A top scan from 4 x 5"

[huib_nederhof]

I have scanned my 4 x 5� Provia F100 with a Flextight 848 but I am

not satisfied about the sharpness and details in the shadow. On de

film I see a lot of good visible details which I don�t find back on

the scan (2100 dpi; 16 bit). Do a drumscan a better job?

[alpshiker]

Most midrange scanners can only produce their best scans once they are calibrated (profiled). You need for that an IT8 chart and a profiling software which might or might not be included in the scanner package. The top profiling charts are from Hutchcolor. They have IT8 charts on Velvia, but they have also HCT targets which are considerably better than IT8 in the shadows, but cost more and require an additional software package such as ICCcapture Pro. Calibrated with such a package, even a midrange scanner will produce very accurate colors and an amazing Dmax. Sharpness is another issue and is directly linked to the optical quality of the scanner, but calibration will improve the apparent sharpness in some way. A Tango drum scan will outperform any Flextight scan to some extent, but the Flextight should give you pro quality scans if it is used with expertise.

[lars ake vinberg]

You probably already thought about this, but perhaps the scan dynamic range is OK but your monitor/printer cannot handle it?

[julian_thomas]

If you ask anyone who uses scanners a lot 'what is the best...' you'll end up with a fist fight!

IME for scanning chromes a drum scanner is by far the best solution. The light-source from a drum is much 'narrower' and penetrates the chrome better. It does this so well that scanning a neg on a drum can be a nightmare, with the over-resolved grain swamping the image. Most people have tricks like opening up the iris of the scanner to defocus the grain.

For negs an up market flatbed that allows oil mounting (Creo etc)or the 848 (which doesn't use oil, but has its own method of keeping the neg flat) is a better solution than a drum.

Also be aware the the operator of the scanner can make a lot of difference.

[huib_nederhof]

I tried to scan with the levels wide open and correct it afterwards in PS but that didn�t give a better result.

 

2 Ake. I have seen the scan on a Lacie monitor and print it A3+ on a FujiFilm PG4500 printer but I get what I see on mine screen. I want to make Lambda prints (size 1,27 x 1,6 meters)

 

Huib

[leonard_evens]

If you scanner at a resolution 2100 ppi, or about 82 pixels per mm, the highest possible resolution obtainable in terms of line pairs per mm would be half that, or about 41 lp/mm. No scanner will deliver its theoretical highest resolution, but the Flextight is a high quality scanner and should come pretty close.

 

With a good 4 x 5 lens and fine grained film, you may have fine detail at the level of 40 -50 lp/mm or higher. Combining that with the scanner, using one of the common rules of thumb would result in something like 28 - 32 (or a bit higher) lp/mm. Note that combining components always lowers resolution.

 

If you examined the scan under high magnification in a viewer and you looked at the transparency with a high power loupe, you should expect to see some detail in the latter which is missing in the former, but it would be at a level you would not expect to see in ordinary viewing of the image or a print.

 

You can of course resolve this problem to some degree with the Flextight by scanning at a higher sampling resolution, although 2100 ppi should be high enough for most practical purposes.

 

If the problem is visual detail in the shadows under relatively low magnification, that suggests that the maximum density in the transparency exceeds the capability of the scanner. This seems unlikely because of the high dmax of the Flextight 848, but I suppose it is possible if the transparency were overexposed.

[huib_nederhof]

2 Leonard. I don�t think the positives are overexposed. If I look to the levels the high- and low lights are abundantly in their maximums. The shadows just look woolly.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Sharpness" as in out of focus or as in needs to be sharpened? Did you make the scan

or have a lab make it for you?

[guytal]

I had film scanned on both the 848 and a Tango drum scanner and at resolutions of 2000-2500dpi the detail is comparable. Sharpness and color will *never* be perfect coming straight out of a scanner. Some amount of color correction and sharpening is always required and depends on your output device (screen, printer etc.)<br>

Unless you're using a color-calibrated high quality monitor (preferably CRT), and software that can apply and convert between color profiles (e.g. Photoshop 6.0 or higher) you cannot accurately judge a scan on your screen.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[leonard_evens]

I don't think you said whether you did the scans or had them done for you. If the problem is in the shadows, it is possible that the scan was just done badly. From its specifications, the Flextight 848 ought to give you very high quality results. Of course, we may all be talking at cross purposes. When you look at something with your eye through a loupe, you probably see things differently from the way any scanner does. So it could just be a perceptual issue.

[ken_lee11]

Just as there is an art to producing top-quality images in the darkroom, there is an art to scanning, and to the rest of the digital workflow. Every step in the process allows you to influence the quality of the image. Perhaps you need to more fully master some of these steps - or work with a professional service that has already done so.

 

If you post the images, perhaps there will be something obvious for others to diagnose.

[sk_arts]

Yes, a drum scan will be better.

 

All CCD scans, in my experience, are a little bit soft.

[jan_brittenson]

For shadow detail, try increasing the brightness of the light source a bit, especially if the histogram shows you have room at the top to shift it up a bit.

 

For sharpness, the scanner may need to have its focus recalibrated. The FlexColor manual has some good info on how you can tell. It also has detailed instructions on the procedure. Be careful to load the calibration target straight and to clean it well. If the scanner is in good calibration there may be issues with the lens.

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

the imacon should reproduce sharp, if not it is not focus calibrated or somethings not working right.