anders_karlsson1

<blockquote> <p>For one, you have to do the correction for the mask. That is built into scanners designed for color negatives. As well as I know it, the gamma for C41 films is about half that for other films, and the sensitivities of the different layers are different.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hi Glen!<br> So your take on this is that reproducing negative with a camera will require more, and possibly more complex, post-work than scanning? <br> For me the scanning software is a problem. As mentiod earler, Silverfast is a bit unstable on my system. I use a laptop (a fairly good one, performance-wise) but at this point I have no way of determining whether or not Silverfast would run smoother on a midrange desktop machine. So this is one of the reasons I'm contemplating other alternatives.</p>

<p>Hi!</p> <p >I’m curious about ColorPerfect and how this plug-in can be useful when editing scanned images. So I set out to demo ColorPerfect as a Photoshop Elements 8 plug-in, but after downloading and extracting the zip file, I'm struggling to figure out in which catalogue to place the .8bf file. </p> <p >First I tried the ”Filters” folder, then the ”Plug-ins” folder but it still doesn't show up when I open PSE. I run a Windows 8 64-bit system and I’ve tried both the 32- and 64-bit files without success. Is there anyone out there who can help me figure out how to get this thing going on my machine?</p> <p >Thanks in advance.</p>

<blockquote> <p>For one, you have to do the correction for the mask. That is built into scanners designed for color negatives. As well as I know it, the gamma for C41 films is about half that for other films, and the sensitivities of the different layers are different.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hi Glen!<br> So your take on this is that reproducing negative with a camera will require more, and possibly more complex, post-work than scanning? <br> For me the scanning software is a problem. As mentiod earler, Silverfast is a bit unstable on my system. I use a laptop (a fairly good one, performance-wise) but at this point I have no way of determining whether or not Silverfast would run smoother on a midrange desktop machine. So this is one of the reasons I'm contemplating other alternatives.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Sure, it's tedious work, but then, I don't scan every negative I own.</p> </blockquote> <p>Neither do I. But I'm not sure I have enough grip on Silverfast to take advantage of its potential. That's another reason I feel a bit tempted to try the camera route. Also, I feel Silverfast is a bit unstable on my current system. I haven't investigated Vuescan, but I hear some say that it is even more complicated than Silverfast.<br> Silverfast and CanoScan 9000f works pretty good with prints, though.<br> ---</p> <p>Does a low/midrange film scanner (less than ~$500) process each slide or negative faster or slower than a flatbed such as the CanoScan 9000F?</p>

<p>One problem I have right now is that the software I'm using (Silverfast SE) takes an awful long time scanning 35mm negs in 3000dpi. I have a i7-processor (although a laptop cpu), 8GB RAM and a fast ssd-disk but it is a slow process, and far to often Silverfast is crashing. That's one of the reasons I'm investigating other ways to do this. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Not sure what's "good enough" for you. Although D60 (with good macro lens) can pull this off, but FX will give you cleaner resolution (and more of it), particularly more recent cameras from D700 to D610, etc. Also, you get more dynamic range with more current equipment.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hi Leszek!<br> That's a tricky question. Obviously I'd like to obtain the best possible result, but my budget is limited so I'm sure I can justify the cost of a second hand Nikon scanner (they seem to selling for $1000+ if I'm not wrong. I would be tempted to upgrade to a Nikon FX camera, but they are even more expensive than the Nikon scanners. Usually people are saying that a good lens is more important than an expensive camera house for photographing, but I'm not sure this is all true for "reproducing" old negatives and slides, at least not when considering the "cropping factor". <br> Another thing I just realised is that my D60 doesn't have Live View so I'd have to use the viewfinder for each take.</p>

<blockquote> <p>6) I forget how many megapixels a D60 is but probably fewer than a good film scanner.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Craig for your response. <br> The Nikon D60 is a 10MP DSLR. I don't know what kind of sensor (or whathever the scanning element inside flatbed scanners are called) my CanoScan 9000F has got so I cannot make any technical comparison between my D60 and my 9000F just by looking at the specs. </p> <blockquote> <p>Using a DSLR is probably OK for a few images here and there. But if you want to do it right and in any quantity you want a real film scanner. Some people use flatbed scanners but they're not as sharp as film scanners.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not familiar with what film scanner offers the best bang for the buck so if you've got any recommendation I'm all ears. <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Welcome to Photo.net. If you search the site you will find something like your question is pretty much a FAQ.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you JDM, and sorry for replying so late (I've got a 3 month old baby - a full time job).</p>

<p>Hi!<br> From time to time I'm scanning 35mm negatives using my Canoscan 9000F flatbedscanner. However, lately I've read about people who are using their DSLR for this purpose. <br> To put it short, I'd like to know if I would gain anything in terms of quality over the scanner by photographing the negatives (and occasionally some slides) with my Nikon D60 or would it take high-end equipment make it worthwhile?<br> Also, do I need to get myself a macro lens to get the best result or will my 35mm 1.8G Nikon DX lens be enough?<br> Anyone around who's been down this path and can share their thoughts and best practices?<br> Thanks in advance<br> Anders</p>