Scanning black-and-white prints - help wanted

[Richardgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking for tips on scanning a collection of glossy black and white prints up to about 8x10 inches. (Note that the negatives from which the prints were made are not available, so no lectures, please, on using those instead - I wish I could!). The prints are no larger than 8x10in, so size-wise using a flatbed scanner should be fine.

 

The prints have a full range of density, but my early attempts on a borrowed HP flatbed scanner with accompanying HP software have resulted in burned-out highlights and poor shadow gradation. There was no way to adjust this in the software at the scanning stage, nor could anything be recovered from the .tif file in post-processing. This points to the scanner having a limited dynamic range, so maybe it's just an 'old' model - are newer ones better? Installing / changing the software is not an option.

 

Thanks.

 

[EoinC]

Any way of getting hold of an Epson V-series flatbed scanner, Richard? I have a V800, which scans well, but I think all the 'V's are pretty much the same. They also have the advantage of being a good film scanner, particularly for MF upwards.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm scanning my up to 8x10 darkroom prints, including glossy RC with Epson V500 and its original SW. The tiff files are very editable in LR.

 

 

 

 

[pico]

Prints have far less dynamic range than film or digital.

There should be no loss in highlights or shadows.

 

I would double check your scanner software settings.

Edited February 22, 2018 by pico

[Richardgb]

Prints have far less dynamic range than film or digital.

There should be no loss in highlights or shadows.

 

I would double check your scanner software settings.

Yes, which is why the result is surprising. Unfortunately the bundled software has very limited control, basically a 'document' or a 'photo' setting, with the latter allowing extra bit-depth (which I'm using, of course). As I said in the OP, it's a borrowed scanner (actually in a public library!), so there's no chance of trying anything apar from what's (literally) on the menu.

[pico]

[...] it's a borrowed scanner (actually in a public library!), so there's no chance of trying anything apar from what's (literally) on the menu.

 

Oh, I understand now. It's a choked device. Sorry about that.

[carbon_dragon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this thread is a touch old, but I'll just add my experiences for future posterity.

 

I'd buy my own scanner for this purpose. They're very useful in general terms for making copies and for scanning other stuff. I had good results scanning a bunch of old prints from my Dad's family and some from my Mom's family from an Epson Perfection V500 (old version now). I used Vuescan rather than the native Epson software but you can try that too. Of course the result depends on the print and you'll have to fix dust spots and so on. But it works pretty well.

 

What did you end up doing Richard?

[verwackelt]

I would not scan them. Scanning produces often a lot of banding in skies. A foto with a good digital kamera is most better then the most flatbedscanners
taking fotos with the help from a reprostand like this:
https://www.amazon.de/DÖRR-Reprostand-Grundplatte-stufenlose-Höhenverstellung/dp/B00BBKOW70
And a macrolens.
You are way faster and get RAW-files for editing.
 

[carbon_dragon]

In the mid 70s, the people who worked in the school darkroom often got requests from the school administration to use copystands to copy photographs which didn’t have negatives. We were using film to create negatives for the prints and it worked OK. But as I said, My scans of the OLD prints I had from my parents scanned well. I typically scanned in color and then converted to black and white (they were black and white to begin with but with tints which were probably the result of age or maybe in some cases intent).

 

Anyway, whatever you have and/or are comfortable with should work. I would guess a copy stand is probably cheaper than a good scanner.

[schattenundlicht]

[...]

I would guess a copy stand is probably cheaper than a good scanner.

Unfortunately, a GOOD dedicated copy stand is not cheap at all

 

You can make do, however, even with makeshift solutions suitable for negative and/or print reproduction:

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281978-emergency-„diy“-scanning/?p=3464650

Edited September 30, 2018 by schattenundlicht