Jump to content

Negative scanners revisited


Recommended Posts

<p>I'm aware that this is a subject that has been visited before, and am wondering if anything has changed in the past year or two. I own an Epson Perfection V550 which I've already had replaced once, and has started to produce unwanted lines on my negative scans once more.<br>

I want to know whether there's any serious alternative to the Epson range. Quality is my main concern: much as I'd like to, I don't have the facilities to print, and I'm not keen on post processing with Photoshop or the like, retouching and moderate cropping aside.<br>

I've read about the Nikon Coolscan and know that I'd have to take a risk on something second-hand (I've also read somewhere that it's not great for B/W, which is my normal mode.)<br>

So, are there any worthwhile new additions on the market?<br>

Rex</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There seems to be a general bias against the "budget"-brand Plustek and Reflecta/Pacific Images scanners. While I realize they don't have the quality of the Nikons, they're a lot cheaper, can be bought new today with warranty and they really do work quite well. I really can't find a lot wrong for negatives with the Reflecta ProScan 7200 I have.<br>

Both brands also have a MF-capable model; I've got no experience with those, but reviews show a bit the same story: really not bad scanners, but not as solid build as the Nikons; a lot cheaper still, but not as cheap as the Epson flatbeds.<br>

The few reviews that exist of scanners do suggest that these Plusteks and Reflectas do deliver higher resolutions than Epsons, even if the specs tell a different story. While I cannot measure that (and have no interest in doing such tests), I can say that prints A3+ size of scanned B&W 35mm negatives I've done do look mighty fine.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now that I've used a digital camera to "scan" slides, why bother with a film scanner? I get better results in a tiny fraction of the time, for a relatively small investment (beyond the camera).</p>

<p>I should back up a bit, and confess that I haven't scanned negatives, only slides. However I don't expect much trouble with inversion, black and white or color. I have something which will suffice as a negative strip carrier. I should have examples posted shortly, once I get done what pays the bills.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have found batch scanning slides, e.g. Nikon LS4000 with a slide feeder, relatively easy for a couple reasons:<br>

1) It runs by itself and scans 50 slides at a time without my constant oversight, I can do some other work at the same time; I don't know of any DSLR batch feeder other than someones hands.<br>

2) It automatically removes scratches and dust, up to a point - this can be a huge time saver, especially on older slides which is what I usually scan these days. I detest scouring scanned slides/negative to remove dust and scratches - it can be extremely time consuming and is simply busy work.</p>

<p>That said a batch scanner is not perfect by any means, e.g. it can jam, however when it works well it can be easy to produce quality scans. Moreover, this particular model is not cheap, is no longer manufactured and if you already have a DSLR and a comfortable to use setup, it may be hard to justify getting a pricey scanner.</p>

Test
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've had very acceptable results with 35mm scans of color negs, slides and black and white negs with my basic Minolta Scan dual 3, which was not expensive. It scans at about 2400 ppi, giving about 7 mp per image. I use Vuescan software and I have not had any issues with it. For medium format and 4x5 I use an Epson Perfection 2450 flatbed, which is also now fairly old. It scans at 2400 ppi and I use Vuescan for that too. All the images in my "Landscape and things, the film years" and "1970's portraits" were all done with these scanners except for a couple I had done by a lab.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've viewed videos of negative scanning by DSLR, and I don't see how it is easier or less time consuming than scanning with my Epson V550 flatbed scanner. That said, I've already made it clear that quality is my paramount consideration so, Edward, my question to you is: does scanning by DSLR produce better results?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Edwin, my issues with the Super Coolscan are: it's expensive and I'd have to buy it second-hand, which I'd view as a risk; I've read that Coolscans are not great for B/W.<br>

Once more, quality is my main concern, so would you say that it's worth the risk for me to look for a Super Coolscan and that it will produce top quality results with B/W negatives?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex, second hand and I'm not certain of Nikon support at this point. Definitely a risk.

 

If you already have a DSLR which produces high quality images I would start there. Print some and see what quality you

get. Compare with darkroom print.

 

I have used the LS 4000 for BW and have been happy but YMMV.

Test
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For slides and b/w I like my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (first version). It's light source is diffuse, and the Grain Dissolver diffuses it further, making it possible to scan Kodachrome with ICE. Does a nice job with b/w too. I've run it with both Vuescan and Minolta's supplied software, in Windows 7.</p>

<p>For color negatives I'm using a Coolscan V, running it just with Vuescan. That combo seems to work well. I'm embarrassed to say it's been some years tho, haven't tried it under Windows 7 as yet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>DSLR slide scanning looks like an obvious win. You'll have to work on the contrast and maybe white-balance, but the camera is set up to reproduce color with perceptual accuracy.</p>

<p>Negatives are a different story. </p>

<p>I'm tempted to try the DSLR route, you shoot a digital image of the negative and invert it. Here's what worries me:<br>

- The film base is orange. How do you correct for that? <br>

- Your digital file is <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm">gamma-encoded</a>. I highly doubt this translates well when inverted. </p>

<p>I did try one experiment with somewhat promising results, but I fear the devil is in the details.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/121020-D034486-0R-60G-110B-Color-Scr-An.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here's how I did it:<br>

- Put the negative on a color head (Beseler Dual-Mode Slide Duplicator)<br>

- Set color to 0R 60G 110B to roughly balance the orange film base<br>

- Inverted the image in Photoshop.</p>

<p>FWIW, this same negative is easily scanned with VueScan and Coolscan V. I suspect that having a good black and a good white in the image make the automation work well. Other negatives are much harder for me to scan with good color.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't understand everything you told me, Sebastian, but I'm sure I could work out a process for scanning negatives with a DSLR and, as I'm working with black and white, things may be simpler than you suggest for colour.<br>

I think I've reached the nub of the matter. Sebastian, as you've experience of using a dedicated negative scanner and a DSLR, is either of these two processes inherently more limited than the other in terms of the potential quality of the images produced?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rex, potential quality... Ah, what is quality?</p>

<p>Today, either way, I'm confident, can get "all there is" from the film. At least in terms of resolution, e.g. resolving grain. </p>

<p>Quality is also color accuracy and tonality. I like to trust the engineers and use propose-built tools. That would be the scanner software. Shooting a color neg with a DSLR is not what the engineers designed in. Maybe the inversion is OK; I was pleasantly surprised by my little experiment.</p>

<p>Can anyone here address what happens when the gamma-encoded digital file is inverted? And, any tricks for handling the orange film base?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once more, quality is my main concern, so would you say that it's worth the risk for me to look for a Super Coolscan and

that it will produce top quality results with B/W negatives?"

IMHO yes...All my B&W prints have been scanned with a 5000ED. Sorry to quote my work, but have a look at the "fort de

gaudin" photo in my Single photo section. However the maintenance factor is an impossible problem to solve on the long

term, but, as it has already been said, on the long term we are all dead..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rex,<br>

I'll offer another endorsement for the Minolta Dual Scan series as an option for you. I've owned and used a number of scanners, including a Dual Scan III, a Nikon LS V, an Epson V500 (the predecessor of your V550, I think) and a Nikon LS 8000. <br>

The Dual Scan was the first in the series, and it was really quite respectable, and they look to be available now at low prices, admittedly in unknown condition. One of the major limitations, with respect to the Nikons, is the absence of IR-based noise reduction (called ICE by Nikon). This is a very good feature, but it can't be used for conventional black and white negatives, so it probably isn't relevant to your planned uses. (ICE does work with chromogenic black and white films.)<br>

The Nikon LS V had higher resolution than the Dual Scan, and the scans were sharper, but not hugely so. On the other hand, the LS V is very good at picking up the tiniest scratches on a negative, an effect that I think is due to the direct LED illumination. The Dual Scan uses a tiny fluorescent tube that gives more diffuse illumination and seemed less prone to picking up this kind of noise.<br>

One challenge that arises with scanning negatives is the enhancement of grain patterns. This is sometimes called "grain aliasing", but I don't believe it is an aliasing effect. Without going into the argument about what really causes it, it is a real effect and its magnitude seems to depend on multiple factors, including the film type the developer (for conventional B&W) and the scanner. The effect may have been a bit worse with the Dual Scan than the LS V, but I saw it with both. The best solution that I found was one of the noise reduction programs, or careful choice of film and developer. I have had good luck with Neat Image, but there are others.<br>

For the risk involved, I would be very tempted to try a Dual Scan III or IV for your needs. (I think the earlier models had significantly lower resolution.)<br>

I hope that these comments are of some help.<br>

David</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I cannot really justify buying a scanner..I have thousands of 35mm and 6x6 negs (all black and white) , but really only a few would be worth doing anything more with, which carries me further into the question of the purchase of Photoshop or similar. Again, I think this a waste of money for the amount I'd use it!<br>

However a couple of days ago I came across an open source program called RawTherapee which I installed and to my simple mind has all the makings of a great tool, once you begin to get the hang of it.<br>

<br />I have used my Nex 6 and 7 to copy some negs, (using manual Nikkors and close up filters) which is all a bit haphazard until I sort out a proper holder for the negative strip.<br>

RT inverts the negative with great ease. Obviously this is a serious project for the people behind it; what really amazes me is the extra manipulation you can make to a Jpeg image...the Sony RAW converter doesn't really offer much at all for Jpegs, but this is very interesting. <br>

Well worth more study.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...