[dugrant153]

Hi all,

So I've been shooting a LOT of film recently and recently did a gig for a client (engagement photos).

Normally I use my Epson 4490 and scan my negs, which then become tiff files that I later convert to tiff (or jpeg) for print. I like to offer clients is albums and/or set of 4x6 prints (with occasional 8x10). Don't think I'd be going for anything larger.

My question is this: I was okay with the prints from my Epson 4490 scans, but I really want to get more out of the files and make the prints even better. I'm debating between 2 options (and a possible third):

1) Keep my Epson 4490 and buy some BetterScanning ADR glass (or whatever it's called) to sharpen my negs.

2) Look to invest in a Plustek 7600 SE (can't afford the Nikon Coolscan. Doesn't make business sense to me - would rather outsource... which leads me to...)

3) May consider just sending all my negs to Richard Photo Labs in California. But we'll see about that


So am curious if people have had experiences with making high quality prints from either (1) or (2) and which will get me what I'm looking for.

Thanks!

[elho_cid]

Sending the negatives by mail? Isn't that a risk?
In your situation I'd rather consider better scanner. Not Canon, I don't like what I get from my Canon scanner.

[goddo31]

Which film format?
It's "ANR" for Anti-Newton Ring

I recently had some digital prints done from 6x7 negatives I scanned on an Epson V700.
Print size was 11x16 and I'm really happy with the quality. Not sure how well 35mm would go however.
It's hard to say how much difference the ANR glass will make in your case. How flat do your negatives normally end up?

[dugrant153]

Negatives by mail is risky but I've been hearing of a lot of pros doing it like Jose Villa and Jonathan Canlas. Maybe more risky since I'm in Canada?

Thanks for the definition of ANR. As for film format, I'm talking about 35mm.

I'm really happy with the scans from my 120 film on my Epson 4490. With this combo, I get enough detail for good prints and can even kick it up a notch even more if I wanted to. However, I may just go 35mm and the scan quality on the Epson 4490 of 35mm is okay, but not great.

[artobest]

Your scanner should be good for up to 8x10. You can upgrade to a V700/750 for that extra bit of quality and resolution, but I would recommend first buying Photokit Sharpener, maybe the ANR glass if you have curved negs, and reading everything you can find on scanning and sharpening. I especially recommend Schewe/Fraser's Real World Image Sharpening. It's the bible.

[dugrant153]

Hmm, well I let the Epson software do an unsharp mask of medium, which provides some pretty sharp scans for web use.

But I think resolution is just not up there in order to make a really good print. I actually did test of two prints and looks like the 120 film scan looks more detailed while the 35mm film scan looks softer (both 8 x 10s). And I want to make some really "stunning" prints from my scanned images. Hmm...

So in conclusion, Epson 4490 - 120 film scan is great and produces good prints. 35mm film scan is not so great for good prints. However, both 120 film and 35mm film look fine on screen (as can be seen thru my Flickr).

I'm a print guy, though ... so need my good prints looks like ANR glass is out.

[goddo31]

About the ANR glass - do you have any problems with negative flatness?
You might be able to adjust the height of the 35mm neg carrier too.

I would suggest sharpening outside of the Epson software... You might see better results. Also if you scan to JPEG, check whether there is any compression being done in Epson scan (JPEG quality - set it to 100%).
You might want to adjust your output sharpening for print rather than for screen display.
Do you know what dpi your prints end up being? (35mm at 8x10).

But otherwise... it might be time to spend up for a higher res scanner

[BillM]

do you have any problems with negative flatness?

FWIW,taken 35mm neg's,snipped single frames and mounted into plastic 35mm
chrome mounts.Noticed big difference using a V500.As imperseptable
to the eye as it may be,negs are often scanned on"chord of arc" rather than
planar because of mounting style realitive to scanner,with attendant loss
of resolution.

[stevebrot]

FWIW,taken 35mm neg's,snipped single frames and mounted into plastic 35mm
chrome mounts.Noticed big difference using a V500.As imperseptable
to the eye as it may be,negs are often scanned on"chord of arc" rather than
planar because of mounting style realitive to scanner,with attendant loss
of resolution.

This is a huge issue with some films and many negative holders. I have had negatives pop both my Nikon and Epson holders open when using 35mm film due to film curl. On the other end of the concern spectrum is 120 or sheet film. Usually the curl is a lot less severe, but enter the issue of sag. Some films are coated onto a very thin base.


Steve

[dugrant153]

Hmm... if flatness is causing the sharpness issue, then perhaps the ANR glass will help (Atleast with B&W film. Might mess up Digital ICE for color film?).

I was scanning some Fuji Pro 160C and that film was very prone to curling and it was on a very thin base. Hmm...

[BillM]

ANR glass

Dont mean to distract you Dugrant,you have work to do after all.
Wondering is any is available with flourite component that would
help minimize any distortion/reflections.

[artobest]

Dont mean to distract you Dugrant,you have work to do after all.
Wondering is any is available with flourite component that would
help minimize any distortion/reflections.

The ANR glass goes on top of the neg, with the scanning parts below, so distortion isn't an issue. If anything, it serves to slightly diffuse the scanning light source, which is probably a good thing.

[gofour3]

Hi all,

So I've been shooting a LOT of film recently and recently did a gig for a client (engagement photos).

Normally I use my Epson 4490 and scan my negs, which then become tiff files that I later convert to tiff (or jpeg) for print. I like to offer clients is albums and/or set of 4x6 prints (with occasional 8x10). Don't think I'd be going for anything larger.

My question is this: I was okay with the prints from my Epson 4490 scans, but I really want to get more out of the files and make the prints even better. I'm debating between 2 options (and a possible third):

1) Keep my Epson 4490 and buy some BetterScanning ADR glass (or whatever it's called) to sharpen my negs.

2) Look to invest in a Plustek 7600 SE (can't afford the Nikon Coolscan. Doesn't make business sense to me - would rather outsource... which leads me to...)

3) May consider just sending all my negs to Richard Photo Labs in California. But we'll see about that


So am curious if people have had experiences with making high quality prints from either (1) or (2) and which will get me what I'm looking for.

Thanks!

Why don’t you shoot slides, they are way easier to scan? There are three good E6 processing labs in Vancouver and they will be happy to do any prints for you.
(ABC Photocolour, "The LAB" & Custom Color Pro Lab.)

For me negatives are a hassle to scan and store. If I do shoot negative film I get the local lab to do scans at the time of processing or send the film to dr5 Chrome and get them to cross process it as a positive.

Phil.

[dugrant153]

Oh, scanning slides for me is the same. And I get similar resolution.

Also, slides a bit too slow for me in terms of ISO. I tend to shoot 400 ISO and up on film. Not much slide film left in that area.

I think it's just pure resolution and sharpness in my case, whether neg or slide.

[tuco]

Your analog to digital conversion is only going to be as good as the device you use ignoring any skills in post processing. If you use a economical scanner, your going to get the expected results. The flatbeds do much better on larger format films. Small format really takes a good scanner with a high optical dpi to get a decent size print, I'd say.

To get the best results, IMHO, you have to hand post process each shot (thus the burden of film for large volume output). Turn off the scanners augmentations and deal with it in the image editor. You may want to ignore what you see on the preview while scanning and just look at the histogram and grab all tone range that you can. The curve can be adjusted in post. Things like unsharpen also sharpen your grain and other areas you may not want. Also output the file in a wider color space than sRGB. That leads to problems too but Adobe RGB has a little wider range, same gamma and will convert back to sRGB pretty nicely.

I have found that if I scan to a DNG file in Vuescan and open it up in Lightroom, I can really adjust the image nicely. I export that to CS5 for cleaning the imperfections (read BW film) up, make local tone adjustments and return to Lightroom for final adjustments, cropping, perspective control and use its sharpening features which is quick, easy, has automatic masking (covers most shots) and produces really good results. You could hand sharpen in CS5 better most likely but that is a learned skill where LR3 will do good enough for most things without much learning.