Jump to content

Plustek 8100i - Am I expecting too much?


mahakalaka

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi!

 

Sorry for yet another question, and I'm sure this has been covered, just not really found an answer to my concern.

 

I just bought a new Plustek 8100i scanner. I sold my old Epson flatbed a while ago, but I'm getting more into film again and want to scan myself. As I've understood it, the Plustek should be at least equal the quality of the Epson, perhaps better. I never scanned color film with the Epson, just traditional B&W, so I have nothing to compare with.

 

I just got my first roll of color film processed at a good lab, where they also made tiny little scans for me to proof, so I could save some time if I didn't feel I needed a good quality scan of every frame.

 

The scans they delivered are between 1.1 and 1.3 MB jpg. They have obviously cranked up the contrast and saturation quite a bit. But the sad thing is, I see more detail in these tiny jpg. files than what I can get when scanning with the Plustek, no matter what size file I create!

 

I started with Silverfast 8, but that program gave me such a headache that I actually bought VueScan. I just want a flat scan with a lot of detail that I can edit later.

 

I've been up all night scanning several frames with different settings. I've brought them into Lightroom and adjusted sharpness, levels, everything, but they are still not as detailed as the tiny lab scans. Even when I zoom in, I just see grain and no definition. But since I do see the grain very clearly, could it still be a sharpness issue, or something else? 

 

Am I missing something here, or is this just the way it is? Should the tiny lab scans (probably scanned with a very nice scanner) be more detailed than what I can get with the Plustek, no matter what resolution I scan?  :wacko: I honestly thought I wouldn't be able to tell a difference until they where blown up or zoomed in a bit.

 

I haven't been this excited about photography in quite a while, but this is bumming me out. Should I have got a different scanner? In terms of image quality, it seems like the next step up is very, very much more expensive. My only high-end digital camera is the Monochrom, so I can't use that for scanning either. Hopefully I'm just missing something with the Plustek, just don't what.

 

Any thoughts or help? Many thanks in advance,

Max

Edited by mahakalaka
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question has a vast number of possible answers because I don't know what settings you are already using in Vuescan.

 

If you are seeing 'no definition' in your scans it sounds like either a lack of sharpening or a lack of sharpening combined with a lack of resolution. So, scan at 100% neg size ( that is scan at the actual size of the negative, not scan at the final print size) at for the sake of argument 3600 dpi. Make sure sharpening is turned off in Vuescan. Save as a TIFF. This should give you a high resolution file at around 34mb for B&W or 100 to 120mb for colour (you can reduce this size later when you decide on print size). Open it in Photoshop and apply a lot more sharpening than you would with a digital file. For a typical 35mm file I would start with Unsharp Mask at 120 for the Amount and 0.8 > 1.0 for the Radius. Compare results keeping in mind the file size, so as a test you could reduce this to the same file size and resolution of the labs scans, but you should edit (post process) the large file and save versions of it as you refine it.

 

Also ensure that all other 'fix it' modes are turned off such as IR dust removal, they severely degrade the image as they interpret film grain as dust, fine for posting a Facebook photo of Aunty Vera but not good for anything else.

 

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply Steve! I'll keep all of that in mind.

 

I think I'm getting totally ok results, it's just that last piece of definition in things like hair that I'm hoping I'll be able to achieve.

 

I Have to say that I love the actual size of this little Plustek though! I'm heading down to the south of Sweden today and it's a joy to be able to bring it with me so easily!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am a little late to this discussion.  I do not have am 8100, but I do have a 7600 that died recently.  I have an 8100 on order to replace it though, so I expect the same results that I have gotten with the 7600.  Anyway, the 7600 certainly can show the grain.  Attached is a photo that shows the full size image, and a rather large crop of just a portion.  The film is Plus-X, developed in Rodinal 50:1, shot with 50mm lens at around f8, and a medium red filter.  I should mention that I scan at around 4800 dpi.  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by too old to care
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Your question has a vast number of possible answers because I don't know what settings you are already using in Vuescan.

 

If you are seeing 'no definition' in your scans it sounds like either a lack of sharpening or a lack of sharpening combined with a lack of resolution. So, scan at 100% neg size ( that is scan at the actual size of the negative, not scan at the final print size) at for the sake of argument 3600 dpi. Make sure sharpening is turned off in Vuescan. Save as a TIFF. This should give you a high resolution file at around 34mb for B&W or 100 to 120mb for colour (you can reduce this size later when you decide on print size). Open it in Photoshop and apply a lot more sharpening than you would with a digital file. For a typical 35mm file I would start with Unsharp Mask at 120 for the Amount and 0.8 > 1.0 for the Radius. Compare results keeping in mind the file size, so as a test you could reduce this to the same file size and resolution of the labs scans, but you should edit (post process) the large file and save versions of it as you refine it.

 

Also ensure that all other 'fix it' modes are turned off such as IR dust removal, they severely degrade the image as they interpret film grain as dust, fine for posting a Facebook photo of Aunty Vera but not good for anything else.

 

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

I still have the problem...

I have scanned with a plustek 8200i and tried to have maximum details in darks, shadows and high lights.

Also did the trick with the unmask in PS but I still have this (see screenshot)

I assume that this would be really looking bad once printed in 40x50

Thanks for your help

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by sia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

 

I still have the problem...

I have scanned with a plustek 8200i and tried to have maximum details in darks, shadows and high lights.

Also did the trick with the unmask in PS but I still have this (see screenshot)

I assume that this would be really looking bad once printed in 40x50

Thanks for your help

 

What do you imagine 35mm photographs printed to 40x50 (what, inches or centimetres, but anyway it's an odd ratio?) looked like in the past when printed large? When images that big were made the assumption was that people would be standing further away, so there is your answer, stand back and it will be fine. Otherwise abandon the modern trend in printing large just for the sake of printing large, a smaller intimate photograph can be even more powerful than trying to force 'awe' out of the audience by size.

 

The sample of image you posted makes me think you aren't approaching the problem right in any case. It is flat and boring. 35mm photography has few of the subtle traits that can be found in medium format, so it is inherently more graphic, and more abstract seen close up, and especially when printed large. Think of the grain like a mosaic pattern, you are creating a picture from dots, so these dots have to be vibrant but you have no blacks in the image and you have no whites either. So while the idea of starting with a flat image is correct you need to add some contrast, make it vibrant, make the image come alive. And my advice was to start with a basic sharpening regime, you need to sharpen it more, and yes the grain will become more prominent but don't use 35mm (printed large) if you don't like grain.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you imagine 35mm photographs printed to 40x50 (what, inches or centimetres, but anyway it's an odd ratio?) looked like in the past when printed large? When images that big were made the assumption was that people would be standing further away, so there is your answer, stand back and it will be fine. Otherwise abandon the modern trend in printing large just for the sake of printing large, a smaller intimate photograph can be even more powerful than trying to force 'awe' out of the audience by size.

 

The sample of image you posted makes me think you aren't approaching the problem right in any case. It is flat and boring. 35mm photography has few of the subtle traits that can be found in medium format, so it is inherently more graphic, and more abstract seen close up, and especially when printed large. Think of the grain like a mosaic pattern, you are creating a picture from dots, so these dots have to be vibrant but you have no blacks in the image and you have no whites either. So while the idea of starting with a flat image is correct you need to add some contrast, make it vibrant, make the image come alive. And my advice was to start with a basic sharpening regime, you need to sharpen it more, and yes the grain will become more prominent but don't use 35mm (printed large) if you don't like grain.

 

Thanks :) 

 

I like the grain, no problem with this.

The thing is that I find it once scanned not harmonious (specially the transition between highlights and shadows).

I was refering to printing in centimeters, and it will be probably in 30x40 cm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sia, how large of a crop is that? If the person is small in the picture, I think it might be ok.

 

Even though I am a modern person of a modest age, I have a very hard time with computers. The irony is, that since I now have returned to color film, I've been spending more time than ever in from of the computer with my photos! I've spent many long nights awake this week, being very close to throwing my computer out the window. But, my God, I think I've got it now! So thanks everyone once again for your help!

 

I ended up going the Ben Anderson route, by exporting RAW files from Vuescan and converting them with the Colorperfect plugin in Photoshop. This is now an easy and fast way to get me in the ball park of where I want to be, and then I just do some minor corrections in Lightroom. Natural colours and exposures is nothing I take for granted when it comes to scanning color film any more, but this way really works.

 

But just getting here in itself was troubling for me, my Photoshop was too old to work with the plugin, I couldn't seem to be able to buy an update to my Photoshop without getting into the whole creative cloud thing, even though people online said it was possible (in frustration I ended up signing up with creative cloud anyways, damn Adobe!) still couldn't get the plugin to work, had to update my whole computer firmware and so on and so on. But after all this anxiety, it's working and I'm very happy with my decision to get back to film, and work with color this time. I love the look of the photos I'm getting!

 

Now, if I could only learn how to export small size images from Lightroom or Photoshop that don't look totally pixelated, I could share a couple with you here, but unfortunately, that is a different problem that I have yet to solve.

 

Cheers,

Max

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many ways to resize images in Photoshop. My favourite way to resize many images at a time is to run Image Processor from within Bridge. For individual images just use the Image Size command on Photoshop's Image menu.

 

br
Philip

 

 

Now, if I could only learn how to export small size images from Lightroom or Photoshop that don't look totally pixelated, I could share a couple with you here, but unfortunately, that is a different problem that I have yet to solve.

 

Cheers,

Max

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Philipus, but that is what's not working for me. Say I want to save a photograph that is 1000 pixels wide, it looks nice in Photoshop, but once I save it to my desktop, it just looks pixelated. Often it's much wider than 1000 too, so I'm doing something wrong, just not sure what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use both LR and Photoshop (CS6).

With LR, which I think is marginally easier, I have the "Export" settings set up.

I export to a folder and stipulate a max size, in pixels (usually 1200 or less for this forum, so I'd set something like 1150 pixels). This is under "Image Sizing" and I also set 72 pixels per inch under the resolution setting.

Then I also stipulate a max file size, ("File Settings") less than 500kb's, so set about 450kb. You can tinker with other stuff, sharpening etc, but all I use the export tab for is to "save" a copy for posting, usually here.

Try it and come back to me/us if you get stuck.

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...