a shorter focal length macro lens, like a 50-55mm to the bellows, attach the slide duplicator, and you're off to the races.

If you're using m4/3, I don't have any specific recommendations because I've never used one. But if you're using APS-C, it's possible to rig up a dupe rig using extensions with a slide holder and/or roll film stage and macro lens to get 1:1 dupes. That's what I do nowadays with my NEX 7. Its sensor delivers 4000x6000 pixel images, which is equivalent to Nikon's best CoolScans. I don't know what the dMax is when using a digital camera, but shadow detail is generally well preserved.

I'm oversimplifying the rig for APS-C somewhat. My setup evolved as I adapted various pieces to it. Here's a pic o f the rig(s) as used with an APS-C Canon and the Sony NEX. Each version delivers 1:1 dupes with the specific APS-C crop factor (1.,6x for Canon and 1.5x for Sony):




The slide stage is held on by a pair of clips. It can be slid off and a roll film stage, which also uses clips, slid on so you can dupe unmounted slides and negatives.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Michael is right. You need another scanner.
To scan medium format negatives or slides any Epson Perfection Photo scanner is very recommendable. I have the V600 which is still in production, though there are cheaper models as well. It's supporting also dust removal features and alike which is very useful. However, they are certainly a little bit more expensive compared to any "normal" scanner. Of course you can use it for 135 film as well.

That's a test scan I've done recently from a 6x4.5 negative (KODAK PORTRA 160NC) on Epson V600 Photo at medium resolution:



It's certainly not looking bad at all.


Agreed. That is a very nice looking Catera. The car came out of the GM Rüsselsheim (Germany) facility which was torn down circa 2001. That car appears to be a 1997 or 1998 model, possibly 1999.

It is very cool and special that you imported a real Catera instead of simply buying an easily found (in Europe) Opel Omega MV6.

In USA today Cateras are very nearly free since the car was not well liked except by a vanishingly small number of car crazies. You can buy a beautiful one here now for peanuts.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:

Agreed. That is a very nice looking Catera. The car came out of the GM Rüsselsheim (Germany) facility which was torn down circa 2001. That car appears to be a 1997 or 1998 model, possibly 1999.

It is very cool and special that you imported a real Catera instead of simply buying an easily found (in Europe) Opel Omega MV6.

In USA today Cateras are very nearly free since the car was not well liked except by a vanishingly small number of car crazies. You can buy a beautiful one here now for peanuts.


Sorry to correct you. That was a Cadillac Seville STS (5th generation) made in the U.S. in the year 2000. It was equipped with this engine: 4.6 L L37 Northstar V8, 300 hp (220 kW) at 6000 rpm. Unfortunately I crashed it 2010 due to icy streets and too much speed. The picture was taken shortly before the crash.

The Catera was never available in Austria and would not be considered as a real Cadillac by myself (too small and weak engines). The real Cadillacs (U.S. made) have been imported officially to Austria, though I bought it second hand as the price for a new one would have been far beyond my budget. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
guardian wrote:

Agreed. That is a very nice looking Catera. The car came out of the GM Rüsselsheim (Germany) facility which was torn down circa 2001. That car appears to be a 1997 or 1998 model, possibly 1999.

It is very cool and special that you imported a real Catera instead of simply buying an easily found (in Europe) Opel Omega MV6.

In USA today Cateras are very nearly free since the car was not well liked except by a vanishingly small number of car crazies. You can buy a beautiful one here now for peanuts.


Sorry to correct you. That was a Cadillac Seville STS (5th generation) made in the U.S. in the year 2000. It was equipped with this engine: 4.6 L L37 Northstar V8, 300 hp (220 kW) at 6000 rpm. Unfortunately I crashed it 2010 due to icy streets and too much speed. The picture was taken shortly before the crash.

The Catera was never available in Austria and would not be considered as a real Cadillac by myself (too small and weak engines). The real Cadillacs (U.S. made) have been imported officially to Austria, though I bought it second hand as the price for a new one would have been far beyond my budget. Wink


Thank you, Thomas, for correcting me. I obviously do not know my Cadillacs as well as I thought I did!! Crying or Very sad
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Adapters and other accessories
Page 1 of 1