robert_brown30

<p>I actually have a copy of Vuescan but it's a bit, uh, overwhelming. </p>

<p>Thanks Phil,<br> When exporting from LR, resizing and sharpening are disabled. Exporting as a 16 bit TIFF @ 3600 ppi. Maybe the problem is that I'm exporting 16 bit instead of 8 bit. I don't think Silverfast SE Plus 8 is even capable of 16 bit scans. My scanning settings say 16 -> 8 bit, whatever that means. And there are no rotation options in SF.. This software is kind of a joke.</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>So it seems that no matter how carefully I adjust the negatives in the negative holder, it is basically impossible to crop the images in Silverfast since each negative is essentially crooked. I've attached a screenshot to better explain what I'm talking about. This wouldn't be that big of a deal if I could crop the images in LR, but for some reason, exporting from LR means the image falls apart. I lose a lot of grain and detail just from cropping and exporting it. I'm scanning as 3600ppi tifs and exporting from LR using the same output. Any ideas? This is driving me crazy.<img src="https://68.media.tumblr.com/f1e0d55a2d38ebfbbfcc57cedea6baf4/tumblr_oelg8yL0bv1vw3pxro1_1280.png" alt="" width="1280" height="800" /></p>

<p>Hi,<br> I shoot a lot of Tri-X pushed to 1600. Am wondering if selecting Kodak 400 Tri-X from the presets in Silverfast is the right way to go. Sometimes I feel like the scans are coming out a bit underexposed. Using a Plustek 8200i if that matters. </p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I posted a while back when I first got my Plustek 8200i bundled with Silverlight SE Plus, but have since gotten a copy of Vuescan.</p> <p>Starting to think that Vuescan is the way to go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with SE Plus, you can only export black and white negatives in 8-bit? Also, even when I export as a 7200dpi TIF, as soon as I crop the image in LR and export it, I lose a ton of quality. Sucks because often times the film stock presets in SE Plus give me great results, but I can't do anything with the exported file. All of my scans are strictly for web as I prefer the darkroom for prints, and I can't upload a 100mb TIF.<br> This brings me to Vuescan. Someone shared their settings on a website (photo attached), which I've copied, and have been using. I don't have a copy of Camera Raw and I can't get one since I don't subscribe to photoshop creative cloud.<br> Can it really be as simple as exporting from Vuescan as a 16-bit TIF (the file always looks completely flat and ugly just like a RAW scan), adjusting in LR, and exporting to JPEG for the web? <br> Also, one thing that's very strange is the fact that Silverlight takes 10 minutes to scan a frame, whereas Vuescan takes 30 seconds to scan the same frame. Why is that?</p> <p>I'm building a site and need to go back and rescan a ton of stuff from over the years, and I really want my scans to be consistent. </p> <p>Sorry, I'm still a newbie at this. I love taking pictures but scanning is way over my head and I'll never pay money for awful looking lab scans again.</p> <p>Thanks!</p> <p><img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/0624c022dc25b34eb3791b7372a2ca90/tumblr_oa6e35zOEo1taui2so1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="619" /></p>

<p>Thanks for the help, Greg!<br /> I just now read your response, so I haven't had a chance to try the 16->1 bit. I've been posting mostly on Instagram for a couple years (handle: streetfluff) but have a friend building a site for me. I'm going to need to go back and rescan a bunch of negatives that were originally scanned with my ancient Epson 4490 flatbed. I am running into a couple of problems, however. When I scan a b&w negative with (what I believe) are the appropriate settings, the scans come out looking pretty decent. Sometimes Multi-exposure makes the images look worse; sometimes better. Anyway, I'm scanning the negs as 3600 TIFs since any prints I make are in the darkroom, then in Lightroom I'm cropping the excess around the image (which is never perfectly straight, forcing me to crop bits of the image), and doing light spotting as needed with the healing tool. However, when I export from lightroom, I seem to lose A LOT of grain and sharpness. Sorry if I'm not making a ton of sense here. I'm not looking into doing a ton of work in post. I just want to take pictures, scan them properly, and make sure they look great on my website. Thanks so much in advance.<br /> Attached are screen grabs of my SL/LR settings and an exported image from LR that lost quite a bit of sharpness.<img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/707c22279c4fd6310cd87c2feaba2f91/tumblr_o8ku5rjmCP1taui2so5_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="863" /><img src="https://67.media.tumblr.com/d500cd45c82ee031d86043e0c12dec1c/tumblr_o8ku5rjmCP1taui2so1_1280.png" alt="" width="1280" height="800" /></p> <p><img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/61316274692b6516fb79e4df6a202edd/tumblr_o8ku5rjmCP1taui2so2_1280.png" alt="" width="1280" height="800" /><img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/c4e01ac77352f4c74141178d88e83e0d/tumblr_o8ku5rjmCP1taui2so3_1280.png" alt="" width="1280" height="800" /><img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/9b0c656fde1c2aa24e524301376de290/tumblr_o8ku5rjmCP1taui2so4_1280.png" alt="" width="1280" height="800" /></p>

<p>Hi, <br> I recently got a Plustek 8200i and Silverlight SE 8 Plus. So far I love it, but want to make sure I'm using the correct output settings here. I'm scanning b+w and my scans are going to be used for my website. </p> <p>I have the vendor/film type set up properly, using 16->8 bit greyscale, and am scanning as TIFF files at 3200dpi. <br> I supposed I'm just wondering if I should have the CCR box checked in the Negafix and/or Histogram settings. <br> Also, what's the general consensus on the Multi-exposure setting in Silverfast?<br> Any tips/suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you.<br> Looks like I can get an Epson v7xx/v8xx for about the same price as a coolscan V. Since I'm only shooting 35mm, this might be the best bet, eh? http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-COOLSCAN-V-ED-Film-Scanner-MINT-Hi-Serial-w-MA-21-adapter-Just-Serviced-/222131617167?hash=item33b8137d8f:g:3EgAAOSwEetWA2qj</p>

<p>Peter,<br /> When you were wet mounting with the v700, how many negs were you able to scan at a time? An entire roll cut into strips of 5 or 6? Sorry, completely new to this. Also am seeing there are different wet mounting kits available online for purchase. Any recommendations? Also, will Kami and Lumina damage the negatives in any way? How does one go about properly cleaning the negatives afterwards? Is there another way to keep the negatives nice and flat without wet mounting?</p> <p>Thank you again so much for all the help.<br /> PS: Those scan looks great, especially the black and white scan w/ your v700.</p>

<p>Okay cool, thank you. Looks like I'll go for a v700. Did you find wet mounting your 35 negs to be a total pain in the ass? I have no experience wet mounting whatsoever.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help!<br /> Mark and Peter,<br /> You've kind of got me thinking that perhaps I should just invest in an Epson V series scanner instead of an XA. Just thinking about the hassle of keeping an uncut 36exp roll safe from dust/cat hair for an hour or two is already giving me a migraine. Using a flatbed works great because I can blast the negatives with air before quickly closing the scanner shut. But since the negatives don't lay completely flat my scans don't seem as sharp as they should be, and often times I feel like that grain I love so much about Tri-X isn't really showing up. I should mention that whatever scanner I end up with will just be used for web stuff. If I'm making prints, I'll hit the darkroom. Also, I only shoot 35mm.<br /> One thing that sucks is it seems Epson hasn't done anything to fix bug that has come about with the newer versions of OSX. Sitting at my desk and having to move the cursor every 2 minutes in order to have the following frame scanned is driving me absolutely insane! I guess I could bail on the Epson software and learn to use Vuescan.<br /> Looks like the v300's are going for like $50-$100 shipped on Ebay. What would you say the main difference is between the v300, 600, 700, and 750? I'll have whatever scanner I buy until it dies. So would I be happier down the road dropping say, $500 on the v700 vs $100 on a v300? I believe the v700 can scan 36 frames at once, whereas the v300 can only scan two strips?</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> I've been using an Epson 4490 flatbed scanner for the past year and a half or so to scan my black and white 35mm negatives. The scanner works, but I'm growing tired of it. The scans never seem as sharp as they should be, and I feel like the Epson scan software's auto-exposure mode gives wonky results at times. I don't want to do a ton of work to my scans in post. In my mind, I might as well be shooting digital at that point. My biggest gripe, however, is how time consuming it has become. Epson Scan's software hasn't stayed up to date with the newer versions of OSX and as a result, you have to physically sit in front of your computer and move the cursor in order for the scanner to advance to the next frame. Probably the most annoying thing ever.<br /> Essentially, I want a scanner that can batch scan an entire roll. I want to feed the roll in, press start, and go about my day. This brings me to the Primefilm XA...<br /> I was able to check my friend's Primefilm XA out yesterday, and it looks pretty incredible. He scanned a negative for me, using the Silverlight SE Plus software, and the image looks literally twice as good as my scan with the Epson scanner. <br /> Now, I can get a brand new Primefilm XA off Amazon for $379. But there are a couple potential problems I foresee:<br /> 1) The XA comes bundled with Silverlight SE 8. From what I understand, this is the bare bones version of Silverlight, and I'd probably end up needing to upgrade for Silverlight SE Plus. I know that SE Plus is $150 by itself, but have no idea what it would cost to upgrade from SE 8. Anyone know?<br /> 2) My room is dusty. I have a long haired cat. Regardless of how clean I keep my room, these things have been an issue in the past. When using the flatbed scanner, I'll blast the living hell out of the negatives I am inserting into it with a rocket blower, and then close the scanner shut immediately afterwards. This seems to work well and leaves me very little work with the healing brush in Lightroom. Won't having a 36exp uncut roll just hanging out on my desk while the Primefilm XA does its thing result in my negatives getting completely covered in dust? Or am I being paranoid?<br /> I just can't get over how much better the scan looked on the XA vs. the Epson. I really want one, but am wondering if it's gonna be a bad call. <br /> What do you all think? It's very saddening to shoot with an M6 and a tick tack sharp summicron only to have the image quality hindered by a flatbed scanner.</p> <p>PS. There's a bit of what looks like haze inside some of the 4490's glass. Not sure if this is affecting my scans or not. I've attached an image of said haze/fog.</p> <p>Thank you!</p> <p><img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/050fcf5766c1e321ad66277c7f62c9fd/tumblr_o7whz4DuyU1taui2so1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="1707" /></p>

<p>I'm shooting with the Non-TTL so it's all good.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the info, everyone.<br> Ended up finding the sensor cord Greg recommended at a camera shop in my town for $7.50. I ordered a PC-31 off eBay as well. This setup seems pretty solid. Focusing is going to be a bit of a pain as my hands will be full, but I'm sure I'll figure something out.</p> <p>Also, is it normal for the sensor to feel a bit loose in the flash? It's pretty secure in the sensor cord, but on the flash itself, it's extremely easy to pull in and out. Like it doesn't feel like it's firmly in place. The end of the sensor cord that is inserted into the flash obviously fits pretty loosely as well. </p>

Thanks for all the info! Looks like I'll go with one of these as it is coiled and cheap. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/h ome? O=&sku=61580&gclid=Cj0KEQjwoM63BRDK _bf4_MeV3ZEBEiQAuQWqkXSvQD2Cg5BN7 bSiT_GU- oP5tma1Ar19QpOhGo7Cx54aAqUH8P8HAQ &Q=&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C91438732 682%2C&is=REG&A=details 3' seems a bit long but I'll live.