scanning

Hello All

 

Just got the new Epson v800 did a test scan using a 35mm neg on both Silverfast8 and the Epson scan software, liked the Epson better but wanted to get some feedback.

 

Which do you use, I noticed that some use the Silverfast8 and if so do you use the workflow pilot or not.

 

I was having problems on the sizing and settings.

 

I know this should probably be in a different thread but I am here most often and you all do a lot of scanning, so...

 

Thanks

Don

 

here is the tests from each scan

it looks like the Epson is cutting off the top and bottom I think because it batch scanned???

 

silverfast

 

Epson

 

And this one is from the Vuescan software that I originaly did

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Don Harpold

Yes Don, certainly looks as if the Silverfast and Epson software is producing better results than the Vuescan, and that has been my experience, too.

I can't find much to pick and choose from when it comes to comparing the results from Silverfast or Epson, but I prefer the workflow of Silverfast.

 

I've never attempted a batch scan on either!

 

I don't follow the SE scan pilot, necessarily. Here's a 35mm monochrome workflow, initiated in Photoshop

 

Load the 35mm carrier with negs. It really doesn't seem to matter if it's emulsion up or down, but I always load the curved surface of the film up, so the negative holder frame will flatten it when fitted. Place negative holder in scanner. Set Scan Type to 16>8 bit grayscale, select the degree of sharpening in the filter box ( I usually use "Less Auto Sharpen (-)" ), select 100% scale ( though the software defaults to this) and your output resolution; I use 2400 dpi for most on-line display.

 

Select a film type in the "Negative" box; this is not particularly important for B&W and perhaps a little amateurish in that it takes no account of the development involved. I've found Ilford Pan F Plus 50 sets up a good average algorithm and leave the program set on this. Set the brightness and auto-tolerance in this box to zero.

 

Set your picture settings to Zero, and hit Prescan. With left mouse button draw a marquee around the frame you want to scan, and then hit the (+) button at top left. On the enlarged image you can then adjust the exact framing for the scan, alter overall exposure with the slider in the "Negative" box, and alter brightness and contrast in the Picture Settings. When you're happy with the appearance, hit "Scan".

 

That's basically it. You can alter image characteristics using curves and levels, but it's generally unnecessary unless you have a real problem negative.

 

Feel free to message me if you want to discuss things!

Edited January 17, 2018 by rick_drawbridge

There are roughly two approaches to scanning, probably - one is getting the scan as right as possible immediately, the other more focussed on getting as much info as possible out of the scan, and work on it later in an editor to get the desired look.

Silverfast and VueScan can do both approaches just fine, and they mainly differ in how they work and their User Interface. VueScan is at least as capable of getting great results, but its user interface is an acquired taste (as is Silverfast, it is really a matter of preference). I've got no Epson scanner, so no specific experience with their software. I did a trial of Silverfast, but decided to go with VueScan.

 

I'm more of the "scan flat and get as much data as possible" school, so my workflow is completely different from Rick's: I use no sharpening at all in VueScan, leave colour and black and white points untouched, scan at high resolutions. For the occassional colour negative, I use the correction for the base colour to get the overall colour response somewhat right. I save 16-bits RGB TIFF or Greyscale TIFF (in fact as DNG as that works better downstream for me, but they're TIFFs basically), and import these files into CaptureOne, where my scans follow the same workflow of my digital files and happily live together. Cloning out dustspots is simple work in CaptureOne, as are colour corrections, and I like its sharpening, so that's some of the main reasons I prefer this route.

 

In no way does this mean getting better results (I mean, look at Rick's work, how can one argue?) - it's really a matter of preference, and much of that comes down to the user interfaces of programs. In my experience, both Silverfast and VueScan need an effort to get the best out of them. So it's worth choosing one of the two, and focus on that. Choose the one you find most logical to operate, and where the buttons/icons/... make the most sense to you, because that's the one you'll probably master with more ease. Invest time into it, and go from there.

Hello Rick and Wouter

 

Thanks for the replies.

Below are a couple of scans following Ricks procedure and all I did in my PS Elements 2 was resize the image

Pretty happy so far, these negs are probably a little under so a little dark

 

Rick

The first time I did the scans it scanned twice, the second was an IR scan and the image was flat with no detail, is the part of the dust/scratch and grain reduction? I turned them both off and got a good scan?

 

Anyway here are a couple from the Hasselblad that I did this past week, as said a little under as I used a different meter, Goosen Pilot so I need to get used to it.

 

 

Very good, Don! There's obviously very little additional post processing required, but you have an excellent gamut of tones to work with if you feel you'd like to experiment. Yes, leave any dust/grain filters off; they don't work with grayscale anyway, as I recall. Having said that, these are nice clean scans. Nice to see that you, too, are using the Gossen Pilot along with Bill Bowes and myself....

Much like the tonality in the second example, looks good :-)

Nice results, Don. I look forward to seeing more of your scans.

Looking Super Good Don ! I will be revisiting this thread when back on the "cold" mainland in several months. . Hope to get a high end Epson printer (B/W) and will need to pay more attention to scanning. All the above advice will be used as I am presently bare bones with both the V600 & V800 units. Aloha Bill

and, after you have mastered all the above, give serious consideration to purchasing the Better Scanning MF film holder (with Anti Newton Ring inserts) & some pre-sized ANR inserts for 35mm that fit into the Epson neg holders. A very noticeable improvement to the scan files. Aloha Bill

Hello

Thanks for the comments.

 

Bill,

I have the Better Scanning film holder and glass and the glass for the 35mm film holder. These new film holders for the V800 have an antinewton "glass" in them, how good they are remains to be seen, I have only scanned a couple of negs.

 

Rick,

I was looking on the bay for another Pilot and all seem to have the incident cover cracked and I noticed mind does to, at least I think it just split a couple weeks ago, do you and Bill use it incident or reflective, the ones in this thread I scanned were reflective.

Are you setting the meter to read over exposure?

 

Thanks for the help

Don

Don, The couple of these Gossen meters I have are the "Sixtino" version, though I don't believe there's a difference other than in the names; they were named Pilot in the USA and Sixtino elsewhere. I assume yours has the sliding incident light cover, a sort of "rolling desk top" construction that Gossen used on many or their meters. It slides away internally down the side of the meter when not required, and I've not seen one with a crack or break. If it's a serious crack I guess it would have some effect on the incident light reading, and I don't know how long it would survive being moved to and fro in a cracked condition. From a quick look on Ebay there seems to be plenty of tidy ones available. There was a Pilot 2, quite a different meter...

 

90% of the readings I take with the Sixtino are reflective, but the abillity to measure incident light does come in handy. I've found them to measure accurately at the ISO you set them to. I attach a pic so other members know what we're talking about! The small lever with the red line at bottom right of the meter is used to slide the blind up and over the photocell for incident light readings.

 

Gossen "Sixtino"

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by rick_drawbridge

Hello everyone. The Pilot & Sixtino are indeed the same meter, just different names. The Pilot 2 is the same meter, but in a non removable house (it's cemented). Not a bad thing unless the meter does not swing it's needle after a year of use. Open a Pilot & 99% of the problem is a sliver of wire that "breaks" at a cold solder joint of the small selenium meter element. A total repair time of under 10 minutes, but a No-Deal with the Pilot 2. My one & only Pilot 2 sits in the junk drawer.

I find that an incidence reading from the Pilot is the same as my palm, minus 1 stop. Mr. Adams advice for reading your palm can replace that slider if it breaks. About 90% of my exposures are with the reflected, with my brain assigning the Zones. Hard to brake a 40+ year habit.

Of the 7 Pilots in my kit's, only one is "off". . . about 1/2 f stop, but that is not a problem as I rate my 400 materials at 250, the 100 material @ 80. Again, looking for the shadow values. Aloha, Bill

I was not impressed by the so called "Anti Newton Glass" carriers that came with my V800. They are really plexglass plastic & hold a static charge like crazy, that REALLY holds dust. I was stuck with the 4x5 carrier, but replaced the MF with the BS unit. I was not happy with the 4 channel 35mm carrier, since it would not hold the strips flat, even with ANG inserts. I replaced the 35mm carrier with the one from the V700 model. Works great, since it is only two channels. Aloha, Bill

I have an Epson 4990, which is a very capable scanner. Before I bought my 4990, I was using a 3170, which was no slouch either. I have used Epson Scan software from the beginning and have just never seen any reason to use anything else. I tried Silverfast and found it to be frustratingly non-intuitive. Vue Scan sure seemed to be full-featured enough until I tried scanning in batch mode and then I was unable to indicate individual exposure preferences for each scan in batch mode. Beside, I found Vue Scan's interface to be rather, well, I dunno . . . rather clumsy, I guess I'd say. Anyway, I have alway found Epson Scan to do what I needed to do to put together a decent scan, and from there, I have always been able to further massage the files, if necessary, in my post processing software of choice.

When it's possible to use the original software made to go with a scanner, it is often the path of least resistance to use it.

 

I have an older Mac Pro that I dedicate to my Nikon CoolScan 9000 for that reason, and it works quite well. More complicated editing; I do in Photoshop.

 

However, as hardware and software evolve, one of the really big advantages of VueScan is its ability to work with a huge number of legacy scanners. I admit that if you try to tweak VueScan, it has its little awkwardness; but to me it seems no more difficult than other scanning programs -- none of which are paragons of user ease.