mamiya tlr + epson v500 : trying to get sharp

[areliano_decotentin]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I have seen some incredibly sharp pix from mamiya tlrs on flickr and I'm struggling to do well on my rig, a c33 with chrome 80mm f2.8. Frist couple rolls of film have not blown me away. Attached was shot on Velvia 50 at f/8 with a tripod. When I look at the slide under light it looks great and I'm inclined to think the Epson is not giving me justice (tested at 2400 and 4800 dpi).<br>

Any experience with these pieces of hardware that might help me figure out where the weak link in the chain is? Suggestions for getting sharper stuff out of the Epson (it has no focus adjustment?)</p>

[areliano_decotentin]

<p>see photo</p><div></div>

[kari v]

<p>2000-2400 should be about the limit of your unit. I'd stay at 2400dpi for easier to manage files.</p>

<p>Flatbed scans always need different sharpening (and more) than scans from actual film scanners. It may be that your shots just need more post work.<br /> Could you post a 100% crop from the point of focus? Scaled down whole frame is pretty useless here.</p>

<p>Edit: At what size did you view the Flickr images? Making a web image look sharp is a different matter and not really related to the scanner (within reason).</p>

[areliano_decotentin]

<p>Thanks good idea - I will crop a bit of the full-rez image - I realize a 500x500 px jpeg is useless for analysis.<br>

It would probably be more useful for me to ask if anyone could point me to a good scan from a similar camera from the same (or similar Epson) scanner so I can calibrate my expectations.</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>To get sharp scans from film, you need a flim scanner. There are some flat bed scanners that can do an OK job of scanning film, but none do as good a job as an actual film scanner. If the scan "needs sharpening" it's not an acceptable scan in the first place, in my opinion. Garbage in, garbage out. Unfortunatley, film scanners for medium format are not cheap. Unless you're going to do a lot of scanning, you might want to see if your lab can scan to CD at time of processing.</p>

[areliano_decotentin]

<p>Craig - I quite agree, sharpening in PS is not what I got into this for. I should perhaps ask where to get the most affordable high quality scans, and consider the the Epson good for nothing more than a "preview", which would be a drag. If it's $5-10 bucks per image I think I'm back to a digital drawing board...</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Scanning resolution will not necessarily mean the final version doesn't need sharpening. With any digital output sharpening is practically unavoidable, regardless of the quality of the scan. Before trying another scanner first study some tutorials on getting the best possible input from your existing scanner, basics in digital editing and, especially, the art of sharpening.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Actually, sharpening is part of scanning workflow, I have no idea where the poster came up with the idea that if you sharpen you don't have a good scanner.This isn't to say that there might not be things that are going wrong with your scanning. MF film requires more film flatness (actually same flatness, but has more issues with keeping it flat) than 35mm. If you get a glass holder you might end up with Newton rings, but you will have flat (and assuming the holder is at the proper height) and sharp images.</p>

<p>You can buy aftermarket holders that work much better for keeping film flat, some are adjustable in height. And just a 1/2mm might be the difference in really sharp, and somewhat sharp, assuming the film is flat in either case.</p>

 

[martin_howard1]

<p>I use a C330 in conjunction with a V500 and have been pretty happy with the results, as pointed out above sharpening is part of any scanning workflow.<br>

I normally scan at around 2400dpi, open in PS add a Smart Sharpen to bring out the detail then continue with any edits.<br>

Finally I resize the image as needed then sharpen accordingly.</p>

<p>C330 80mm, Velvia 100, Epson V500:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2704404718_80a3d47e0d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>sharpening in PS is not what I got into this for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Lex said, it's unavoidable. Digital files simply need it and different amounts for different output sizes. It takes a while to nail it down but after that it can be relatively painless process. Smart Sharpen in PS works great.</p>

<p>$5-10 per image isn't that bad for a truly high quality scan that you use for a big print. Flatbed + MF is ok in smaller sizes, say 8x8-12x12.</p>

[areliano_decotentin]

<p>Thanks for the responses. Interesting that a consensus quickly develops around "sharpening is part of the workflow" but this doesn't address the fundamental quality of the image on film or getting that through a scanner into a digital file. It's like saying noise reduction is the solution to a poor audio recording - you pay a price for it. Sharpening is particularly a problem when you shoot wide open, because everything starts to get non-stochastic so you might as well be digital.<br>

Justin- thanks I tried using two panes of optical glass and no problem with rings but the height might be off.<br>

Martin- thanks for the example.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I think what I meant to say was more in line with what Justin explained about MF and film flatness. If the scanner doesn't hold the film perfectly flat and get it perfectly in focus in the first place, then all the other digital-specific issues of sharpening are another story. It's got to be flat and focused to start with. In my experience, that's where flatbed scanners fall short compared with film scanners.</p>