[cupic]

To be a bit off beat Im in the process of scanning a photo of my in-laws about 40years ago and all Ive done is
scanned in off my all purpose Canon scanner printer @ 600 ppi.The photo measures 8.3"X11.7" (or 4960X7015) theses figures comes straight from BR
sRGB and RGB @ a 4.2m file size.Opened in CS5 the file size is 99.5m.
Its been said on line that to get the best RGB file its to be scanned off a photo scanner .The photo is mainly orange and reds through it from old age but there is a stand out yellow jumped worn
by my future (Present wife) .Whats the best way to proceeded

cheers

[slackercruster]

????







Here are the variables with classic wet technique using an optical enlarger:

• Negative flatness (often requires a glass carrier with anti-newton glass)
• Lens quality (you pay for what you get)
• Accuracy of focus (requires a grain focus aid)
• Rigidity and alignment of the enlarger (again, you pay for what you get)
• Technical skill of the operator (there are prints and there are prints)

Here are the variables with scanning:

• Negative flatness (often requires a glass carrier with anti-newton glass)
• Lens quality (often VERY poor)
• Accuracy of focus (often difficult to manage)
• Mechanical accuracy of the scanner (you pay for what you get)
• Scanner image processor (you pay for what you get)
• Useability, flexibility, and quality of the scanner software (sort of poor all around)
• Technical skill of the operator (there are scans and there are scans)

You may note that the two lists are very similar except that the second one is a little longer. With wet printing, greater weight is placed on the technical ability of the operator. With scanning the weight is on the hardware. Less $$ means less quality and no amount of technique or USM can make up for poor optics or a bad image processor.







Now lets look at the practical size of things:

• Largest usable print size...about the 20" on the long axis for both (4000 dpi for the scan and excellent optics and technique on the enlarger). BTW...if anybody reading this thinks they are getting 4800+ dpi from their consumer scanner and the name on the front is other than Nikon, Minolta, or Imacon/Hasselblad, you have been misled...badly misled.
• Dynamic range...about the same for color work with the edge going to wet prints for B&W
• Color fidelity...can be great with optical color prints, but requires a master printer. Scanned negs win hands down here.
• Ease of production...been there, done both. Anyone care to share tips for flattening fiber-based wet prints prior to mounting?
• Print permanence...metal-toned B&W silver prints on fiber-based paper with appropriate processing are essentially immortal. The better digital printing papers and dyes currently claim a lifetime of hundreds of years. Choose your poison.

Say, I've got a great idea. How about we call it a draw? Both techniques have their strengths and weaknesses and both are capable of generating excellent results. If you are not happy with your scans, it may be that you should stick with wet prints. As for me...I have been pretty pleased with my results and have no temptation to head for the darkroom any time soon.


Steve

(...has a very nice LPL 6x7 enlarger with color head equipped with Schneider and Rodenstock glass...sitting in a closet)

Good rundown Steve.

For me it is no big deal comparing the methods cause I don't. I have lots of old negs. I will scan them to give them new life for the digital age.

Other than that, 100% of my new shooting is digital.

Now, I will say this. I have not done any shooting work with BW digital. I'm still trying to figure out how to get my scans to show up on Lightroom so I can do some PP on them. It may be that BW digital is not as nice as film BW. If that was the case, then a photographer would have an excuse to shoot film and scan if he wanted the film look on dig. I will have to report back on that once I learn more.

So as not to give the wrong impression. I am very happy with my neg scans of my old BW shots. But did notice they were not as 100% sharp as the original wet prints from negs. (I used El Nikkor and Schneider glass in my Besler 45MCRX...I sold it all off long ago.)


Here are some examples...


A scan from an old print before I figured out how to scan negs. No PP. Shows up scratches and defects on the print surface. Lost lots of high and lows. Did not like it at all. When I can figure it out, I will send in a neg scan of this image to compare.






A neg scan with some minimal PP. Very happy with it. Some of the wall sharpness is off from the original print. But still good. Scanned at 4800 dpi on an Epson V500.

[artobest]

Slacker, I haven't been following your various travails with your Epson scanner, but have you tried shimming the neg holder? Could be you have a problem there with the holder height not matching the scanner focus plane. Also, what is your sharpening routine? All A/D conversions introduce softness, so you need to capture sharpen - I recommend Photokit Sharpener, or, failing that, an edge-masked Smart Sharpen layer.

One last thing - do you scan as RGB then convert to grayscale? If so, try scanning as RGB, then in PS examine each channel individually to see which is sharpest. Then use the Channel Mixer to filter for that channel. With my Epson, that is generally the green channel.

[artobest]

The photo is mainly orange and reds through it from old age but there is a stand out yellow jumped worn
by my future (Present wife) .Whats the best way to proceeded

@Cupic, you could do worse than check out Ctein's excellent book Digital Restoration from Start to Finish - a real treasure-trove of information about this very subject. It will certainly help you eliminate that colour staining.

[rhodopsin]

All of the prior posts have been about resolution comparison. No mention yet of a most important scanner specification, the "dMax", i.e. dynamic range. Scans cannot capture the full dynamic range of a negative or a slide. A photographically produced print can capture more of the available dynamic range from a film than a scanner. Modern dSLR have enough dynamic range, and lenses with enough resolution, to make better digital copies of film than any scanner.

[LesDMess]

To be sure, there is no single print or single monitor display can display the full dmax of film. To be viewable, what is captured on film has to be compressed. In a darkroom, you will also have to resort to dodging and burning to put in print a very small percentage of a film's range. You can only hope that the scan can capture sufficient information as to allow you to compress a very high contrast scene so that you can achieve a print or monitor display that you want. An example of this is shown below where there was detail captured on film in both shadows and highlights that the scan can capture to allow detail to be retrieved from both.



Link to full res -> http://www.fototime.com/DCE615918D77901/orig.jpg

[stevebrot]

To be sure, there is no single print or single monitor display can display the full dmax of film. To be viewable, what is captured on film has to be compressed. In a darkroom, you will also have to resort to dodging and burning to put in print a very small percentage of a film's range.

Yes, dodging and burning and appropriate choice of contrast rating for the paper. There also the quality of the paper itself. The cheap stuff falls apart in the shadows.


Steve

[slackercruster]

Now, here is the thing. My Epson scanner has a crappy neg carrier. It 'just' holds the neg with the full curl in it pretty much. If the Epson has a carrier like the 4 x 5 Beseler that held the neg pretty flat...then we could comapre apples to apples.

[stevebrot]

Now, here is the thing. My Epson scanner has a crappy neg carrier. It 'just' holds the neg with the full curl in it pretty much. If the Epson has a carrier like the 4 x 5 Beseler that held the neg pretty flat...then we could comapre apples to apples.

Well, there you go. A carrier such as this one from betterscanning.com might be a good investment:

Film Holder Holders and Products for the Epson V500

I know I would buy one if I was not adequately dialed in with my current setup.


Steve

(...might still buy one...too much of a gearhead, I am...)

[LesDMess]

It is rather unfortunate that an Epson V500's 6400 DPI is not the same as an Epson V700 6400 DPI and not the same as a Coolscan's 4000DPI as shown in the scans of the same frame of film below. No doubt cost and utility are major considerations. These were conducted using only provided holders and software.

Link to V500 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/33269E445D10043/orig.jpg

Link to V700 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

Link to Coolscan full res -> http://www.fototime.com/02BB797801DCA89/orig.jpg


Of course you can verify if the film has captured the details using something like a 40X microscope like the Carson MV-820 and a lightbox. The Coolscan's 4000dpi can just about resolve all the detail you can see with this setup.



I recently scanned some slides and the photog was disappointed as he was sure they were sharp as he saw them projected before. Looking at he files on his monitor, he was convinced it was the Coolscan's fault but it was easy to show him that the slides were mostly OOF and some by a bit.

[stevebrot]

Not so different, actually: Big Camera Comparison – On Landscape

This seems to be the best test yet on this subject - I can't see such an array of gear being assembled with such skill any time in the near future.

I'm sticking with film :-)

Wow! I just spent some time with the article and was totally blown away by the microscope results. I was aware, based on darkroom work using a grain focusing device, that there is more on the film than the scanner (and quite likely an enlarger) could resolve, but I was not aware that the deficiency was that pronounced.

What I did see that was most interesting is that the Mamiya 7 at 8000 dpi was equivalent to the IQ180. In some ways, this is to be expected (similar image dimensions), but I still find it gratifying. I also really appreciated the participants comments (LINK).

Thanks for sharing.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I recently scanned some slides and the photog was disappointed as he was sure they were sharp as he saw them projected before. Looking at he files on his monitor, he was convinced it was the Coolscan's fault but it was easy to show him that the slides were mostly OOF and some by a bit.

I noticed the same thing when I first got my Coolscan. Some of my "best" slides suffered from poor focus or motion-induced blur. On the other hand, on some slides I saw detail that I never noticed when projected. Case in point would be one slide of an alpine scene where it is apparent that several other people were on the mountain when we thought we were essentially alone!


Steve

[stevebrot]

It is rather unfortunate that an Epson V500's 6400 DPI is not the same as an Epson V700 6400 DPI and not the same as a Coolscan's 4000DPI as shown in the scans of the same frame of film below. No doubt cost and utility are major considerations. These were conducted using only provided holders and software.

Thanks for posting these comparisons. My experience with the Coolscan vs. the V700 is in line with what is in the images.


Steve

[slackercruster]

Well, there you go. A carrier such as this one from betterscanning.com might be a good investment:

Film Holder Holders and Products for the Epson V500

I know I would buy one if I was not adequately dialed in with my current setup.


Steve

(...might still buy one...too much of a gearhead, I am...)

Looks good. Although adds more dust potential.

[artobest]

Looks good. Although adds more dust potential.

I have the betterscanning MF holder for the V750, which I use mostly without glass for that very reason. I can say that any resolution comparison made without it is essentially meaningless - the difference it can make is that pronounced. Not just the micro-shimming it is capable of, but also its stiffness.

I also use the betterscanning 35mm anti-newton glass for those occasions when I scan 35mm on the Epson (it's really good at pulling info out of thin negs). I can recommend it if you are having curl issues.