Digital BW, The Print

I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W 
35mm negatives.  I was very disappointed with the results.  Areas in 
shadow, the details of which are visible in the negatives, were 
complete lost in a sea of black.  No way could I get Photoshop to bring 
out the details. The negatives were scanned by a high-end Nikon scanner 
(so I was told) and show up as 4,000 pixels per inch.  I asked if the 
scanning couldn't be adjusted to quiet down the blacks, and the answer 
was yes, but that this store didn't do that kind of custom work, and 
didn't want to get into same.  I was also told that the grain in the 
film made it very difficult to get a good scan.  I was given a full 
refund, which I hadn't asked for, as some of the scans were somewhat 
o.k.  So, I don't know.  Maybe I should try a different shop?  Would I 
be able to do better if I did my own scanning?  (I don't want to put a 
lot of money into a machine which I wouldn't be using all that much).  
Or is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior 
image?

Norm

Norm -

excellent questions...I, too, wonder about the limitations of  
negative scanning. I have managed to get details but for some reason  
my 35mm negs scanned seem like I've used some filter, even when I  
have not.  I have experimented with different settings in the scanner  
software, but I'm still getting "eh" results. I am scanning at the  
max res, too (12,800 dpi) and then resizing the image down to 300.  
That has given me he best results.

Another option are pro places in NYC. They may be better at scanning  
services but be prepared to pay for it. I know I can't afford to.

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net



On Dec 23, 2007, at 1:53 PM, nsams2002 wrote:

> I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W
> 35mm negatives. I was very disappointed with the results. Areas in
> shadow, the details of which are visible in the negatives, were
> complete lost in a sea of black. No way could I get Photoshop to bring
> out the details. The negatives were scanned by a high-end Nikon  
> scanner
> (so I was told) and show up as 4,000 pixels per inch. I asked if the
> scanning couldn't be adjusted to quiet down the blacks, and the answer
> was yes, but that this store didn't do that kind of custom work, and
> didn't want to get into same. I was also told that the grain in the
> film made it very difficult to get a good scan. I was given a full
> refund, which I hadn't asked for, as some of the scans were somewhat
> o.k. So, I don't know. Maybe I should try a different shop? Would I
> be able to do better if I did my own scanning? (I don't want to put a
> lot of money into a machine which I wouldn't be using all that much).
> Or is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior
> image?
>
> Norm
>
>
> 







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have happened.
I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the like.  I
get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post processing,
not preprocessing.

Harry


On 12/23/07 1:53 PM, "nsams2002" <normsams@...> wrote:

> I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W 35mm
> negatives.  I was very disappointed with the results.  Areas in shadow, the
> details of which are visible in the negatives, were complete lost in a sea
> of black.  No way could I get Photoshop to bring out the details. The
> negatives were scanned by a high-end Nikon scanner (so I was told) and show
> up as 4,000 pixels per inch.  I asked if the scanning couldn't be adjusted
> to quiet down the blacks, and the answer was yes, but that this store didn't
> do that kind of custom work, and didn't want to get into same.  I was also
> told that the grain in the film made it very difficult to get a good scan.
> I was given a full refund, which I hadn't asked for, as some of the scans
> were somewhat o.k.  So, I don't know.  Maybe I should try a different shop?
> Would I be able to do better if I did my own scanning?  (I don't want to put
> a lot of money into a machine which I wouldn't be using all that much).  Or
> is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior image?
> 
> Norm  
> 

-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Harry -

That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated  
film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,  
providing prices have dropped....


AnnMarie

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net

On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:

> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have  
> happened.
> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the  
> like. I
> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post  
> processing,
> not preprocessing.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

AnnMarie,

Contact me any time if you need further info.

Harry


On 12/23/07 3:25 PM, "AnnMarie Tornabene" <fairy69@...> wrote:

> 
> Harry -
> 
> That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
> film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
> providing prices have dropped....
> 
> AnnMarie
> 
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
> 
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
> 
>> > With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
>> > happened.
>> > I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
>> > like. I
>> > get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
>> > processing,
>> > not preprocessing.


Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Norm, How much did these “high quality” scans cost? I have a Nikon 9000 and
it works very well. Many, in fact FAR too many, scan operators could not
punch there way out of a wet paper bag with their scanning skills. On those
rare occasions that I need a scan made from a 5x7 or 8x10 neg, I have taken
them to two local scanning services, both of which had drum scanners.
However, I could do better than both of them with my Epson 3200 and
stitching them together. I went in and taught one studio how to scan with
their software/hardware and still got charged for my scans. The other time I
had them try three times with coaching all along the way. I will not be
going back.

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry
Lockwood
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Scanning Quality

 

With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have happened.
I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the like. I
get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post processing,
not preprocessing.

Harry

On 12/23/07 1:53 PM, "nsams2002" <normsams@msn. <mailto:normsams%40msn.com>
com> wrote:

> I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W
35mm
> negatives. I was very disappointed with the results. Areas in shadow, the
> details of which are visible in the negatives, were complete lost in a sea
> of black. No way could I get Photoshop to bring out the details. The
> negatives were scanned by a high-end Nikon scanner (so I was told) and
show
> up as 4,000 pixels per inch. I asked if the scanning couldn't be adjusted
> to quiet down the blacks, and the answer was yes, but that this store
didn't
> do that kind of custom work, and didn't want to get into same. I was also
> told that the grain in the film made it very difficult to get a good scan.
> I was given a full refund, which I hadn't asked for, as some of the scans
> were somewhat o.k. So, I don't know. Maybe I should try a different shop?
> Would I be able to do better if I did my own scanning? (I don't want to
put
> a lot of money into a machine which I wouldn't be using all that much). Or
> is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior image?
> 
> Norm 
> 

-- 

Harry F. Lockwood

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The nikon hasn't changed in years. I just got one at $1800 plus $400  
for a fluid mount.

Brian

On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:

> Harry -
>
> That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
> film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
> providing prices have dropped....
>
>
> AnnMarie
>
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
>
>> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
>> happened.
>> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
>> like. I
>> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
>> processing,
>> not preprocessing.
>

Used Nikon 4000 scanners are WAY less than that nowadays.  I paid just over
$1100 for mine new back around 5 years ago.  Just got a used 9000 for $1200
recently too.

Ann Marie, yes, the person running the scanner apparently has little
experience in B&W scanning.  All my 35mm work, primarily B&W, was done with
a Nikon 4000.  No, it's not easy, but with a bit of education and
self-training is not all that hard either.

Richard S.
San Francisco
My Commute Photo Blog
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/

My Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/




On 12/23/07, Brian Mikiten <bmikiten@...> wrote:
>
> The nikon hasn't changed in years. I just got one at $1800 plus $400
> for a fluid mount.
>
> Brian
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
>
> > Harry -
> >
> > That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
> > film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
> > providing prices have dropped....
> >
> >
> > AnnMarie
> >
> > AnnMarie Tornabene
> > www.annmarietornabene.net
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
> >
> >> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
> >> happened.
> >> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
> >> like. I
> >> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
> >> processing,
> >> not preprocessing.
> >
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
Sintchak" <rich815@...> wrote:
>
> Used Nikon 4000 scanners are WAY less than that nowadays.  I paid
just over
> $1100 for mine new back around 5 years ago.  Just got a used 9000
for $1200
> recently too.
> 


Do you know of another 9000 for that price?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Harry Lockwood <hflockwood@...> 
wrote:
>
> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have happened.
> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the like...

Exactly. That they stated any other approach was "custom" was a clue. You should be able to 
do much better with little or no extra cost or effort just by learning the scanner/software.
Tyler

And they aren't going to change. The market for scanning 35mm film is
just about over, and no one is shooting 2 1/4 film commercially
anymore. I'm waiting for them to stop producing these things altogether.

john






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brian Mikiten
<bmikiten@...> wrote:

>
> The nikon hasn't changed in years. I just got one at $1800 plus $400  
> for a fluid mount.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
> 
> > Harry -
> >
> > That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
> > film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
> > providing prices have dropped....
> >
> >
> > AnnMarie
> >
> > AnnMarie Tornabene
> > www.annmarietornabene.net
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
> >
> >> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
> >> happened.
> >> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
> >> like. I
> >> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
> >> processing,
> >> not preprocessing.
> >
>

It is not about the current photographers, they may indeed be shooting  
much more digital, but about the millions of films, 35mm and larger,  
to have yet been scanned. I know, I scan lots of film still.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Dec 23, 2007, at 6:58 PM, john dean wrote:

> The market for scanning 35mm film is
> just about over, and no one is shooting 2 1/4 film commercially
> anymore.
>
> john
>

>
> Or is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior
> image?
>
> Norm .
>


No, not at all, given a decent scanner and someone who knows how to  
work the software.  You'll do better with competent use of the  
software and an average scanner than you will with a great scanner  
and someone who is clueless on how to scan.  Dan Burkholder actually  
wrote to me back in my beginning days that he had $100 drum scans  
done that were terrible, unusable.

James Irelan
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 23/12/2007 nsams2002 wrote:
> Or is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior
> image?

Absolutely not.  It's slow and painful and takes a lot of post production, 
but I have managed to scan and print many negatives that were absolute 
swines via enlarger, or simply impossible to print satisfactorily - and I 
was a good bromide printer.

4000ppi is enough (given decent optics) to get 95%+ image info off the 
film, and although there are further small gains to 8,000ppi (and even 
12,000ppi), they really are small.

However it really does take a lot of work to do well. I can easily spend 
20min-2hrs on a single frame.

I always scan to 16bit via Vuescan (www.hamrick.com), then adjust curves 
and black and white point, spotting etc. Often I take images apart, create 
different versions with different 'exposure' and curves from the 16 bit 
scan, then comp them together again. I have been able to get better 
results from scanning 35mm than I was ever able to in the darkroom, using 
a Polaroid 4000. Which is, BTW, dog slow, and has no dust repair tech like 
Digital ICE (but that doesn't work on silver image films anyhow).

There are grain aliasing issues with with some film types and scanners. 
Nikons tend to be worse than other makes due to their use of 
semi-collimated LED lightsources. Diffuse lightsource filmscanners such as 
the Polaroid/Microtek and Minolta models are less picky. With my Polaroid 
4000 the only times I have seen it have been with some TMZ (ISO1600) and 
overexposed Fuji 200 colour neg. Older 2700ppi models were far more prone 
to grain aliasing, eg the LS2000 was fond of introducing 'grit' into 
midtones. A lot of people believed it was grain itself, it was in fact an 
arifact of grain sizes and distribution producing an irregular moire 
effect due to the spatial sampling frequency of the scanner.

I was never much of a grain fan and tended to shoot and process for 
fine-ish grain. The chromagenic B&W films, XP1/XP2 and Tmax CN are superb 
and scan beautifully, but ordinary silver emulsions do too unless you like 
pushed film and contrasty development when highlight densities can become 
a problem.

There are also tools like Neat Image (which I use) and Noise Ninja which 
can mitigate grain, although things go a bit plastic if overdone. Of 
course you have access to the full digital toolkit including sharpening 
for output, all of which is much more powerful than wet darkroom 
techniques. 4000ppi scans exceed in most respects what I can get from an 
EOS 1Dmk2n and it's quite possible to produce prints from images shot on 
ISO400 B&W (usually TMY) that look more like darkroom prints from ISO50.

It seems clear your shop did sloppy scans and chopped the black point, 
losing shadow detail in the process. That's just sloppy, recent scanners 
can scrape nearly every bit of shadow detail off the film and keep it 
without introducing unwanted CCD noise. Unfortunately the Polaroid and 
Minoltas are now only available s/h - the Minolta 5400 sells for more now 
than it did new.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

And there are many of us that are still shooting film....

Mark Savoia, I just went to your website and I'd like to pick your  
brain about some giclee work I will need done in the near future, if  
that is OK. What email address can I contact you at?

AnnMarie
AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net



On Dec 23, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> It is not about the current photographers, they may indeed be shooting
> much more digital, but about the millions of films, 35mm and larger,
> to have yet been scanned. I know, I scan lots of film still.
>
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 6:58 PM, john dean wrote:
>
> > The market for scanning 35mm film is
> > just about over, and no one is shooting 2 1/4 film commercially
> > anymore.
> >
> > john
> >
>
>
> 







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I shoot film totally also, 4x5, drum scanned. But the market for
people buying ccd Nikon scanners for 35mm is quickly becoming a thing
of the past. 

j



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie
Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote:

>
> And there are many of us that are still shooting film....
> 
> Mark Savoia, I just went to your website and I'd like to pick your  
> brain about some giclee work I will need done in the near future, if  
> that is OK. What email address can I contact you at?
> 
> AnnMarie
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
> 
> > It is not about the current photographers, they may indeed be shooting
> > much more digital, but about the millions of films, 35mm and larger,
> > to have yet been scanned. I know, I scan lots of film still.
> >
> > Mark
> > http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 6:58 PM, john dean wrote:
> >
> > > The market for scanning 35mm film is
> > > just about over, and no one is shooting 2 1/4 film commercially
> > > anymore.
> > >
> > > john
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In view of the periodic vanishing and reappearance of Nikon scanners
in dealer inventories, and statements from dealers (KEH) it's evident
that there's a continuing market for 35mm scanners.  

Epson's 500, 700, and 750 surely weren't introduced simply to serve
the vanishing 120 and tiny, wannabe Ansel markets.

>
> I shoot film totally also, 4x5, drum scanned. But the market for
> people buying ccd Nikon scanners for 35mm is quickly becoming a thing
> of the past. 
> 
> j
>

Do it yourself. Expecting good work from a "photo store" is silly. If
they were competent they wouldn't be in that business. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "nsams2002"
<normsams@...> wrote:

>
> I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W 
> 35mm negatives.  I was very disappointed with the results.

Sorry...I thought we were discussing the 9000ED.

Brian

On Dec 23, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Richard Sintchak wrote:

> Used Nikon 4000 scanners are WAY less than that nowadays.  I paid  
> just over
> $1100 for mine new back around 5 years ago.  Just got a used 9000  
> for $1200
> recently too.
>
>
> On 12/23/07, Brian Mikiten <bmikiten@...> wrote:
>>
>> The nikon hasn't changed in years. I just got one at $1800 plus $400
>> for a fluid mount.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
>>
>>> Harry -
>>>
>>> That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
>>> film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
>>> providing prices have dropped....
>>>
>>>
>>> AnnMarie
>>>
>>> AnnMarie Tornabene
>>> www.annmarietornabene.net
>>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
>>>
>>>> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
>>>> happened.
>>>> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
>>>> like. I
>>>> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
>>>> processing,
>>>> not preprocessing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the  
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE  
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH  
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE  
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR  
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;  
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>  Regards
>
>  Tony Sleep
> http://tonysleep.co.uk

Hello Tony,
I haven't seen your name in pixels in a while. Glad to see you pop up 
on this list. Still haven't gotten back into motorcycles much, kids you 
know.
BTW for those who don't know, Tony is a great guy who ran one of the 
first listserves I joined up on. Love the random image on your website 
too.

Back on topic. I was given a 5000 to play with for a couple of months 
and I certainly didn't spend a lot of time playing with settings as I 
am too darn busy.
I did scan several of my favorite images both color and black and 
white. Not all but a few I was able to take straight to my 7600 and 
(using Imageprint) produced some 24x36 that matched my darkroom output 
of same extremely well. I showed a couple of other photogs side by side 
with fiber darkroom output and Epson premium luster and they were 
amazed as well. This was with a levels adjustment, retouch for dust and 
print.

Maybe I am too easy to please but this was fun. Printing color OTH has 
taken a bit more work. They didn't seem to be as sharp as the bw but my 
eyes are starting to go anyway. Too many years reading in a tent by 
headlamp me thinks.

Merry Christmas and Holy Happydays to all,
Jerry


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

THANKS for the link to TONY SLEEP...

http://tonysleep. co.uk

Wish I made such good connections with subjects. 

I hope it's a matter of dues being paid :-)

John/Albuquerque

Brian,

Can you point me to info on a fluid mount for the Nikon?

Harry


On 12/23/07 5:07 PM, "Brian Mikiten" <bmikiten@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> The nikon hasn't changed in years. I just got one at $1800 plus $400
> for a fluid mount.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
> 
>> > Harry -
>> >
>> > That actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't researched dedicated
>> > film scanners in a long time. Maybe I should look into it again,
>> > providing prices have dropped....
>> >
>> >
>> > AnnMarie
>> >
>> > AnnMarie Tornabene
>> > www.annmarietornabene.net
>> >
>> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
>> >
>>> >> With a ³high end² Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi, that should not have
>>> >> happened.
>>> >> I suspect they did the scans with some auto levels or curves or the
>>> >> like. I
>>> >> get excellent B&W scans from my Nikon 4000 ED, and then do post
>>> >> processing,
>>> >> not preprocessing.
> 
> 


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eric asked:  "Norm, How much did these "high quality" scans cost?"

To answer, the cost would have been a dollar per image.  By the way, 
the store owner was speaking of a "high quality SCANNER," not the final 
product.  One doesn't necessarily mean the other, as I found out!!

Norm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Do it yourself. Expecting good work from a "photo store" is silly. If
> they were competent they wouldn't be in that business. 
> 
> 
That's a ridiculous statement.
Jack

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" 
<jnhugo@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
> <djon43@> wrote:
> >
> > Do it yourself. Expecting good work from a "photo store" is 
silly. If
> > they were competent they wouldn't be in that business. 
> > 
> > 
> That's a ridiculous statement.
> Jack

Whoops! Somehow parts of my message didn't get posted. The missing 
part was something like: I rely on the sales people at Samy's and 
Calumet here in Los Angeles for up to date product information. Some 
of them I have been doing business with for more than 30 years. The 
people I deal with are competent and have dedicated their 
professional careers to sales of equipment that demand specialized 
knowledge and training. A dismissive blanket statement as posted 
above by dj43 is not accurate or fair (and kind of elitist in a 
smary sort of way) that is why I consider it 
a ridiculous statement.
JN

Well, for a dollar a scan what does one really expect? This is the typical
lab problem. If you happen to either learn their sweet spot, already shot
within it, your prints, scans, etc can turn out quite nice. If however, you
land outside their sweet spot, your product may REALLY suffer. It is the
reality of too many labs. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nsams2002
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 11:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Scanning Quality

 

Eric asked: "Norm, How much did these "high quality" scans cost?"

To answer, the cost would have been a dollar per image. By the way, 
the store owner was speaking of a "high quality SCANNER," not the final 
product. One doesn't necessarily mean the other, as I found out!!

Norm

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If you want good work, especially from small and medium format, avoid
labs at all costs. Get a scanner. Do it yourself.  

Ask your lab tech how much s/he's paid.

They were paid $12/hr BOTTOM in good labs in San Francisco in the 80's


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jack"
<jnhugo@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
> <djon43@> wrote:
> >
> > Do it yourself. Expecting good work from a "photo store" is silly. If
> > they were competent they wouldn't be in that business. 
> > 
> > 
> That's a ridiculous statement.
> Jack
>

For the best quality with B+W negatives, get a scanner with fluid mount capabilities. Most, if 
not all, of the scratches will be removed, and it will even smooth out the grain. I use an 
Epson v750 with the fluid mount kit from

http://www.fluidmounting.com/.

35mm to 8x10, I have had excellent results with this scanner. Some people don't like flatbed 
scanners, but I am more than happy, especially  with the advantages it offers over a 
dedicated film scanner. My last scanner was a Nikon Coolscan 4000ed, and personally, I 
would never go back.

Having overstated my point, I must apologize to the lab owners out
there who may hire skilled people, DO pay comparably to automotive
mechanics, and train budding professionals to a high level of
expertise...or may even be one-person shops, doing their own work.
 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> If you want good work, especially from small and medium format, avoid
> labs at all costs. Get a scanner. Do it yourself.  
> 
> Ask your lab tech how much s/he's paid.
> 
> They were paid $12/hr BOTTOM in good labs in San Francisco in the 80's
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jack"
> <jnhugo@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
> > <djon43@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do it yourself. Expecting good work from a "photo store" is
silly. If

> > > they were competent they wouldn't be in that business. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > That's a ridiculous statement.
> > Jack
> >
>

The 4000 was, like 5000, especially suited to long rolls. It had focus
difficulties that were solved by 5000. 

Ice does a great job with mild scratches, but if someone's stuck with
bad scratches (bad handling, minilabs etc) fluid mounting clearly helps.

"grain smoothing" is a dubious plus wet mounting...that is, grain
isn't evil in everybody's eyes...many of us value it. 

Vuescan gives a nice degree of control over grain, from condenser
enlarger size to smaller.:  amazing, in fact. 

And no, Ice4 and Vuescan in an Ice4 machine do not soften grain or
details, though earlier versions of Ice may.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "screamingeo"
<screamingeo@...> wrote:
>
> For the best quality with B+W negatives, get a scanner with fluid
mount capabilities. Most, if 
> not all, of the scratches will be removed, and it will even smooth
out the grain. I use an 
> Epson v750 with the fluid mount kit from
> 
> http://www.fluidmounting.com/.
> 
> 35mm to 8x10, I have had excellent results with this scanner. Some
people don't like flatbed 
> scanners, but I am more than happy, especially  with the advantages
it offers over a 
> dedicated film scanner. My last scanner was a Nikon Coolscan 4000ed,
and personally, I 
> would never go back.
>

screamingeo wrote:
> For the best quality with B+W negatives, get a scanner with fluid mount capabilities. Most, if 
> not all, of the scratches will be removed, and it will even smooth out the grain. I use an 
> Epson v750 with the fluid mount kit from
> 
> http://www.fluidmounting.com/.
> 
> 35mm to 8x10, I have had excellent results with this scanner. Some people don't like flatbed 
> scanners, but I am more than happy, especially  with the advantages it offers over a 
> dedicated film scanner. My last scanner was a Nikon Coolscan 4000ed, and personally, I 
> would never go back. 

It does a lot but not smooth out grain or it must be a matte 
emulsion layer that will show less light diffraction by wet 
mounting.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

I am a lab and resent that. Don't assume that because you have had bad  
results, it is a global thing.
Mark

On Dec 24, 2007, at 5:50 PM, djon43 wrote:

> If you want good work, especially from small and medium format, avoid
> labs at all costs. Get a scanner. Do it yourself.

Mark, 

It's hard for me to believe a really good lab owner/operator
(yourself) thinks labs in general do a good job. 

Presumably your work is at least better-than-average (ie better than
half of the labs in the United States). 

Presumably you'd discourage dealing with worse-than-average (the lower
50%). 

Further, wouldn't you recommend dealing with the upper quartile,
avoiding all the others ?

That means avoiding 75% of all labs.

++++ In addition to "resenting" (which is understandable) I hope
you'll give us guidelines for selecting labs. 

Obviously, there are better selection methods than simply asking online...

What do you suggest? 

"Working with" a lab over time, while the lab learns its craft or the
photographer learns the lab's limits, is a longtime traditional
approach. Do you recommend that? 

I suppose if someone asked enough pros, they'd come up with useful
recommendations, if pros had time to respond to every query. Around
here, the pros seem to do their own work. 

Mark, I apologize for making you unhappy...your posts have always been
very useful. 

John / Albuquerque




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:

>
> I am a lab and resent that. Don't assume that because you have had bad  
> results, it is a global thing.
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 5:50 PM, djon43 wrote:
> 
> > If you want good work, especially from small and medium format, avoid
> > labs at all costs. Get a scanner. Do it yourself.
>

It takes awhile to learn the idiosyncrasies of scanning.  Having worked 
in two consumer labs, they only do the most basic of training, and they 
buy the most automated equipment that they can.  The idea is to make the 
positions as unskilled as possible, because then you'll have the biggest 
pool of people who can do the job, and we all know that the more people 
can do the job, the less the company has to pay them.  Pro labs can 
charge more, and so they can indulge in more training, but only to the 
point where the work will support that training, and my guess is that 
there's relatively little call for digitalizing negatives.  For awhile 
many commercial studios still shot film, and this provided the volume 
(and budgets) that supported first rate scanning.  But since commercial 
studios are overwhelmingly using digital capture, this is no longer the 
case. At my studio, they want to scan some of their old film images for 
stock, and so they bought a Nikon Coolscan 5000.  Even so, they have a 
stylist (who doesn't know anything about scanning) do the scanning.  I 
helped her out a little, but they clearly aren't willing to pay me (a 
lowly assistant who does, however, have a fair bit of scanning 
experience) to spend the time to do a good job. Intermediate hobby/fine 
art photographers tend to get their own scanners, and so all that leaves 
is high-end hobby/art photographers/archivists who will generally be 
willing to pay for a good scan, although these people will probably 
require significantly less scans than the commercial people needed in 
the past, excepting perhaps the archivists.  Given the cost of really 
good scanners, either drum scanners or high-end flatbeds, we should 
either be willing to buy the equipment ourselves, or we should support 
the fairly small group of excellent scanning outfits.  These are 
difficult to find.  There are a number of places that sell on cost, and 
it's doubtful that they do excellent work.  In addition, there are a 
number of fine art photographers who have a high-end scanner for their 
own work, and they do scans to help pay from the equipment.  That's not 
a bad idea, but these people would probably rather be out photographing 
or working on their own stuff rather then doing other people's scans, 
and they might look at the scanning as a hobby rather than a business.  
Personally, I haven't found someone who gives the quality, service and 
fair price that I"m looking for.

Two issues John. Labs are just like any other business; there are good ones
and bad ones with degrees of each.  For far too many of their customers the
most important aspect is turnaround time NOT quality. Even when the larger
labs wish to make a quality product, too much of that time pressure will not
allow for it. If you want a cheap service many times quality will suffer
because despite the best "automatic" there is, the human eye will be the
best tool to use and a well trained calibrated eye takes years and doesn't
come cheap. 

 

12/hr in the early 80's wasn't a bad wage for a low responsibility position.
The 80's in the SF Bay Area certainly saw a big jump in wages like many
other large metro areas. Custom cost money.

 

I do offer custom printing services but I don't consider myself a lab
although looking in my darkroom one might be hard pressed to say exactly
what science projects are taking place there ( read_ it sure looks like a
lab). I took your first comment to be not to expect good to great results
out of "labs" one might find in the corner drug store or even in some well
known camera stores. Your second set on this to Mark, directs one to think
about the higher end labs. Some professional photographers are clueless as
to what labs actually do, some are quite aware of what we can and cannot do.

 

A good lab has some one running the show that understand how to take average
scenes and make them look as good as they can with the least amount of
effort. Great labs offer some one on staff to actually make a average shot
into something great but it comes at a price. To me, this is where you start
crossing the line between ownership of the image. Work for hire in a sense.
(Photogs name and labs image skills) 

 

How ever back to topic. Scanning is obviously just like taking the original
capture to film when it comes to exposure. Automatic exposure might work,
but for serious work most will choose to go with manual control and precise
development. 

 

Eric 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 4:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B&W Scanning Quality

 

If you want good work, especially from small and medium format, avoid
labs at all costs. Get a scanner. Do it yourself. 

Ask your lab tech how much s/he's paid.

They were paid $12/hr BOTTOM in good labs in San Francisco in the 80's

.

.

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
=89387/stime=1198536660/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4507179> 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter, You claim to have a fair bit of experience both in photography and in
scanning. What do you consider a "fair" price to be then that meet your
needs? Yes, it's a tough question. You know how look it can take on both
easy negs and thin flat  negs. And at that fair price how many people will
you attract to a scanning service when many shop by price and turnaround? 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 01:32 PM 12/25/2007, Peter De Smidt wrote:

>It takes awhile to learn the idiosyncrasies of scanning. Having worked
>in two consumer labs . . .

and with the broad sweep of an irresponsible pen, damn all labs.

There are, of course, excellent professional solutions out 
there.  Nancy Scans is certainly one, but most pro labs are well set 
up to scan negatives and produce fine results.  And not all 
photographers who scan "on the side" should be written off.

Free free to criticize or praise individual providers, but, please, 
no such broad sweep of the pen.

	A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
	-------------------------------------------------
	Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
	Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
	www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@...

	More dance images  www.f64gallery.com/arthur.html
                    www.arthurfinkphoto.com/BatesShow2007

> At 01:32 PM 12/25/2007, Peter De Smidt wrote:
>
> >It takes awhile to learn the idiosyncrasies of scanning. Having worked
> >in two consumer labs . . .
>
> and with the broad sweep of an irresponsible pen, damn all labs.
>
> There are, of course, excellent professional solutions out
> there. Nancy Scans is certainly one, but most pro labs are well set
> up to scan negatives and produce fine results. And not all
> photographers who scan "on the side" should be written off.
>
> Free free to criticize or praise individual providers, but, please,
> no such broad sweep of the pen.
>
> A r t h u r . F i n k . P h o t o g r a p h y

I didn't say or imply "damn all labs."  I did generalize about consumer 
labs, but furthermore I pointed out the sample size and presented 
reasoning as to some of the issues with film scanning as a business. If 
some of those points are wrong, I'd be in your dept if you pointed them 
out. A generalization is nothing more than something that is claimed to 
be generally true.  Hence, exceptions are perfectly compatible with the 
truth of a generalization. Are there some really good consumer labs out 
there? I hope so, and maybe you'd point some out?  You do mention 
Nancy.scans, but I've read too many horror stories about them to trust 
them with my negatives.  And I didn't say that photographer's who scan 
on the side should be written off. (I happen to be a photographer who 
scans on the side for friends.  I do charge them money, but not nearly 
what it'd cost to make it a viable business.) All I did was point out 
some possible issues with dealing with them, issues that I've 
experienced first hand.

I won't spend any more time today dealing with ad hominems, e.g. 
"irresponsible",  or straw man arguments. It's time for some cookies.

In the business world in which I lived for many years we had a saying,
"Quality, time, cost.  Pick two!"  Fine scanning, like fine printing
is as much art as craft.

Eric asked me what I expected for a dollar a scan.  Well, I wasn't 
looking for perfection, but I did expect better than what I got.  For 
example, an image which is so black it's unrecognizable, isn't 
acceptable...even for a dollar.  What I've decided to do is invest a 
hundred dollars in an Epson V200.  For that little money, I'm not 
expecting miracles.  I'm also going to try using it with Vuescan 
software.  Anyone able to compare the software which comes with an 
Epson scanner with that of Vuescan?  Anyway I'm going to see if I can't 
come up with something better than what I got from the photo store.  
I'll report back.  This turned out to be quite a discussion, ranging 
from wages in San Franciso to....hmmm, you name it.  Thanks to everyone 
for their input...or should I say "output"?

Norm

I used VueScan with my Polaroid SS4000 scanner in place of the Polaroid
scanning software and have been very pleased with the results.

 

The question now of course is how much effort do you intend to put into your
own scanning?  You have to learn the hardware and the software otherwise you
will get the equivalent of fifty cent scans.  Believe me I know, been there
and done that!

 

Good luck!

 

Tom

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nsams2002
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:27 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B&W Scanning Quality

 

Eric asked me what I expected for a dollar a scan. Well, I wasn't 
looking for perfection, but I did expect better than what I got. For 
example, an image which is so black it's unrecognizable, isn't 
acceptable...even for a dollar. What I've decided to do is invest a 
hundred dollars in an Epson V200. For that little money, I'm not 
expecting miracles. I'm also going to try using it with Vuescan 
software. Anyone able to compare the software which comes with an 
Epson scanner with that of Vuescan? Anyway I'm going to see if I can't 
come up with something better than what I got from the photo store. 
I'll report back. This turned out to be quite a discussion, ranging 
from wages in San Franciso to....hmmm, you name it. Thanks to everyone 
for their input...or should I say "output"?

Norm 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]