250swb Posted March 23, 2012 Share #41 Posted March 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I see it, now that hard disk storage is so cheap, there's no reason whatsoever for not capturing and storing the optimum possible scan, and then using a copy of that scan as a working file Same here, by the time I have dusted off the scanner or negative I may as well make a full 'master' image as scan at a lower resolution. It is so much easier from then on to make other copies from the master for the internet etc. The workflow you describe is more or less exactly what I do, use the scanner simply to collect as much information as possible without any adulteration. Making that look like something good only takes a couple of seconds in Photoshop but doing it that way offers so much more scope for adjustments if you want (I usually do want plenty of adjustments, like dodging and burning etc). Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Which scanner would you recommend?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mafoofan Posted March 23, 2012 Share #42 Posted March 23, 2012 Plasticman, maybe I wasn't clear. I saved the original RAW frome scan (not save) and it was over 21 megapixels (approximately 133 megabytes). I applied no adjustments via Vuescan. The file was downsized to post here. As for the 100% crop: maybe I'm sharpening too much? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #43 Posted March 23, 2012 Same with me. Scan for an archived master and then store it. It beats scanning over again when you realize you need that image for something else. If you're worried about disk space, then store it offline or on some sort of portable media (I'm pretty sure they still make and sell DVDs.) And if you're ever paying for a drum scan you'd want to get your value by scanning for what you might also want it to be able to look like later, and not just at that moment. I have bucketloads of .psd files each with dozens of layers, all stored nicely away. Everything I do is on layers. Cleaning, noise, sharpen, etc., they all have their own duplicate layer. And each one of those files can be changed with zero destruction into whatever 'version' I might need them at any given time. And in an infinite variety of sizes, looks, and output needs. For me, that's really the whole point of digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #44 Posted March 23, 2012 Plasticman, maybe I wasn't clear. I saved the original RAW frome scan (not save) and it was over 21 megapixels (approximately 133 megabytes). I applied no adjustments via Vuescan. The file was downsized to post here. As for the 100% crop: maybe I'm sharpening too much? I believe he was concerned primarily with that line of pixelation that you can clearly see in the lower part of the woman's eyelid. It's not from sharpening in post, but from the scan. But you might want to check the scan itself at 100% to be certain it's not something you introduced in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 23, 2012 Share #45 Posted March 23, 2012 Plasticman, maybe I wasn't clear. I saved the original RAW frome scan (not save) and it was over 21 megapixels (approximately 133 megabytes). I applied no adjustments via Vuescan. The file was downsized to post here. As for the 100% crop: maybe I'm sharpening too much? Sorry - my misunderstanding. I didn't mean it as a criticism of your image, which looked to have some nice tonal value, but which looked strangely pixellated at 100% (almost as though it were scaled to 200%) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 23, 2012 Share #46 Posted March 23, 2012 I have bucketloads of .psd files each with dozens of layers, all stored nicely away. Everything I do is on layers. Cleaning, noise, sharpen, etc., they all have their own duplicate layer. And each one of those files can be changed with zero destruction into whatever 'version' I might need them at any given time. And in an infinite variety of sizes, looks, and output needs. For me, that's really the whole point of digital. I predict you will like CS6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #47 Posted March 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I predict you will like CS6. I downloaded the beta but haven't opened it up yet. I will this weekend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted March 23, 2012 Share #48 Posted March 23, 2012 Hmm, here it is with absolutely no sharpening: 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/174598-which-scanner-would-you-recommend/?do=findComment&comment=1962045'>More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #49 Posted March 23, 2012 I just now opened your file in PS and looked at it at 100% and then at 200%. The pixelated line is there, right at the lower edge of the eyelid. It's something from the scan. I sharpened using USM on a duplicate background copy and even at 200% at a low threshold and small pixel radius, it looks okay except for that artifact. I'm not sure what you used to sharpen, but it was pretty overcooked. Remember that sharpening is done for the output, and not what it looks like just on the monitor (e.g., oversharpen for inkjet, etc..) And of course don't ever sharpen the noise reduction itself and sharpen only at output size, etc., etc. (and that's the benefit of using duplicate background layers; you can move them around, too.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted March 23, 2012 Share #50 Posted March 23, 2012 Did you look at the 100% crop I just posted? No sharpening was applied at any time in processing (not in Vuescan, not in Lightroom). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 23, 2012 Share #51 Posted March 23, 2012 I can't see anything wrong in that last 100% example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #52 Posted March 23, 2012 Yes, that is the one I downloaded and used. I think perhaps you're hoping to sharpen the resolution (?) Sharpening simply is a 'halo' effect that lightens and darkens edges. It doesn't make for sharper resolution in the conventional way we think it might. What you were doing was sharpening the artifacts and the grain itself. Film grain is noise. So you end up sharpening the noise. There's a limit to making the 'halo' effect function visually without getting into destruction of the all the light and dark surrounding pixels. Hope that makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted March 23, 2012 Share #53 Posted March 23, 2012 I understand--but there is no sharpening on that last image. It is not the same as the first 100% crop I posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #54 Posted March 23, 2012 This is a far as you can go using USM without getting into making noise. If you were printing on an inkjet printer you could do more as the ink drops will 'fill in' the 'empty places' so to speak. But it still wouldn't make a real difference visually. Again, sharpening is changing the density of the surrounding pixel edges; i.e., the light and dark ones to give it the edge or 'halo' effect. You aren't going to do anything more with this image in respect to the visual look of being 'sharper.' Sharpening is kind of a visual illusion in a sense. It can't change resolution. (and the more we open and close this jpeg, the worse it's going to get ) Sharpen at magnification only to see what you're doing (and any destruction, etc.) but always go back and forth to your final output size to check it. You basically want it to look good at the size your viewer will be viewing it. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/174598-which-scanner-would-you-recommend/?do=findComment&comment=1962097'>More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #55 Posted March 23, 2012 I understand--but there is no sharpening on that last image. It is not the same as the first 100% crop I posted. I realize that. The first one was overcooked in post. You're sharpening the grain artifacts caused by the scan. Hard to explain, I guess. Sorry. It's not easy to talk about via posting on a forum. And I'm failing at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted March 23, 2012 Share #56 Posted March 23, 2012 I realize that. The first one was overcooked in post. You're sharpening the grain artifacts caused by the scan. Hard to explain, I guess. Sorry. It's not easy to talk about via posting on a forum. And I'm failing at it. But do you still see the offending pixelation in the non-sharpened crop? I can't myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #57 Posted March 23, 2012 btw, that pixelated line at the bottom of the eyebrow is there no matter, and while it could be a single scan anomaly, I'd do another scan from a different negative and see if it appears again in the same location. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 23, 2012 Share #58 Posted March 23, 2012 But do you still see the offending pixelation in the non-sharpened crop? I can't myself. You beat me to it.... Anyway, yes it's there and why i posted again to point it out. I can see it easily at 100% but if you go to 200% you should be able to see it pretty readily. btw, when I used to do drum scanning for a living i would clean sometimes at 200%. You can miss stuff at 100% (despite that you won't see it in a print anyway, it was good to present a perfect product to the customer), but also you might not see potential problems with hardware/software issues. p.s., Not to worry about it. You can't see it, and nobody else will ever notice it either. Plus it's more than likely an isolated issue. Scanners make all sorts of little odd noises sometimes, just as you would expect an electronic device might do. Just keep an eye out for any repeating issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted March 25, 2012 Share #59 Posted March 25, 2012 I'm sorry but this sort of typical internet 'answer' - with its backhanded comments shrouded in buddy-politeness, the subtly repeated implication that others don't aspire to your elevated standards of artistic expression ("Most people would consider the Nikon scans to be just fine." etc), and the general patronizing tone, all wrapped in a sugar-coating of deniability (I guess your answer to this will be something like: "Hey - I didn't mean any of that stuff. You should chill, man. It's just a scanner bla bla... Peace." There you go - I saved you time writing it, you can just quote that part) - all that sort of stuff that doesn't in any way address the actual *facts* or evidence, but just uses rhetorical tropes to set-up straw man arguments and misrepresent what's been said, I'll cut all of that out of the answer. What we're left with, is apparently the fact that you think that adjusting the image with Vuescan (or Silverfast, for that matter) before capturing the final scan (all these alterations are destructive of the data in the image incidentally) gives you a better result than turning off all pre-scan manipulation. The problem is, you're wrong. If you capture the full, flat, linear, unaltered, raw, 48 or even 64bit, negative data that the scanner is capable of capturing, and import the full-toned unmediated 16bit file into Photoshop instead, you will find the application gives far more control, and has far more sophisticated tools, than the destructive manipulations being permanently and irrevocably inflicted on your original image by messing around with the controls in Vuescan. The Coolscan9000 gives results - when properly operated - that are just a hair off what you can get from a Flextight. The simple answer is this - you think it's 'quick-and-dirty' cuz you're not doing it right. Oh - and btw - Peace. Why don't you just put up some of your work & we can start a civil discussion. I'm more than happy to learn from others. Your tone is offensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 8, 2012 Share #60 Posted May 8, 2012 Sorry to reanimate this thread, advice is welcome. Also, apologies for the large number of questions below. We have about 2000 framed slides (hama i.e in air, not between glass, not guaranteed to be flat) and large number of negative film strips + printed photos where the original negative has been lost over the years. I checked some prices for scan service and at 0.20 - 0.40 per slide/image/scan the more economical route may be to buy a scanner (or rental?). Presumably it is worth scanning to tiff, raw, dng or similar instead of jpg? Flatbed or film/slide holder type? Some of the latter appear to be stand-alone scan to SD card. How does film slide scanning work on a flatbed is there a built in light source? How about the scan speed, that seems to be quite variable depending on type. Rental sounds like an interesting option as we will not want to scan very much after we have dealt with the existing pile & our house is cluttered enough with all sorts of electronic gizmos. On the other hand I guess we could buy something and resell after we have done with it. I found this site (sorry in Dutch) for purchasing a scanner, but the reviews mentioned there are all over the place. Any comments are welcome. I am very much stuck up a creek at present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.