Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2007-12-29 by nsams2002
I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost of 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as levels, etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to what I got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do it. Norm
2007-12-30 by Tony Wells
I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this post about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made me think back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the Homeric mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most Dip'n'Dunks, over here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their ordinary budget D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the same as was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. 1,000-1,200 x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / reframed) A4 prints were pretty dire! This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the major nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had several levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I actually mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, and why I bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose exponentially, with an extra \ufffd6 or \ufffd7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the 3,000 x 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining about shop scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also whether they are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap bulk prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were being merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. Tony Wells.
----- Original Message ----- From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost of 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as levels, etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to what I got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do it. Norm
2008-01-03 by paulvtt
Hi I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at home. A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am curious What arer people using today? Paulv --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" <oaksfield@...> wrote: > > I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this post > about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made me think > back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the Homeric > mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most Dip'n'Dunks, over > here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their ordinary budget > D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the same as > was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. 1,000-1,200 > x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / reframed) > A4 prints were pretty dire! > > This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the major > nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had several > levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I actually > mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, and why I > bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose exponentially, with > an extra £6 or £7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the 3,000 x > 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! > > The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining about shop > scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also whether they > are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap bulk > prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were being > merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. > > Tony Wells. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality > > > I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost of > 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as levels, > etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to what I > got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the > Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do it.
> > Norm >
2008-01-03 by Mark Savoia
Fuji FineScan 5000 Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:13 AM, paulvtt wrote: > Hi > > I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent > conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for > certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners > (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at > home. > > A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan > and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am > curious > > What arer people using today? > > Paulv > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" > <oaksfield@...> wrote: >> >> I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this > post >> about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made > me think >> back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the > Homeric >> mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most > Dip'n'Dunks, over >> here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their > ordinary budget >> D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the > same as >> was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. > 1,000-1,200 >> x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / > reframed) >> A4 prints were pretty dire! >> >> This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the > major >> nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had > several >> levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I > actually >> mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, > and why I >> bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose > exponentially, with >> an extra �6 or �7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the > 3,000 x >> 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! >> >> The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining > about shop >> scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also > whether they >> are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap > bulk >> prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were > being >> merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. >> >> Tony Wells. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> >> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM >> Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality >> >> >> I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost > of >> 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as > levels, >> etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to > what I >> got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the >> Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do > it. >> >> Norm >> > > > > > 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 > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no matter what size the image is. AnnMarie www.annmarietornabene.net > Hi > > I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent > conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for > certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners > (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at > home. > > A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan > and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am > curious > > What arer people using today? > > Paulv > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" > <oaksfield@...> wrote: > > > > I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this > post > > about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made > me think > > back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the > Homeric > > mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most > Dip'n'Dunks, over > > here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their > ordinary budget > > D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the > same as > > was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. > 1,000-1,200 > > x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / > reframed) > > A4 prints were pretty dire! > > > > This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the > major > > nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had > several > > levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I > actually > > mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, > and why I > > bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose > exponentially, with > > an extra �6 or �7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the > 3,000 x > > 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! > > > > The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining > about shop > > scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also > whether they > > are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap > bulk > > prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were > being > > merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. > > > > Tony Wells. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM > > Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality > > > > > > I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost > of > > 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as > levels, > > etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to > what I > > got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the > > Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do > it. > > > > Norm > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Greg
Depends on the size of the film and the depth of the pockets. Large film and deep pockets - current or factory refurbished drum scanner Large film, shallow pockets - "high" end flatbed (Microtek M1???) Small film mid deep pockets - something like the Nikon 9000 or maybe a used drum scanner. 35mm and shallow pockets one of the newest Nikon film scanners that will only go to 35mm size.
2008-01-03 by Mark Savoia
Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no > matter what size the image is. > > AnnMarie > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > >> Hi >> >> I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent >> conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for >> certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners >> (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at >> home. >> >> A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan >> and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am >> curious >> >> What arer people using today? >> >> Paulv >> >> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" >> <oaksfield@...> wrote: >>> >>> I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this >> post >>> about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made >> me think >>> back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the >> Homeric >>> mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most >> Dip'n'Dunks, over >>> here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their >> ordinary budget >>> D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the >> same as >>> was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. >> 1,000-1,200 >>> x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / >> reframed) >>> A4 prints were pretty dire! >>> >>> This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the >> major >>> nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had >> several >>> levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I >> actually >>> mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, >> and why I >>> bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose >> exponentially, with >>> an extra £6 or £7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the >> 3,000 x >>> 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! >>> >>> The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining >> about shop >>> scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also >> whether they >>> are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap >> bulk >>> prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were >> being >>> merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. >>> >>> Tony Wells. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> >>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM >>> Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality >>> >>> >>> I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost >> of >>> 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as >> levels, >>> etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to >> what I >>> got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the >>> Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do >> it. >>> >>> Norm >>> >> >> >> > > > > [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 > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... AnnMarie www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > > Mark > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > > (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no > > matter what size the image is. > > > > AnnMarie > > > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Mark Savoia
Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is 4800, so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are interpolating. Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... > > AnnMarie > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > >> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? >> >> Mark >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >> >>> I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I >>> shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution >>> (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no >>> matter what size the image is. >>> >>> AnnMarie >>> >>> www.annmarietornabene.net >>> >> > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Actually, my bad....you are right. Hmm......now I need to see what the difference is. Honestly, I've had great results scanning this way since I got the printer, about 2 years ago.... AnnMarie www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is 4800, > so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are > interpolating. > > Mark > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... > > > > AnnMarie > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > > >> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > >> > >> Mark > >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Mark Savoia
What it will come down to, does the scanner do a better job at interpolation then Photoshop or a third party software. Tests are the only way to tell I guess. Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > Actually, my bad....you are right. Hmm......now I need to see what > the difference is. Honestly, I've had great results scanning this way > since I got the printer, about 2 years ago.... > > AnnMarie > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > >> Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is 4800, >> so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are >> interpolating. >> >> Mark >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >> >>> Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... >>> >>> AnnMarie >>> www.annmarietornabene.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: >>> >>>> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >> > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Hehe - what I meant to say is I've had great results since I got the scanner (I am still asleep). I suppose you are right in testing it out....Thanks for the correction! AnnMarie www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > What it will come down to, does the scanner do a better job at > interpolation then Photoshop or a third party software. Tests are the > only way to tell I guess. > > Mark > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > Actually, my bad....you are right. Hmm......now I need to see what > > the difference is. Honestly, I've had great results scanning this > way > > since I got the printer, about 2 years ago.... > > > > AnnMarie > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > > >> Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is > 4800, > >> so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are > >> interpolating. > >> > >> Mark > >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com > >> > >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > >> > >>> Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... > >>> > >>> AnnMarie > >>> www.annmarietornabene.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > >>> > >>>> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > >>>> > >>>> Mark > >>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Richard Sintchak
AnnMarie, yes, it is interpolating up. No doubt the results can look good but the scanner is making up pixels along the way and takine MUCH longer for no "true" benefit. I use my 4990 and scan at 2400 finding that 4800 and the extra time it takes really not worth it for the sizes I print and I get wonderful results. I use a Nikon LS-4000 for my 35mm work and got a 9000 a few months ago too. The 9000 blows the doors off the 4990 but is more time-consuming to set up and prep the neg, much slower process overall (no real batch scanning using the glass holder) and indeed scans slowly too so I still use the 4990 a lot. Richard S. San Francisco My Commute Photo Blog http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/ My Flickr Page http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/
On 1/3/08, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: > Hehe - what I meant to say is I've had great results since I got the > scanner (I am still asleep). I suppose you are right in testing it > out....Thanks for the correction! > > AnnMarie > www.annmarietornabene.net > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > > What it will come down to, does the scanner do a better job at > > interpolation then Photoshop or a third party software. Tests are the > > only way to tell I guess. > > > > Mark > > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > > > Actually, my bad....you are right. Hmm......now I need to see what > > > the difference is. Honestly, I've had great results scanning this > > way > > > since I got the printer, about 2 years ago.... > > > > > > AnnMarie > > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > > > > >> Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is > > 4800, > > >> so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are > > >> interpolating. > > >> > > >> Mark > > >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > >> > > >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... > > >>> > > >>> AnnMarie > > >>> www.annmarietornabene.net > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > > >>>> > > >>>> Mark > > >>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > >
2008-01-03 by Carl Schofield
I use a Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm and Epson V700 for 4x5. Carl Schofield http://photos.schophoto.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Richard Sintchak wrote: > AnnMarie, yes, it is interpolating up. No doubt the results can look > good but the scanner is making up pixels along the way and takine MUCH > longer for no "true" benefit. I use my 4990 and scan at 2400 finding > that 4800 and the extra time it takes really not worth it for the > sizes I print and I get wonderful results. I use a Nikon LS-4000 for > my 35mm work and got a 9000 a few months ago too. The 9000 blows the > doors off the 4990 but is more time-consuming to set up and prep the > neg, much slower process overall (no real batch scanning using the > glass holder) and indeed scans slowly too so I still use the 4990 a > lot. > > Richard S. > San Francisco > > My Commute Photo Blog > http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/ > > My Flickr Page > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/ > > > On 1/3/08, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: >> Hehe - what I meant to say is I've had great results since I got the >> scanner (I am still asleep). I suppose you are right in testing it >> out....Thanks for the correction! >> >> AnnMarie >> www.annmarietornabene.net >> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: >> >>> What it will come down to, does the scanner do a better job at >>> interpolation then Photoshop or a third party software. Tests are >>> the >>> only way to tell I guess. >>> >>> Mark >>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:09 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >>> >>>> Actually, my bad....you are right. Hmm......now I need to see what >>>> the difference is. Honestly, I've had great results scanning this >>> way >>>> since I got the printer, about 2 years ago.... >>>> >>>> AnnMarie >>>> www.annmarietornabene.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hate to burst your bubble but I looked it up quickly and it is >>> 4800, >>>>> so if you are scanning at anything higher then that you are >>>>> interpolating. >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... >>>>>> >>>>>> AnnMarie >>>>>> www.annmarietornabene.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Ender100@aol.com
Imacon 848, which I especially like for my 35 mm B&W negatives. Best Wishes, Mark Nelson Precision Digital Negatives PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups Mark I. Nelson Photography In a message dated 1/3/08 8:14:04 AM, paulv@... writes: > > Hi > > I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent > conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for > certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners > (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at > home. > > A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan > and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am > curious > > What arer people using today? > > > ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Peter De Smidt
Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm, using Nikon Scan for color and Vuescan for BW. Canon 9950F for medium and large format, using Vuescan.
2008-01-03 by Tony Wells
Minolta Dual Scan IV, but I can only print up to A4 at the moment so probably don't need any higher resolution - it still gives me the equivalent of around a 15MB digital camera from a 35mm negative. Tony Wells.
On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:13 AM, paulvtt wrote: > Hi > > I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent > conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for > certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners > (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at > home. > > A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan > and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am > curious > > What arer people using today? > > Paulv >
2008-01-03 by Dana H. Myers
Mark Savoia wrote: > > > Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? No. The 4990 non-interpolated resolution is 4800dpi, but I suspect it's closer to 3000 dpi in reality. The 12,800 dpi resolution is interpolated. AnnMarie, have you tried scanning at 4800dpi and reducing to 300 dpi? I would expect the ultimate 300dpi scans to be identical to what you're getting now, and the process should be quite a bit faster. > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > > (which is 12,800 ppi) Dana
2008-01-03 by Mark Savoia
I guess from all the answers being given there is no real "winner" out there, many scanners, many users, and many happy results. So what did this prove? :) Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Peter De Smidt wrote: > Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm, using Nikon Scan for color and Vuescan for > BW. Canon 9950F for medium and large format, using Vuescan. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
You see? This is precisely why I joined this group. I laugh at when I hear art students still in their freshmen year of college say "when I graduate, I am done learning". Thank you all for the advice. As soon as I have a chance, I will test out all theories and see what works :) By the way, there *was* an actual reason I ended up scanning at the max resolution when I first got the scanner and for the life of me, I can't remember. By the way, I don't shoot much color but I have never had any luck scanning color negatives with this scanner. The negatives have always scanned extremely grainy and contrasty beyond even the norm. Anyone else experience this problem? Any quick fixes? AnnMarie www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Dana H. Myers wrote: > Mark Savoia wrote: > > > > > > Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > > No. The 4990 non-interpolated resolution is 4800dpi, > but I suspect it's closer to 3000 dpi in reality. The > 12,800 dpi resolution is interpolated. > > AnnMarie, have you tried scanning at 4800dpi and reducing > to 300 dpi? I would expect the ultimate 300dpi scans to be > identical to what you're getting now, and the process should > be quite a bit faster. > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > > > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > > > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > > > (which is 12,800 ppi) > > Dana > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Juan Riera
I use an Epson V750 Pro for b&w negatives and colour transparencies fom 35 mm to 13x18 cm. I'm quite satisfied with results above 6x6 cm, but not with 35 mm scans. I have an old Minolta Dual Scan II that's no match either. Most of the scanning is done with Epson software in professional mode, but on difficult negative scans I use Silverfast SE that comes with scanner, doing multipass mode. The scanner has a wet mount option that I have never used, maybe because I'm too lazy to do the neg preparation and I'm quite satisfied with results. My prints goes only to A3 size in Epson 2400, so I don't enlarge very much. My 35 mm b&w negatives are too dense in shadows and at date I couldn't get a good scan from any of them. Juan Riera www.juanriera.net
2008-01-03 by Jim Zietz
I use a Nikon 9000 and an Epson 750 (depending on format), but for bw scans I really like my old Leafscan 45. It takes much more time, but the results are better and it scans everything from 35 to 4x5. Ideally I would have an Imacon. jz > Re: Scanners being used > Posted by: "paulvtt" paulv@... paulvtt > Date: Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:13 am ((PST)) > > Hi > > I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent > conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for > certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners > (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at > home. > > A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan > and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am > curious > > What arer people using today? > > Paulv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the 12,800. What's that old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But I do appreciate the advice as always. Thank you! :D AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Dana H. Myers
AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at > 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I > suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge > amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick > jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning > at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works > and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look > slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the > 12,800. Wait; did you convert to 300dpi after scanning at the various resolutions? How are you comparing the various scans? Since the scanner is limited to 4800 dpi resolution at best, the 12,800 dpi scan isn't showing you anything that isn't in the 4800 dpi scan - those additional pixels in the 12,800 dpi scan are the result of interpolation. I'm not saying that the 12,800 dpi scan doesn't look better, I'm just curious how you're comparing them. In your first note, you said that you scan at high res, then resize to 300 dpi no matter what, so I'm curious if that's how you did the above tests. Cheers, Dana
> What's that old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But I do > appreciate the advice as always. Thank you! :D > > AnnMarie > > AnnMarie Tornabene > www.annmarietornabene.net > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
2008-01-03 by Richard Sintchak
>>>There is a huge amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800 Something is not right here. There should be no such pixelation at that res nor the jumps in tonality. I never see any of that at 2400 dpi with my 4990. Are you scanning in high-bit? Greyscale? What size neg? Richard S. On 1/3/08, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: > > Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at > 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I > suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge > amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick > jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning > at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works > and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look > slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the > 12,800. > > What's that old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But I do > appreciate the advice as always. Thank you! :D > > AnnMarie > > AnnMarie Tornabene > www.annmarietornabene.net > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Hoppy
Hi AnnMarie. I have that scanner too, as well as a Nikon for 35mm. The maximum optical resolution of the Epson 4990 is 4800dpi. As you noted, interpolation is not the right way to go. So you can reduce those original scan file sizes with no loss. Cheeers Geoff --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: > > Yes, Mark, I believe it is...I'm not a fan of interpolation... > > AnnMarie > www.annmarietornabene.net > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Mark Savoia wrote: > > > Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > > > > Mark > > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > > > > > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > > > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > > > (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no
> > > matter what size the image is. > > > > > > AnnMarie > > > > > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Dana - I scanned in at 4800 and resized to 300 - same as when I scanned at 12,800. Then I zoomed them both in at 100% and looked at the difference. It's what I see anyway. What can I say? AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Dana H. Myers wrote: > AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >> >> >> Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at >> 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I >> suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge >> amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick >> jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning >> at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works >> and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look >> slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the >> 12,800. > > Wait; did you convert to 300dpi after scanning at the various > resolutions? How are you comparing the various scans? > > Since the scanner is limited to 4800 dpi resolution at best, > the 12,800 dpi scan isn't showing you anything that isn't in > the 4800 dpi scan - those additional pixels in the 12,800 dpi > scan are the result of interpolation. > > I'm not saying that the 12,800 dpi scan doesn't look better, > I'm just curious how you're comparing them. > > In your first note, you said that you scan at high res, then > resize to 300 dpi no matter what, so I'm curious if that's > how you did the above tests. > > Cheers, > Dana > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Clayton Price
<<<I use a Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm and Epson V700 for 4x5. <<<Imacon 848, which I especially like for my 35 mm B&W negatives. I'm using a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi-pro - a great film scanner which scans from 6X9 down to 16 mm. Some have compared them favorably to Imacon, and I believe they are close. The main trouble is that the scanner is no longer made, and I've heard that parts can be obtained, but perhaps with difficulty from third party's, so it's future usefulness is somewhat up in the air, sorry to say. Clay Price [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Richard - I would agree with you, but it's what I see. I scan 35mm - greyscale at 8-bit (I am running PS CS, so it doesn't handle 16 bit). So I will scan at 2400 and see what happens........ AnnMarie On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Richard Sintchak wrote: > >>>There is a huge > amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick > jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800 > > Something is not right here. There should be no such pixelation at > that res > nor the jumps in tonality. I never see any of that at 2400 dpi with my > 4990. Are you scanning in high-bit? Greyscale? What size neg? > > Richard S. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Geoff - Should I assume I should say hello from across the pond? As I have been corrected by Mark, yes, I now know that the max res on the 4990 is 4800ppi. I have been testing it out and so far, my way seems to be to my liking. Maybe I am "looking" at it wrong - whatever that means - but I am not sure what else I should be doing differently.... :D AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Hoppy wrote: > Hi AnnMarie. I have that scanner too, as well as a Nikon for 35mm. > The maximum optical resolution of the Epson 4990 is 4800dpi. As you > noted, interpolation is not the right way to go. So you can reduce > those original scan file sizes with no loss. > Cheeers > Geoff > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Richard Sintchak
>>>>(I am running PS CS, so it doesn't handle 16 bit). It doesn't? Even PS 6 handled 16-bit for me. I'm confused.... :-) When you re-size are you changing the image size as well? Richard S. On 1/3/08, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: > > Richard - > > I would agree with you, but it's what I see. I scan 35mm - greyscale > at 8-bit (I am running PS CS, so it doesn't handle 16 bit). So I > will scan at 2400 and see what happens........ > > AnnMarie > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Richard Sintchak wrote: > > > >>>There is a huge > > amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick > > jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800 > > > > Something is not right here. There should be no such pixelation at > > that res > > nor the jumps in tonality. I never see any of that at 2400 dpi with my > > 4990. Are you scanning in high-bit? Greyscale? What size neg? > > > > Richard S. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-03 by Brian Ellis
The tests I've seen show that the 4990 is capable of resolving about 2100 ppi. So it would seem that scanning at anything higher is just increasing the file size without gaining anything in useful information. I use a 4990 with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Savoia" <mark@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners being used Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution > (which is 12,800 ppi) and then resize it in Photoshop to 300 ppi, no > matter what size the image is. > > AnnMarie > > www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > >> Hi >> >> I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent >> conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for >> certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners >> (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at >> home. >> >> A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan >> and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am >> curious >> >> What arer people using today? >> >> Paulv >> >> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" >> <oaksfield@...> wrote: >>> >>> I have not got involved in this discussion before, but reading this >> post >>> about a budget (flat bed?) scanner out performing shop scans, made >> me think >>> back to my own similar voyage of discovery (to keep things in the >> Homeric >>> mood! <VBG>) It took me some while to discover that most >> Dip'n'Dunks, over >>> here in the UK now use digital print machines even for their >> ordinary budget >>> D&P services. The scans that I was therefore getting on CD were the >> same as >>> was used by them to prepare a 6"x4" print at 250 - 300 dpi, i.e. >> 1,000-1,200 >>> x 1,500-1,800 pixels. Needless to say, even selective (cropped / >> reframed) >>> A4 prints were pretty dire! >>> >>> This was not until I checked out the film services from one of the >> major >>> nationaly photo retailers, however, when I found that they had >> several >>> levels of scan service, with different levels of scan resolution. I >> actually >>> mistyped that as "scam" resolution, which was the major problem, >> and why I >>> bought my dedicated film / neg scanner - the prices rose >> exponentially, with >>> an extra \ufffd6 or \ufffd7 for having a 36-exp 35mm film scanned in at the >> 3,000 x >>> 2,000 pixels required for a good A4 print! >>> >>> The upshot of the above is that I would ask anyone complaining >> about shop >>> scans to both check the scan resolutions (obviously!) but also >> whether they >>> are asking for what are actually the budget scans used for cheap >> bulk >>> prints, a situation that would be made worse if these scans were >> being >>> merely interpolated to give a higher pixel count. >>> >>> Tony Wells. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "nsams2002" <normsams@...> >>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:06 PM >>> Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning Quality >>> >>> >>> I unpacked and installed an Epson 200 scanner yesterday, (at a cost >> of >>> 100 dollars!!) Without any adjustments to the image, such as >> levels, >>> etc., using the Epson software, I got a scan vastly superior to >> what I >>> got from the shop. I was going to post a "before and after" in the >>> Photos file for this list, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do >> it. >>> >>> Norm >>> >> >> >> > > > > [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 > > > > > [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
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
Nikon Coolscan II for 35mm and Microtek Scanmaker 3 for larger. If you want the look of the print, sometimes you have to make a wet print to scan. $10 for the Nikon from a yahoo group photog $6.95 for the Microtek from Salvation Army store. I have two, so the average price is $22. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 12:14 PM Peter De Smidt wrote: >Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm, using Nikon Scan for color and Vuescan for >BW. Canon 9950F for medium and large format, using Vuescan. > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
I'm still partially wedded to the 90's notion that you scan for the final output. That's a math thing. We usually forget that and just scan high (not weed). 14-15mb to 25mb of RGB data is what I look for to feed my editor from 35mm film. I make more data if I need to do heavy manipulation. If the epson does hi-bit, a hi-bit at lower res might be better?? everything depends on your intended output(vision). One little game I play is to make a file for my print. If it goes straight though the driver without reformatting, I feel I did it right. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 10:42 AM Dana H. Myers wrote: >Mark Savoia wrote: >> >> >> Is that the optical resolution of that scanner? > >No. The 4990 non-interpolated resolution is 4800dpi, >but I suspect it's closer to 3000 dpi in reality. The >12,800 dpi resolution is interpolated. > >AnnMarie, have you tried scanning at 4800dpi and reducing >to 300 dpi? I would expect the ultimate 300dpi scans to be >identical to what you're getting now, and the process should >be quite a bit faster. > >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >> >> > I use the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that scans prints and negs. I >> > shoot mainly 35mm, so what I do is scan at the maximum resolution >> > (which is 12,800 ppi) > >Dana > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
Density is a problem with many consumer scanners. It's not a 300/500 projector. I sometimes scan the opposite to fool the scanware. scan B&W negs as transparancies, etc.. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 8:05 PM Juan Riera wrote: >I use an Epson V750 Pro for b&w negatives and colour transparencies fom >35 mm to 13x18 cm. I'm quite satisfied with results above 6x6 cm, but >not with 35 mm scans. I have an old Minolta Dual Scan II that's no >match either. >Most of the scanning is done with Epson software in professional mode, >but on difficult negative scans I use Silverfast SE that comes with >scanner, doing multipass mode. >The scanner has a wet mount option that I have never used, maybe >because I'm too lazy to do the neg preparation and I'm quite satisfied >with results. My prints goes only to A3 size in Epson 2400, so I don't >enlarge very much. >My 35 mm b&w negatives are too dense in shadows and at date I couldn't >get a good scan from any of them. > >Juan Riera >www.juanriera.net > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
That only satisfies you, really. The actual test is the print and a magnifying glass. In any case, the scan is heavily manipulated just to display on low res(dpi) monitors. You really need a console viewer to really see what the file looks like. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 3:58 PM AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at >4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I >suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge >amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick >jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning >at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works >and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look >slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the >12,800. > >What's that old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But I do >appreciate the advice as always. Thank you! :D > >AnnMarie > > >AnnMarie Tornabene >www.annmarietornabene.net > > > > > >[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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
That could once be had for a song. And even with current prices it's still a good value. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 2:25 PM Jim Zietz wrote: >I use a Nikon 9000 and an Epson 750 (depending on format), but for bw >scans I really like my old Leafscan 45. It takes much more time, but >the results are better and it scans everything from 35 to 4x5. > >Ideally I would have an Imacon. > >jz > > > > >> Re: Scanners being used >> Posted by: "paulvtt" paulv@... paulvtt >> Date: Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:13 am ((PST)) >> >> Hi >> >> I read a lot of messageshere, but rarely post. However, the recent >> conversation about scanning and what resolutions are required for >> certain size prints raises a question as to what scanners >> (manufacturer and models) people are using to scan B&W negatives at >> home. >> >> A friend recently asked what he should buy because he wants to scan >> and print negatives. It's been several years sice I looked, so I am >> curious >> >> What arer people using today? >> >> Paulv > > >[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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Tony Sleep
On 03/01/2008 AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: > Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at > 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I > suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge > amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick > jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning > at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works > and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look > slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the > 12,800. With any CCD scanner, you'll generally get much better results if you scan at the optical resolution and do any upsizing in Photoshop rather than the scanner software. PS has better interpolation algorithms, where I am not aware of any OE scanner software that does anything better than crude nearest neighbour interpolation. Epson invariably cheat on optical resolution somewhat, by using 0.5px stepping to give a more impressive number. 0.5 stepping does give slightly better results than 1px, but not 2x as good. The 4990 claims 4800 x 9600dpi optical resolution at http://www.epson.co.uk/scanners/Epson-Perfection-4490-Photo-Scanner.htm and that number is assymettric because of the half-pixel stepping. It's unlikely the driver allows 4800x9600; I'd expect either 4800x4800 or 9600x9600 - the first is the true optical resolution with 1px stepping, the latter involves 0.5 stepping and interpolation on the x-axis. Whatever small advantage is conferred by 0.5 px stepping will be lost by crappy horizontal interpolation. It's marketing nonsense, basically. I'd expect 4800x4800 and any upsizing done in PS to give the smoothest results. But the real downside in most flatbeds is mediocre optics that limits resolution to way below what the pixel count is capable of. There are exceptions but they are usually very expensive. Some upmarket Microteks do well, or for the truly wealthy and fastidious, track down a Scitex Everssmart - that can scan 40 35mm all at once, and they cost around $25k before they went out of production, and they are about the size of a small fridge. All the cheap filmscanners are quite poor as well, OK for consumer snaps but not decent A4's or larger. You just can't have a quality lens system with precision engineering on the cheap. It needs to be as good as the camera and lens system, if anything slightly better. 35mm needs 4000ppi minimum to minimise issues with grain aliasing, and optics to match. 4000ppi+ models from Nikon, Polaroid /Microtek, Minolta are all good, with a different balance of good and not so good points. The same names are responsible for the better MF scanners too, at much higher cost. Imacon are very good but costly. Sadly Polaroid and Minolta are now defunct, so the choice is pretty limited unless you buy s/h. The Minolta Dimage 5400 35mm scanner consistently sells s/h on eBay for as much or more than it cost new, despite the fact that Minolta seemed to have persistent QC issues with every scanner they ever made. The Microteks still exist but seem to be hard to find, and are fundamentally the same as the defunct Polaroids (Polaroid specified and commissioned the design and build from Microtek). Which leaves Nikon as the sole survivor. I'm not a fan of their LED lightsources for a number of reasons (Callier effect enhances defects and grain aliasing, low intensity needs large aperture lens leading to focus problems with bowed film). But they are good nonetheless. For anyone who really wants to discuss all this in depth the filmscanners list still exists, but there hasn't been a message for months about this now antique/mature technology. Send an email to listserver@... with 'subscribe filmscanners' as the subject to join. Or have a look around the (partial) archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@... -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk (aka www.halftone.co.uk)
2008-01-04 by Tony Sleep
On 04/01/2008 Gary Weaver wrote: > I'm still partially wedded to the 90's notion that you scan for the > final output. That's a math thing. Not the best way, because CCD scanners work best at their optical resolution. Any resampling/resizing is better done in PS, which has more sophisticated interpolation. > We usually forget that and just scan high (not weed). > > 14-15mb to 25mb of RGB data is what I look for to feed my editor from > 35mm film. I make more data if I need to do heavy manipulation. > > If the epson does hi-bit, a hi-bit at lower res might be better?? > everything depends on your intended output(vision). If you are wanting quality - scan to 16bit TIFF at optical res in Adobe 1998 RGB or better - edit curves, levels, colour correct, do any other post prod possible in 16 bit - save that file as a master post-produced TIFF or PSD, in 8 bit if you must. Do not sharpen it. - use that file for producing smaller/larger copies as wanted via interpolation, in whatever colour space you need for web or printing, reduced to 8 bit etc, JPEG or whatever, sharpened as necessary for the output size and medium (print needs more than screen). > One little game I play is to make a file for my print. If it goes > straight though the driver without reformatting, I feel I did it > right. What you want to try and avoid is interpolation up or down in either the scanner driver or printer driver, because they are usually lousy at it. The workflow above uses PS for interpolation, but printing interpolation can equally be done in Qimage - which is very good at it, and applies appropriate sharpening at the same time. I am also a fan of Vuescan from www.hamrick.com (shareware) which generally beats the pants off OE scanner software once you learn your way around it, and has better interpolation if you really must resample at the scanning stage. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
Hi Tony!! I agree. Don't let any programmer do the thinking for you. They can hardly shuffle a deck of cards. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/4/08 at 2:54 AM Tony Sleep wrote: >On 04/01/2008 Gary Weaver wrote: >> I'm still partially wedded to the 90's notion that you scan for the >> final output. That's a math thing. > >Not the best way, because CCD scanners work best at their optical >resolution. Any resampling/resizing is better done in PS, which has more >sophisticated interpolation. > >> We usually forget that and just scan high (not weed). >> >> 14-15mb to 25mb of RGB data is what I look for to feed my editor from >> 35mm film. I make more data if I need to do heavy manipulation. >> >> If the epson does hi-bit, a hi-bit at lower res might be better?? >> everything depends on your intended output(vision). > >If you are wanting quality >- scan to 16bit TIFF at optical res in Adobe 1998 RGB or better >- edit curves, levels, colour correct, do any other post prod possible in >16 bit >- save that file as a master post-produced TIFF or PSD, in 8 bit if you >must. Do not sharpen it. >- use that file for producing smaller/larger copies as wanted via >interpolation, in whatever colour space you need for web or printing, >reduced to 8 bit etc, JPEG or whatever, sharpened as necessary for the >output size and medium (print needs more than screen). > >> One little game I play is to make a file for my print. If it goes >> straight though the driver without reformatting, I feel I did it >> right. > >What you want to try and avoid is interpolation up or down in either the >scanner driver or printer driver, because they are usually lousy at it. >The workflow above uses PS for interpolation, but printing interpolation >can equally be done in Qimage - which is very good at it, and applies >appropriate sharpening at the same time. I am also a fan of Vuescan from >www.hamrick.com (shareware) which generally beats the pants off OE scanner >software once you learn your way around it, and has better interpolation >if you really must resample at the scanning stage. > >-- >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://tonysleep.co.uk > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Paul D. DeRocco
> From: Gary Weaver > > I agree. Don't let any programmer do the thinking for you. > They can hardly shuffle a deck of cards. Don't you just call random_shuffle(deck.begin(), deck.end())? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@...
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
Hey!! That'll work!!! If Linus had spent his QL time working of solitare instead of Unix, I'd be happier. gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/3/08 at 8:25 PM Paul D. DeRocco wrote: >> From: Gary Weaver >> >> I agree. Don't let any programmer do the thinking for you. >> They can hardly shuffle a deck of cards. > >Don't you just call random_shuffle(deck.begin(), deck.end())? > >-- > >Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco >Paul mailto:pderocco@... > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by Doug Fisher
>>The tests I've seen show that the 4990 is capable of resolving about 2100 ppi. So it would seem that scanning at anything higher is just increasing the file size without gaining anything in useful information. I use a 4990 with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.<< That is about right. You might want to do some shimming tests to see if you can eek out a bit more sharpness. Every bit helps with these scanners. Norm Koren discusses this. Here are two links that show examples: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm This example shows the difference when you hold the film really flat and then adjust by only .2 mm (click on the image to enlarge it and see the text in Internet Explorer): http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/1664778870_ba674a82da_o.gif Doug --- BetterScanning.com - Innovative Accessories for Better Film Scanning http://www.BetterScanning.com/ .
2008-01-04 by Michael
Here's a link to a thorough test of the Epson 4990; also click the "Reviews" link in the left column and there are reviews for the V750 and numerous other scanners, printers, etc. These reviews are long and indepth and should answer most questions. Hope this helps. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%201.htm http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html Michael K
2008-01-04 by AnnMarie Tornabene
I honestly had no idea how much excitement my scanning process would raise, but after reading these posts and conducting several tests on my own, this is what I concluded: First off, let me apologize for the misinformation about the 16-bit limitation. I don't know what I was thinking - yes, I know Photoshop CS handles it. I tried both scans, and I didn't see much of a difference between an 8-bit and 16 bit scan. I am sure if I was printing something above 19x13, I would. I am not doing that. I tried scanning at 2400, 3200, 4800 and 12,800. I DID notice a softness in the 12,800 and sometimes some over- sharpening looks in lower res scans. It seemed it depended on the image. I have scanned in slightly under and slightly over-exposed negatives too, so that had a factor in "pixelation", or whatever you want to call it. So, I will keep testing away to see what the best results are for me. I also don't understand algorithms or things like that and quite honestly, I am more focused on the artwork then the technical aspects of how things are put together. Wanting to get off my topic now, I think at this point, my main concern in scanning is wanting to make the film flatter. I have briefly looked into fluid mount and would like to look into it more. However, are there any immediate "fixes"? I actually had the film strips on the bed with a thin sheet of plexi over it but naturally, the film strip kept moving and the amount of dust collected was unreal. Thank you again, gang for your advice and expertise. :) AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-04 by Peter De Smidt
> I tried both scans, > and I didn't see much of a difference between an 8-bit and 16 bit > scan.I am sure if I was printing something above 19x13, I would. No, you probably wouldn't. What 16 bit gives you is editing headroom. When you apply curves, levels, or any tonal adjustment, you end up getting rid of lots of gray tones, which leads to posterization and spikey histograms. 16 bit has so many that even extreme adjustments leave plenty of tones. So, if you're not doing much editing, 8-bit is fine. If you are, or might, do some tonal editing, 16 bit is the way to go.
2008-01-04 by David Whistance
AnnMarie For keeping film flat nothing beats wet mounting - it makes an amazing difference even with the relatively low end flatbeds. Have a look at Doug Fisher's site (betterscanning.com) for one solution. Scan Science also sell one (scanscience.com). I have and use the latter on my V750 (it doesn't ship with the wet mounting tray here in the UK sadly!) David Whistance
-----Original Message----- From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of AnnMarie Tornabene Sent: 04 January 2008 15:30 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 4990 test - this is it I honestly had no idea how much excitement my scanning process would raise, but after reading these posts and conducting several tests on my own, this is what I concluded: First off, let me apologize for the misinformation about the 16-bit limitation. I don't know what I was thinking - yes, I know Photoshop CS handles it. I tried both scans, and I didn't see much of a difference between an 8-bit and 16 bit scan. I am sure if I was printing something above 19x13, I would. I am not doing that. I tried scanning at 2400, 3200, 4800 and 12,800. I DID notice a softness in the 12,800 and sometimes some over- sharpening looks in lower res scans. It seemed it depended on the image. I have scanned in slightly under and slightly over-exposed negatives too, so that had a factor in "pixelation", or whatever you want to call it. So, I will keep testing away to see what the best results are for me. I also don't understand algorithms or things like that and quite honestly, I am more focused on the artwork then the technical aspects of how things are put together. Wanting to get off my topic now, I think at this point, my main concern in scanning is wanting to make the film flatter. I have briefly looked into fluid mount and would like to look into it more. However, are there any immediate "fixes"? I actually had the film strips on the bed with a thin sheet of plexi over it but naturally, the film strip kept moving and the amount of dust collected was unreal. Thank you again, gang for your advice and expertise. :) AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-04 by Gary Weaver
The focus thing isn't just epson flatbeds. I have two scanmaker III's and one is much sharper. Or rather, one much worse. I mistakenly developed some unexposed 4x5 and used these sheets to Sharpie mark and layered them on the glass bed to see which was sharper. The FP4 was maybe too thick for this test.. I suspect that a degree of OOF is built-in to minimize dust and scratches. But ... gar . *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/4/08 at 9:52 AM Doug Fisher wrote: >>>The tests I've seen show that the 4990 is capable of resolving about >2100 >ppi. So it would seem that scanning at anything higher is just increasing >the file size without gaining anything in useful information. I use a 4990 >with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.<< > >That is about right. You might want to do some shimming tests to see if >you >can eek out a bit more sharpness. Every bit helps with these scanners. >Norm Koren discusses this. Here are two links that show examples: > >http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing > >http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm > >This example shows the difference when you hold the film really flat and >then adjust by only .2 mm (click on the image to enlarge it and see the >text >in Internet Explorer): > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/1664778870_ba674a82da_o.gif > > >Doug >--- >BetterScanning.com - Innovative Accessories for Better Film Scanning >http://www.BetterScanning.com/ > > > > > > >. > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-04 by AnnMarie Tornabene
Well oof is definitely the sound I make when I see dust and scratches on negs ;) (Sorry, I thought it was funny anyway) AnnMarie AnnMarie Tornabene www.annmarietornabene.net On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Gary Weaver wrote: > The focus thing isn't just epson flatbeds. > > I have two scanmaker III's and one is much sharper. Or rather, one > much worse. > > I mistakenly developed some unexposed 4x5 and used these sheets to > Sharpie mark and layered them on the glass bed to see which was > sharper. The FP4 was maybe too thick for this test.. > > I suspect that a degree of OOF is built-in to minimize dust and > scratches. > > But ... > > gar > . > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 1/4/08 at 9:52 AM Doug Fisher wrote: > >>>> The tests I've seen show that the 4990 is capable of resolving >>>> about >> 2100 >> ppi. So it would seem that scanning at anything higher is just >> increasing >> the file size without gaining anything in useful information. I >> use a 4990 >> with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.<< >> >> That is about right. You might want to do some shimming tests to >> see if >> you >> can eek out a bit more sharpness. Every bit helps with these >> scanners. >> Norm Koren discusses this. Here are two links that show examples: >> >> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/ >> Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing >> >> http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm >> >> This example shows the difference when you hold the film really >> flat and >> then adjust by only .2 mm (click on the image to enlarge it and >> see the >> text >> in Internet Explorer): >> >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/1664778870_ba674a82da_o.gif >> >> >> Doug >> --- >> BetterScanning.com - Innovative Accessories for Better Film Scanning >> http://www.BetterScanning.com/ >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-05 by Gary Weaver
Yes, one needs a degree of humor with this stuff!! gar - Out Of Focus *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/4/08 at 12:34 PM AnnMarie Tornabene wrote: >Well oof is definitely the sound I make when I see dust and scratches >on negs ;) (Sorry, I thought it was funny anyway) > > > >AnnMarie > > >AnnMarie Tornabene >www.annmarietornabene.net > > > >On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Gary Weaver wrote: > >> The focus thing isn't just epson flatbeds. >> >> I have two scanmaker III's and one is much sharper. Or rather, one >> much worse. >> >> I mistakenly developed some unexposed 4x5 and used these sheets to >> Sharpie mark and layered them on the glass bed to see which was >> sharper. The FP4 was maybe too thick for this test.. >> >> I suspect that a degree of OOF is built-in to minimize dust and >> scratches. >> >> But ... >> >> gar >> . >> >> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >> On 1/4/08 at 9:52 AM Doug Fisher wrote: >> >>>>> The tests I've seen show that the 4990 is capable of resolving >>>>> about >>> 2100 >>> ppi. So it would seem that scanning at anything higher is just >>> increasing >>> the file size without gaining anything in useful information. I >>> use a 4990 >>> with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.<< >>> >>> That is about right. You might want to do some shimming tests to >>> see if >>> you >>> can eek out a bit more sharpness. Every bit helps with these >>> scanners. >>> Norm Koren discusses this. Here are two links that show examples: >>> >>> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/ >>> Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing >>> >>> http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm >>> >>> This example shows the difference when you hold the film really >>> flat and >>> then adjust by only .2 mm (click on the image to enlarge it and >>> see the >>> text >>> in Internet Explorer): >>> >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/1664778870_ba674a82da_o.gif >>> >>> >>> Doug >>> --- >>> BetterScanning.com - Innovative Accessories for Better Film Scanning >>> http://www.BetterScanning.com/ >>> > > > > > > >[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 > > >
2008-01-05 by TK Thompson
I have a 4990 and did a resolution test using a 35mm Tech Pan negative of the USAF resolution target. My scanner hit peak resolution at 4800 dpi - could read 55 line pairs/millimeter (lp/mm) off the scan of the USAF test target negative. I got 50 lp/mm at 3200 dpi and progressively lower lp/mm at lower dpi settings. The higher extrapolated dpi settings (>4800) of the 4990 did not give greater lp/mm resolution values. I think lp/mm is a more realistic metric for scanner resolution than dpi. I routinely scan 120 negs at 4800 dpi and 4x5 at 3200 dpi for files of ~250mB and ~500 mB respectively. Files larger than ~500mB really start to choke my PC with 3 gigs of RAM and CS2 when working on the images. I don't care how long the scan takes or how much disk space is occupied - I'm trying to wring the most quality out of my scans I can with the equipment I have. FWIW, TK [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-05 by Ernst Dinkla
A good test would start with an ISO target or the razor edge target like Imatest allows. With a flatbed scanner that has the film holder tweaked to the right focus. Using one of the 1200>2400>4800 SPI (sampling per inch) resolution choices isn't a guarantee either that one hits the best optical resolution or the best effort/result choice in PPI (pixels per inch) resolution. With several flatbeds if one selects 1200 or 2400 SPI the scanner actually could skip sampling steps if its hardware allows 3600, 4800, 6400 or up to 9600 steps per inch, that choice of a lower sampling resolution then either degrades the detail and/or dynamic range etc available when using higher sampling resolutions. Selecting an odd resolution number that doesn't divide well can make things better. The scanner then usually takes a higher SPI resolution with all of the mentioned advantages and after the scan it downsamples to the odd resolution number before saving the data. If that odd number is set near to the best optical resolution possible as measured with a target and the scanner behaves as described and the downsampling routine in the driver is a good one (for example bicubic with some anti-aliasing and not a plain nearest neighbour) then you get the best effort/result scan possible with that scanner. If the scanner only gives its best quality (not just detail but also dynamic range, Dmax and S/N ratio) only at the highest SPI resolution setting (mainly because that brings the oversampling higher) and not by the trick mentioned earlier then you have little choice than using that one. Another method could be to use a lower output resolution choice in for example Vuescan and set the multisampling choice in that driver higher, in fact it will do the same then. I doubt it samples twice at the same step but just increases the sampling rate, downsamples and saves that lower resolution. This is not a multiscan choice where the scanner runs two times and combines the two readings, that choice usually gives worse detail on flatbeds as the registration of both scans suffers due to several causes. Silverfast has that multisample feature too for scanners that allow it. Imatest allows something like 10 trials in its demo version. Scan at some settings and compare not just the optical resolution but also the dynamic range etc. Norman Koren has some pages on the Epson flatbeds too. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
2008-01-05 by Robert Lee
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote: > > > By the way, I don't shoot much color but I have never had any luck > scanning color negatives with this scanner. The negatives have always > scanned extremely grainy and contrasty beyond even the norm. Anyone > else experience this problem? Any quick fixes? > > AnnMarie > Hello AnnMarie, I have the same problem with an older, lower-spec flatbed, though I have gotten lucky sometimes. Underexposed negatives scan worse than overexposed, and I suspect that film brand/type matters as well. Meanwhile, I get better and more consistent results with color positives. That's the only "quick fix" I have for you, though obviously that doesn't help you with existing negatives. I've wondered if the coldish backlight on my scanner has trouble penetrating the orange mask well enough to give decent contrast, especially when contrast is low to begin with, and whether different films have variations in the orange mask that present more or less difficulty. I was hoping the v7xx wouldn't have this issue, because I see one in my future. Did you try multipass scanning? - Robert L
2008-01-06 by Tony Sleep
On 05/01/2008 Robert Lee wrote: > I've wondered if the coldish backlight on my scanner has trouble > penetrating the orange mask well enough to give decent contrast, > especially when contrast is low to begin with, and whether different > films have variations in the orange mask that present more or less > difficulty. Better filmscanners increase the exposure (sampling time) in the blue + green channels to cancel the orange mask optically. Without that, a lot of dynamic range is discarded when you subtract the mask colour in software. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
2008-01-06 by Gary Weaver
The mask is a problem. When I was doing negs with a hand scanner, I had to make my own color masks and they can be quite different - by MFG, batch and by processing I never persued color neg, really. What is the mask for?? gar *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/6/08 at 12:19 PM Tony Sleep wrote: >On 05/01/2008 Robert Lee wrote: >> I've wondered if the coldish backlight on my scanner has trouble >> penetrating the orange mask well enough to give decent contrast, >> especially when contrast is low to begin with, and whether different >> films have variations in the orange mask that present more or less >> difficulty. > >Better filmscanners increase the exposure (sampling time) in the blue + >green channels to cancel the orange mask optically. Without that, a lot of >dynamic range is discarded when you subtract the mask colour in software. > >-- >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://tonysleep.co.uk > > > >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 > > >
2008-01-06 by njfranknj
Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better film scanners"? Are the Minolta ScanMultiPro and Epson V750 in that group? Frank --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...> wrote: > Better filmscanners increase the exposure (sampling time) in the blue + > green channels to cancel the orange mask optically. Without that, a lot of > dynamic range is discarded when you subtract the mask colour in software.
2008-01-06 by Ernst Dinkla
njfranknj wrote: > Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as > color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, > rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to > positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better > film scanners"? Vuescan uses the increased blue-green sensor output to compensate the mask. This isn't a hardware feature but a driver feature. Vuescan also has a variety of color negative "profiles" for several types of color film, masks however are influenced by the lab development so this isn't as precise as with reversal film. -- Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
2008-01-07 by Robert Lee
I can't believe that I've been scanning film for over a year and I still haven't tried vuescan. Sounds like it might give me a fighting chance with those problem color negatives. Thanks for the tip! - Robert L --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> > njfranknj wrote: > > Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as > > color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, > > rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to > > positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better > > film scanners"? > > Vuescan uses the increased blue-green sensor output to > compensate the mask. This isn't a hardware feature but a > driver feature. Vuescan also has a variety of color negative > "profiles" for several types of color film, masks however > are influenced by the lab development so this isn't as > precise as with reversal film. > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst > > > | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | > | www.pigment-print.com | > | ( unvollendet ) | >
2008-01-07 by Paul Grant
I would always scan as a positive and let your photo editing software do the conversion. Regards, Paul On 1/6/08 12:02 PM, "njfranknj" <kolwicz@minetfiber.com> wrote: > > > > > Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as > color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, > rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to > positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better > film scanners"? > > Are the Minolta ScanMultiPro and Epson V750 in that group? > > Frank > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Tony Sleep > <TonySleep@...> wrote: > >> > Better filmscanners increase the exposure (sampling time) in the blue + >> > green channels to cancel the orange mask optically. Without that, a > lot of >> > dynamic range is discarded when you subtract the mask colour in > software. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-07 by Peter Marshall
I've read that suggestion many times before, and it may well be the best way if you use the software supplied with your scanner. However when I've tested it, I've always found the results disappointing compared to scanning as a negative using Vuescan. Again, I've only tried three scanners, so it may well be the best method with some other models. As Ernst stated, processing variables mean that you cannot expect a perfect result from every scan, even if your film type is one of those listed in the software. I find it best to scan as negative, output as 16 bit TIFF and then make the small adjustments needed in Photoshop. I've used Vuescan since shortly after buying my first scanner quite a few years ago, and finding it hard to get good results either using the software from the scanner manufacturer or the rather more expensive SilverFast. Three scanners and quite a few years later I'm still using Vuescan (a considerably more recent version) with my Minolta MultiPro, having with each new scanner tested it against the opposition. I don't have a V750, so can't comment on that. Regards, Peter Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ petermarshall@... _________________________________________________________________ >Re:PHOTO http://re-photo.co.uk My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/ London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/ The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/ and elsewhere...... Paul Grant wrote:
> I would always scan as a positive and let your photo editing software do the > conversion. > > Regards, > Paul > > > On 1/6/08 12:02 PM, "njfranknj" <kolwicz@...> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as >> color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, >> rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to >> positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better >> film scanners"? >> >> Are the Minolta ScanMultiPro and Epson V750 in that group? >> >> Frank >> >
2008-01-07 by Tony Sleep
On 06/01/2008 njfranknj wrote: > Interesting, Tony, does that mean that it makes more sense to scan as > color neg and allow the software to make the color channel adjustment, > rather than scanning as "Media/Image" in VueScan and convert to > positive in a editing program, as some suggest, for these "better > film scanners"? Absolutely. > Are the Minolta ScanMultiPro and Epson V750 in that group? Yes. There's only a minority of older kit I think won't do it. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk