How to scan?

i was always not happy when checking the scans on my compter, those out from

local lab ( they use a Fuji frontier ) looks be with far less quanlity compared

to original slides.

 

so i am thinking i should buy my own scanner and do it myself. but i am not sure

what level of scanner should i consider if my purpose is only to prepare for web

publishing ( such as put onto photo.net ). that is, i will pay most attention on

quality, not file size.

 

and, how much does a scanner contribute to those pretty works found on the site

( photo.net )? how much photoshop jobs and kills need?

 

 

thanks.

 

-

woody

<p>

> those out from local lab ( they use a Fuji frontier )</br>

> looks be with far less quanlity compared to original slides.

</p>

<p>

"Quanlity" : quantity and quality fused and compacted in a single convenient concept...

</p>

sorry for the typo. i meant 'quality'

For Web use a good flat-bed scanner is OK.

Be prepared to a lot of post processing in photo-shop.

The skill required is important, you need a good book. Before reading books I used the wrong way to obtain something tha with the proper operation is easier.

For most transparencies, the sharpness,detail, colour range, and the brightness range will look less good on a computer screen than they do on a LightBox. Neither can you control how an image looks on someone else's computer and you can bet that not eveyone will be seeing an image just as you do no matter how good a job you make of the file preparation.

 

These reservations aside it is the case that scanning is the weak point in the Frontier's capability, and not only might you get better images on the web by scanning/adjusting yourself, but in all probability you'll get better prints from the Frontier by supplying a file and avoiding their scanning.

 

For web publishing and small prints (I assume from 35mm) a flatbed scanner should be sufficient- and if quality is your objective then I'd aim at the 4990 for its greater DMax- though if you're convinced that you'll only use this for the web then I might equally be tempted by a cheaper or used model.

 

Personally I have never made a flatbed scan that didn't require adjustment and I'm much happier using Photoshop/Elements than the adjustments available through the scanning software.

 

Your last question is impossible to answer. The vast majority of images uploaded to photo.net originate as digital images. I'm sure that of those that aren't, some have been made to look as close to the original as possible and others will have been improved.

I'd go with a Nikon Coolscan V. The price should be around $500. It will deliver excellent results. The software takes a bit of getting used to, but once you understand it, you'll be able to produce scans that require very little post processing.

 

Anthony

dear Anthony Valvo, how would compare Coolscan V to DiMage Scan Dule IV? can the cheaper produces similar result if don't care about the hardware dust removing function?

 

another question is, another lab here ( not the frontier one ) use a nikon scanner, but they always delive me files with very narrow tone range ( in the level tool ). they said, by this way, the file is easier to post processing. but after i get back these files and apply auto-level ( or my manual level ) function on the images, they quite ofter present color cast and ask hours of computer work to bring the color back. can anyone here understand the real reason they do job this way? is the reason the claimed true?

 

thanks.

 

-

woody

I would say at least a Scan Dual series scanner. It's more convenient than a flatbed, requires less post processing, and prints larger.

<p>I have used both the Scan Dual and the Nikon Coolscan V extensively. The Coolscan is simply a superior scanner. It does a much better job with negative film and includes Digital Gem and Ice which does wonders eliminating dust and grain from negatives. Plus you will spend much less time getting great results with the Coolscan V.</p>

 

<p>Here is a scan of a Kodak Gold 200 35mm negative with the Nikon Coolscan V (The film was three years past expiration).</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_1.jpg"> </p><p>Most of the photos on my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website are scanned from 200 and 400 asa film using the Coolscan V.</p>

Steven Woody,<p>Nikon scanners are great. They do require manual tweaking for each emulsion to get the best scan. You can then save the settings to scan the rest of the roll with. Most likely your lab doesn't put much effort into getting a good scan. They just run the slides through the batch feeder, with whatever default settings there are, and you have to live with the results.<p>You DON'T have to live with such crappiness if you have your own scanner. I was in the same situation as you. Now I have the Nikon Coolscan 5000, and I love it! Yes, it costs more, but the happiness remains even after the pain of the payments are gone.

They want the narrow tonal scale so it prints properly on their high contrast paper. All comercial / consumer places use high contrast paper. Televisions are displayed with the colors all jacked up beyond belief. Totally rediculous. I lower the contrast and saturation before I send files to Ritz and they come out looking better and more normal, but not as good as if printed by my local wedding lab that uses portrait paper. Go to a pro portrait gallery and see how photos are supposed to look.

 

Changing levels does not change color balance unless you use one of the SINGLE color channels options rather than the RGB master. There is a selection at the top of the box when you select levels. I forget the path in elements, but it may be enhance, ?, then you get a choice of brightness/contrast or levels from the fly out menue. Pick levels then only use master RGB.

 

BTW, individual colors in the levels box is the proper way to adjust color balance. If blue, decrease blue. If yellow, increase blue. Magenta and green are opposites and treated the same way. So are red and cyan. You can also get combinations like purple which is too much blue and red. Decrease them both. Color balance in a darkroom works the very same way if you use an additive system like the Phillips. With subtractive systems using yellow, cyan, magenta, you add the color that is in excess. If you are getting a yellow cast to the print, add yellow to the light and the next print goes toward blue.

Dear Donald Peterson,

 

the photo you show me is beautify. did you do any ( or how many ) photoshop works for the pic? if so, would you like to show me what photoshop functions you applied on the photo. i so much interested what is the basic photoshop steps to make a pic look good.

 

thanks.

 

-

woody

Dear Ronald Moravec,

 

thanks for your explain.

 

i am thinking that even thought the post level adjusting will not bring in color cast, it can, however, lost resolution. just like you have a one gallon box ( the full tone range what can be get by the scanner ), but you now only fill in part of it ( that is what the lab did for me, the reuslting tones not from 0 to 255, but from 40 to 200 for example ), after that, you then spread the stuff to make them fill the whole capability of the box, just like the level tools do. if getting the the whole box of stuff at the first time, no information will be lost. am i right?

 

thanks

I can`t answer the question. I would think it doen`t matter if the scanner ecpand the range, or you expand with PShop. Post it as a new question.

 

If I were getting flat scans, I would fix it at the scanning stage. my Epson flatbed 4870 and the Minolta 5400 have adjustments to get a full scale scans. Normally I do not need to use the controls, but when I do, I try to use almost all the tonal range and pull the last little bit with Photoshop. If you clip it off in scanning, it is gone.

you can get good results from both flatbed and film scanners. if all you want the scanner for is to post stuff on the web, i would go with a less expensive scanner, but still go with a good brand, such as epson or canon (there are many other good brands as well), as they do better at capturing color and are typically faster. they also tend to be faster for that quality. if you do get a flat bed, be sure it has some sort of 35mm and slide adapter. the epson perfection photo series even comes with an adapter for medium format film. if you think you might want to use it to print later, flat bed scanners work well enough, i've gotten great prints from mine, but you might want to consider a film scanner such as the nikon's mentioned. furhter more, if you want to print, you'll want to get a colorimeter such as monaco x-rite to calibrate your monitor, otherwise what you see on your monitor and what prints out might be different. if you're using a printer at home, make sure to get the package that comes with the scanner and printer calibration stuff as well. if you use a lab, make sure it's one you trust to keep their printer calibrated. now, for web purposes, scan it at whatever size you want it to be (4x6, 5x7, etc) at a resolution of 72-96 dpi/ppi, as 300 would make it way larger than a computer screen. for print purposes, scan it at 150-300 (you probably won't notice much difference, and not all labs can print at a 300 resolution anyway, most can do at least 240 though. or, if you want to print and post, you can scan it at the high 150-300 setting and then use an image edition program such as photoshop or elements to create a second smaller one for web posting.