Scanning software for the best possible quality

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, thanks Pete. I limit myself to the film base and exposure locks so don't do the other locks you described in that thread, and I get good results.

 

Let the scanning software invert the image.

 

I only have Vuescan invert BW photos (which it does automatically I believe). I use ColorPerfect to invert colour negative photos and set the correct colour balance there because it lets me select film types. Are you sure you had Portra 160 selected in ColorPerfect for the above shots?

[Stealth3kpl]

I didn't use ColorPerfect in the above shots. they were scanned as colournegative in Vuescan but using the film profiling steps described in the link. I gave up on ColourPerfect as no two conversions looked the same. I notice that you're very pleased with it. I tend to use EpsonScan for colour negative and Vuescan for B+W.

Pete

[erl]

Pete, does Epson Scan work with other scanners, like VueScan? I have the V700 but have never installed the software, preferring VueScan.

My scanners are: Nikon 8000, Nikon 5000 and Epson V700.

I only use the Epson to make contact sheets or copy documents etc.

I have uninstalled Nikon Scan as well.

Only using VueScan. I note your comments about ColorPerfect for colour.

I have not done much scanning of late but am moving back to film again. Mostly B&W but will delve into col neg again.

I process all my own film in a JOBO 1500 which delivers very consistent results, thereby eliminating one source of error.

[Stealth3kpl]

Pete, does Epson Scan work with other scanners,

I think it's purely for Epson scanners. I'm sure it won't work with your Nikon scanners

 

I have the V700 but have never installed the software, preferring VueScan.

You seem very happy with Vuescan and I'm not sure you will gain anything by installing EpsonScan. I'm sure my problems with Vuescan for colour lie with my inadequate use of the program or failings of the V700 itself. I'll be very interested to see how you get on with Vuescan on the V700.

 

I process all my own film in a JOBO 1500 which delivers very consistent results, thereby eliminating one source of error.

Nice. Good idea.

Pete

[Olimatt]

Thank you for your replies.

 

I am learning all that stuff by myself (BW development, scanning...) and wondering if I am doing something wrong.

 

I acquired a new Bessa IIIw camera this week and gave it a try (m6 stayed at home)... this is the best I can get out of a 3200 dpi scan of a 6x6 negative (scanned as a positive and tried to make the best out of it using silverfast epson+lightroom):

 

export_tiff_100mb

 

I am really not impressed, not much details even after 100% sharpening and curves adjustment... can you comment this picture ? The negative looks richer and way better than the scan! Almost everything should be in focus (f22 focused at 3m) using a tripod.

There is an absolut lack of sharpness and details. The tones are quite boring too... let's sum up: I am very disappointed.

 

Info: fp4 developed with dd-x at iso 125.

 

Since I do not know anybody doing his own BW dev or scanning here in my region, I would appreciate some "live on screen help". A short screensharing session (skype/teamviewer) of my desktop could be very positive. If somebody is willing to help, please send me a private message. Thank you!

 

Best Regards,

 

Olivier

[pop]

Olivier - The dust on your picture looks quite sharp. It even seems that the scanner reproduces part of the grain of your negative - have a look at the office building in the background, the one with the lettering "ische".

 

I do not know how sharp the pictures of your Bessa can get, but if there is room for improvement, I'd think you ought to look there first. I am a bit dubious whether your lens performs really well at f/22; also, I'm not at all certain how deep the depth of field ought to be at that aperture and the magnification of the picture you seem to use.

 

I'd suggest to take another picture with the focus set exactly to the distance of your Wasserturm (or any wall with bricks or stones). Use an aperture value of f/5.6 or f/8 where many lenses perform best.

 

Part of your disappointment might well come from looking at your picture at its maximal resolution (that is, at a scale of 100%). That's called "pixel peeping" and is a common source for disappointment. There are not many cameras or films which can pass this test, I think.

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The image is rather soft overall if you've post-processed it. As a out-of-the-scanner image, however, it is quite ok imho.

 

What lens was used? I'm not familiar with the camera you mention. What do you mean by 100% sharpening? I use unsharp mask and typically push up the % amount to 150-180 and adjust the radius until I am happy viewing the image at actual size. Then I adjust the threshold to take the edge off.

 

But why scan it at such a resolution? Do you intend to make a very large print, which is to be viewed at a great distance?

 

When I began scanning I used the maximum resolution, telling myself that the 25 megapixels equivalent I could get from a 35mm neg was the best there is.

 

The scan resolution is linked to what you'll use the image for and how it is to be viewed.

 

Like I mentioned in my first reply, Vuescan's Print size (which is roughly 1800x1200) is perfectly acceptable for most uses, even not too large prints actually (13x18cm approx). Plus it creates 5-10MB tiffs which are much faster to work with than 100-200MB files I would otherwise get (which of course become even greater when processed in Photoshop).

 

I see you scanned the image as a positive. I know there are different philosophies about this, including that it would somehow cram more info out of the image by using all colour channels. I don't believe this to be true - at least my tests haven't shown this to be correct.

 

It is true that for some scanners one of the channels is sharper and so in Vuescan it is possible to choose which channel to "make gray" from, that is which channels to use for sharpness. To check this, scan the black and white neg as color and check every colour layer individually in Photoshop. Any difference in sharpness should be evident then.

 

As for the tones, well you'll have to post-process a bit to get a more punchy image. Some people like the duller softer black and white images; I don't (again see my first reply for editing).

[Olimatt]

Olivier - The dust on your picture looks quite sharp. It even seems that the scanner reproduces part of the grain of your negative - have a look at the office building in the background, the one with the lettering "ische".

 

I do not know how sharp the pictures of your Bessa can get, but if there is room for improvement, I'd think you ought to look there first. I am a bit dubious whether your lens performs really well at f/22; also, I'm not at all certain how deep the depth of field ought to be at that aperture and the magnification of the picture you seem to use.

 

I'd suggest to take another picture with the focus set exactly to the distance of your Wasserturm (or any wall with bricks or stones). Use an aperture value of f/5.6 or f/8 where many lenses perform best.

 

Part of your disappointment might well come from looking at your picture at its maximal resolution (that is, at a scale of 100%). That's called "pixel peeping" and is a common source for disappointment. There are not many cameras or films which can pass this test, I think.

 

I guess the resolution of the lens at f22 is not the best. I have done some further tests today but I screwed the development up ... I forgot 2 minutes of development time some small details are lost. Nevertheless is the overall image improved (f8 at its best). I simply scanned with the epson software and it looked fine.

 

The reason why I am scanning at theses resolutions is the wish to print my pictures on a3 sheets (ok, its not a square format). I also want to be able to define when should I use digital or medium format...