Mastering Scanning

[miklosphoto]

I was wondering if some one has a link to a good tutorial on how to get the

best result from scanning 35mm negatives. I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED and

tried all kind of ways to scan negatives and honestly not happy with the

result. If I just wanted 4x6 or 5x7 prints it would be ok. But when I scan the

negatives at the max output size my resolution at 360 dpi is not good for large

prints. Any advise or link to tips&tricks or tutorials is appreciated.

thanks

Miklos

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

How large do you want to print? If larger thaan 8x10 then you probably should shoot medium format. But good medium format film scanners are expensive.

[miklosphoto]

Exactly because of this limitation I was setting my output sixe to 8x12 (not 8x10 so I can scan the whole frame).

[ellis_vener_photography]

start by scanning at 4000ppi not 360ppi.

[simon_meeds]

You could try http://www.scantips.com/

[robert x]

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Scanningtutorial.pdf

 

you could read that as well maybe.....

 

I have managed to get very nice A3 prints (with largish white borders so I guess a little

bigger than 8x10 ?) from a Nikon Supercoolscan IV ED, printing a 360dpi.

 

More detail on your method would be useful for anyone wanting to give you advice.

 

RX

[miklosphoto]

Here are some details how I tried to scan:

- Nikon color management is turned off

- Output size was set to 8x12

- Output resolution set to 360 dpi

- usind digital ICE in mormal mode

 

When I enlarge the final result to the actual pixel size I get a very poor resolution. If I do the same with images from digital cameras I see sharply every detail. Maybe it that I am expecting something what is not realistic, but my expectation is based on those statements that scanning film gives better result then digital photography. That is why I am assuming that I am just doing the scanning right. I hope that is the reson and not that I actullay would need a $100,000 pro scanner. (:

[eric friedemann]

The real question is why Nikon doesn't have a DVD presentation explaining the finer points- or even the basic points- of using its scanners? Having to learn to use my LS 8000 scanner through trial-and-error, for lack of even basic Nikon instruction materials, has left me a bit crabby.

[aeiffel]

<i>Maybe it that I am expecting something what is not realistic, but my expectation is based on those statements that scanning film gives better result then digital photography</i><br><br>

I think that may explain your frustration at the results you get. At 100% magnification, none of my 35mm scans ever looked like a DSLR-made file. This is not a good way to judge the quality of your scans.

[roger_smith4]

Look at Les's gallery and tell us if your scans look the same or worse. If it's the same, it's more than enough for a decent 8x12. If worse, you are doing something wrong with the settings. Try to scan at max optical resolution (4000dpi) and downsize in Photoshop, and to shoot finer grained film and to slightly overexpose to reduce grain.

[miklosphoto]

Yes, Les managed to get what I was after and I saw the he actually scanned at 4000 dpi, and that might be just the answer. I did not do that based on the advise given by pro printing labs to scan at 400 dpi because that is how they are going to print it. SInce I print at 360 on my R2400 I was scanning at 360. Now, I can't wait to get back to my "darkroom" and try the max 4000 dpi.

Thank you guys for the tips.

[eric friedemann]

Miklos, just so we're clear, the Coolscan V scans at up to 4000 dots per inch (d.p.i.). And you'll probably scan about an inch of a 35mm film on its short side and about 1.4 inches on the film's long side, giving you about a 4000x5600 d.p.i scan. As such, when you go to print, you'll be able to make a 10x14 inch print at 400 d.p.i.

 

 

360 d.p.i. should be an adequate OUTPUT resolution for making a large print. However, don't confuse the scanner's maximum scanning resolution (4000 d.p.i.) with the necessary output resolution for making a decent print (typically 300-400 d.p.i.).

[miklosphoto]

Ok, so to understand everything, I do not want to set the scan resolution at 4000 and also set the output size to say 8x12? That would be the same thing as trying to enlarge the image "digitally".

I should keep the actual output size 1:1 to the 35mm negative?

[eric friedemann]

1. Set the scanner resolution at 4000 d.p.i. Again, this will give you about a 4000x5600 d.p.i. scan.

 

 

2. When you size the image in Photoshop for printing an 8x12 print, this will leave you with an 8x12 inch print at well over 400 d.p.i.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Just scan at 4000 ppi and ignore the e output size dialogs in the scanning software. The file

will open as an approximately 1.4 x .93 (inches) image at 4000ppi In Photoshop if you want

to see what the output size will be when you go to print it, go Image > Image Size and

UNCHECK (turn off) Resample Image. The document size (H x W ) and resolution will now be

tied together and changing the Resolution will change the H x W dimensions of the

document. Remember to turn on Resample Image if you are going to do further resizing.

[robert x]

and turn off the digital ICE..........

[jtk]

Miklos, using Nikon's VERY most basic instructions, scan everything at 4000ppi. Don't adjust scan resolution for anticipated print size. Let the printer do the sizing. If you're dealing with B&W silver negs, rather than C41, scan the negs as if they were slides and then invert in Photoshop...that'll deal nicely with grain exaggeration. IMO Vuescan's easier for B&W, once you get the hang of it... but I don't think it's actually better except for its ability to control grain size without softening. Using Vuescan's "slight grain reduction", which does not soften grain, I scan everything for 13X19 output and the only limiting factor is the quality of my original image..everything's grain sharp, corner-to-to-corner at that size and I wouldn't hesitate to print bigger if I had a bigger printer. The only fly in the ointment is that Nikon V does want the FH-3 accessory strip film adapter because the standard motorized carrier isn't good with the end frames of strips...can't hold them flat enough, even though it holds all the rest perfectly flat.

[jtk]

...also, scanners don't record images at "dots per inch," ie not "dpi."

That's printing terminology, referring to dots of ink. Scanners record at pixels per inch, ppi. Totally different. Common error.

[eric friedemann]

"Scanners record at pixels per inch, ppi."

 

 

The thing is that Nikon apparently uses the terms "d.p.i." and "p.p.i." interchangeably. Nikon scanners advertise resolution in terms of "d.p.i."- i.e. the Coolscan V, which scans at up to "4000 dpi true optical resolution":

 

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&productNr=9239

 

 

However, when you go to scan a 35mm film, the Nikon software reads out the inch-long short side of the film as scanning at 4000 p.p.i. So, Nikon apparently views dots and pixels as being interchangeable. I agree though that using the term d.p.i. to describe scanning is an inappropriate choice of terms.

[miklosphoto]

Thanks for every one who contributed to answer my question. I think my resolution issue is resolved now. Here's another question I have. I tried to scan both with the Nikon Color Management on and off. Now, I had previously people suggesting to scan with Nikon CMS off and color manage in photoshop if I need too. But honestly, with CMS on I am getting very nice colors which I like, also since both Nikon Scan and Photoshop are set to adobeRGB it seems to be a good solution. When I scan with CMS off, it is sRGB which then converted to adobe in Photoshop and if I choose to order commercial printing I need to convert it back to sRGB. What do you suggest would be the best workflow for color management?

thanks

Miklos

[jay_f___dc_]

For many years I used a coolscan LS 2000 and always kept CMS off. Recently I got a coolscan 5000 and after some checks decided to have CMS on with ADOBE RGB as the output space. I scan primarily transparencies - old kodakchromes and newer velvia and provia. I work in photoshop with adobe rgb so this all made sense.