[hinman]

I have been using Canon flatbed 8800F and I have discussed with various folks. My current scanning is not quite satisfactory for 35mm films. And one of my flickr contact suggests the use of a piece of glass to replace of the plastic film holder. He suggests to use some sort of A4 or smaller glass to hold the film flat on top of the scanner glass surface. I see discussion of that approach placing the film with emulsion side facing down instead of the normal manufacturing suggested orientation of emulsion side up while using the film holder. I see discussion in Flickr that emulsion side facing down will have better avoidance to newton rings in scanning results.

I want to give that a try. However, when I look for Anti Newton Ring (ANR) glass, I do not know where to look. I think this discussion will apply to both Canon 8800F and 9000F along with other flatbed type of scanner

I see the support of ANR glass from better scanning

• Better Scanning ANR glass for 120/220 film -- $29.95
• Better Scanning MF 120/220 Holder -- $79.95 which includes the ANR glass

However the two above products are targeted for 120 film and what I am looking for is to improve both the 120 and 35 film scanning. And I wonder if the ANR glass will actually help with 35mm film. I am currently using the Canon scan gear and I am yet to give VueScan another try.

Any experience to share among you all film loving forum members. I plan to upgrade to Epson v700 in the near future but before I give up my Canon, I want to bring new life with new trial on different approaches than the plastic film holder, vuescan, and possible add-on's such as the BetterScanner film holder and the ANR glass.

And your suggestions and shared knowledge can go a long way to help me from abandoning 35mm films and cameras.

Cheers,
Hin

---

Last edited by hinman; 11-19-2011 at 11:16 PM.

[pinholecam]

I kinda gave up on my 9000F and looking towards using my digital camera to copy the negative instead.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/161365-flat-be...-scanning.html

Unfortunately I've not been able to shoot film as much as I want to, so I've not been able to try out more of this.
Not saying that its going to be the best method, there's quite a bit of DIY and dust bunnies will be a pain.
But I think no harm giving it a shot.

[tuco]

What's not working for you? Getting your negatives flatter always helps. But you may need to adjust the height of that ANR glass for focus. The smaller your negative is, the better the scanner's true optical resolution needs to be to get good results. That scanner is reported to be around 1700ppi for a max optical resolution.

[hinman]

I kinda gave up on my 9000F and looking towards using my digital camera to copy the negative instead.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/161365-flat-be...-scanning.html

Unfortunately I've not been able to shoot film as much as I want to, so I've not been able to try out more of this.
Not saying that its going to be the best method, there's quite a bit of DIY and dust bunnies will be a pain.
But I think no harm giving it a shot.

Thank you for your comment. I am fascinated with your approach and I have been searching for a slide/film copier setup to give that a trial with a macro lens. But what I am concerned the most is the time it take on the post processing to get the color right. It is a time consuming process. But I am sure for some likable pictures and if there is an inexpensive approach to do it occasionally, we all will love to have the alternative.

And I recently bump into this page by a forum member in photo.net in French, and here is a translated blog post for scanning slide by Michel LE MANDAT. I do wonder if slide is easier to copy than that in film.


Cheers,
Hin

[hinman]

What's not working for you? Getting your negatives flatter always helps. But you may need to adjust the height of that ANR glass for focus. The smaller your negative is, the better the scanner's true optical resolution needs to be to get good results. That scanner is reported to be around 1700ppi for a max optical resolution.

Hi Tuco,

Thank you for your valuable inputs. My main problem is the sharpness and loss of detail in scanning with 135 film. I usually scan in between 1200 to 1600 dpi using my Canon 8800F for 135 film as I don't really see difference to scan in higher resolution with 2400 dpi for 35mm film.

I don't have an ANR glass to try, I tried it last night with setup like the following to scan the film with emulsion side facing down. The glass that I use is that from a cheap picture frame to try out if flatness of film can be improved with detail

Instead of the default film holder, I used a piece of glass to cover the negative facing down with emulsion side down. I don't know if the thickness in the experimental glass will affect the scanning.

One immediate question is whether the BetterScanning film holder with ANR glass is recommended. Is it worth it for Cannon 8800F? Should I skip the investment and go directly to Epson v700 scanner instead. The holder only works for the 120 film but I am hoping the ANR glass can be used for 35mm film instead of my setup above.

Thanks,
Hin

[tuco]

Your scanner does not have auto focus, right? So by placing your negatives directly on the glass, you may not be focused there. Does your OEM film carrier hold the negatives above the glass?

I have a BetterScanning glass carrier for one of my scanners. It comes with adjustable height for focusing which is a trial-n-error process to set the height.

[hinman]

The above setup in scanning 135 film flat on the scanner surface instead of the film holder does have a slight improvement as my initial impressions. I have not compared the shots with those with film holder.

Scanning detail:

• 1600 dpi
• Color negative as it is BW400CN and scan as greyscale
• Auto Tone and Auto unsharp mask -- I may later try to turn both off and use LR instead
• FARE -- the dust and scratch removal in Canon is set to medium
• Canon scangear

The shots may not be in focus OR the scanning is not in focus -- I can't tell. More suggestions to try are very needed and welcome.

Cheers,
Hin

[hinman]

Your scanner does not have auto focus, right? So by placing your negatives directly on the glass, you may not be focused there. Does your OEM film carrier hold the negatives above the glass?

I have a BetterScanning glass carrier for one of my scanners. It comes with adjustable height for focusing which is a trial-n-error process to set the height.

Yes, my OEM film carrier hold the negatives above the glass. I will imagine the adjustment from Better Scanner may make the focus better. Is it a worthy investment? This can come back to haunt me as buying the BetterScanner setup for Canon 8800F won't be re-usable on my next scanner upgrade -- likely the Epson v700.

Thanks,
Hin

[tuco]

Personally, I turn off all scanner augmentations except ICE for color. I scan by histogram. That is, I adjust the curve to not clip the histogram on either end. Raw scans like that are flat and dull. But they give you the most flexibility to adjust the curve in the image editor where you also can sharpen it there. I'd say you can sharpen way better with say Lightroom and Photoshop than with the scanner's unsharpen mask.

It's more work, of course. But you'll get your best results that way. The analog to digital conversion just seems to require a lot of human touch.

Edit: The better scanning carriers are not cheap. I'd wait until you get the new scanner. Your results don't look that bad compared to other 135 format scans I've seen.

[hinman]

Thank you Tuco. I have been learning a bunch of good tips from you such as the scanning parameters. I do set everything OFF when I scan my 120 films except FARE (the dust and removal feature in Canon) for color photos. For the bulk and chore in 35mm film with 36 prints, I try to use the faster route to save time. But I will take your suggestions to heart and rely more on post processing on LR. There is much for me to learn especially in working with the Tone curve, sharpening and others.

When all scanner parameters are off, the picture do really look dull and flat but I am working hard to work against the faster path with not-so-great results

Besides the better scanner, I am also thinking of giving the VueScan another try. Last when I tried it, I find the Canon ScanGear easier to use and it is nice to have all pictures recognized in the preview mode. Cropping after scan is another chore that I try to avoid but perhaps I have not tried hard enough with VueScan. I will download the latest and give that a go again.

If any of you know that Epson v700 is way better with 35mm film than Canon, please weigh in your vote for the better flatbed with Epson or the like. Cost is one parameter that I can't ignore.

Thanks,
Hin

[artobest]

I had a Canon 8600F and have an Epson V750, and the Epson is much better. It's a very good machine, actually, criminally underrated, although, like all flatbeds, chromatic aberration can be a problem when scanning 35mm - the CR can be greatly reduced in PP though.

Your scans look pretty good. You may need to adjust your expectations of what a flatbed produces straight off the bat. They need, and can take, pretty heavy capture sharpening to really shine. I would try the capture sharpening in Lightroom, if you have it - it seems to be especially effective with scans. Alternatively, Photoshop's Smart Sharpen set to Lens Blur with More Accurate ticked can be useful - make sure you use the advanced mode and fade the shadows and highlights to avoid haloes. Sharpening on a separate layer set to Luminosity blend mode with an edge mask helps too.

I use ANR glass inserts for warped film on my Epson, but only if the film really is warped - these machines have reasonably good depth of field (see here). The problem with glass inserts is they introduce more dust into the process.

If all this sounds too much, I recommend Fraser and Schewe, Real World Image Sharpening. It'll really help you get what you want.

[elkarrde]

I've been using 8800F scanner for almost two years now, and I'm quite satisfied with it's IQ. I suppose it was me who suggested to hin to use A4 piece of glass instead of scanner's plastic holders since I'm using that setup often.
I'm using standard glass, and yes, I'm having quite some issues with Newton's rings (clearly evident here), but it depends greatly on curling of specific film - curled film means more Newton's rings. Sheet of ANR glass should solve all the problems, though.
Software side, I'm using VueScan 8.something, I'm scanning to TIFF files, at 2400 dpi, and then doing manual per-channel color correction, sharpening and cleaning in Photoshop CS5.

I've been playing with friend's Epson V700, and it is significantly better scanner, but over here in Croatia it costs exactly three times as much - IQ difference is not that better.
Scanning with glass sheet boosts Canon's output quality to surpass default Epson's output, I can just wonder what can V700 do with better scanning technique.

There are a few downsides of scanning with glass sheet is speed - scanning with scanner's plastic holders is much faster, and much much cleaner process - glass sheet scanning requires that all factors in formula be perfectly clean and spotless, and that can be very tricky - you have to clean lamp, glass, negatives AND flatbed, and that can take a lot of time, so when I'm not aiming for ultimate quality (e.g. when I'm scanning my daily project negatives), plastic holders do their job acceptably.

[hinman]

@artobest: thank you for your valuable feedbacks, links, recommendations and comments. When you have a chance, please weigh in the advantages of Epson v750 over v700 and if you know about good places to get ANR glass. The v750 has roughly a $200+ price difference from v700. And do yo see a big difference on 120 film when you compared your Canon with Epson?

I am trying to experiment more on my old LR 2.7 on sharpening, my 3.5 upgrade order is in shipment. I especially like your here link. The cat on the first picture is cute and I especially love her/his posting in the shot. Your other shots with the scanner have my heart pumping for scratches on the scanner surface. I will clone out the dust spots on the first picture and it is an outstanding shot that will justify the extra efforts. It is a chore unfortunately. I used the fare (the ice equivalent) in Canon scangear for the 35mm film and I tried to skip the FARE and rely mostly on air blower and dust off and occasionally I go for liquid film cleaner.

I get one Newton's Ring encounter when I use the film cleaner. This was scanned from Canon 8800F with the default film holder, it was shot with Pentax 645N and Kodak Ektar 100. I don't scan with FARE and use the LR spot cloning on the dust

Pentax 645N, FA 45mm f/2.8, Kodak Ektar 100 color on 120 film
2400 dpi, fare off, auto-tone off, pp on dust removal,
Newton's ring on right



Pentax 645N, A 120mm f/4.0 Macro, Kodak Ektar 100 color on 120 film
2400 dpi, fare off, auto-tone on, pp on dust removal

The Canon does reasonably well for me for 120 film and I manage to get the detail that I am looking for. Sometime, I don't even need to go into much in sharpening and I manage to see the detail. That is not the case with the 135 film with the Canon default film holder. I may need to re-adjust my expectations accordingly. I still love the smallness of 135 gear and hence I seek knowledge to renew my approach and interest in 135 film.

Cheers,
Hin

[hinman]

@elkarrde: thanks for dropping by. Yes, you are the one that I get inspired from doing more on 135 films with my Canon 8800F flatbed. I can certainly attest to the chore when I go using glass instead of the default film holder.

I have been using just the Canon scangear and I will give the VueScan another try. I scan low resolution to save time. I will go about 1200 to 1600 dpi on 135 film.

Here are some recent scan on 135 film

• 1200 dpi in Canon Scangear -- should have gone into 1600dpi
• Auto-tone ON
• Color negative and scan as greyscale -- film is C41 base with Kodak BW400CN
• PP on toning, sharpening, exposure, fill light in LR 2.7, thanks to Tuco on toning advice and edit with histogram
• FARE ON -- the ice equivalent in Canon scangear
• All shot with Ricoh xr-p, Kodak BW400CN and Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 P/K-AR

My mistakes: I should have set ISO to 200 instead of the default 400 recommendation. The C41 film come out especially dark for the indoor shots and I have to pull the lighting up quite a bit in PP. In the past my local lab suggested me to shoot in 200 for BW400CN, I should have listened to him.

Cheers,
Hin

[tuco]

Really "rich" BW and the sharpness looks really good too.