Originally posted by stevebrot Epson Scan with the V700 flatbed (mostly for medium and large format)
Nikon Scan with the 5000 ED (35mm only)
I have used VueScan and Silverfast. Both work well and both are worth the money if the manufacturer's software is unsuitable or no longer works with your hardware.
******************
That being said, your experience with medium format film scanning are not unusual. Large files and long scan times are the curse of larger negatives. It may be argued that a scanner upgrade might be a good idea, so that you get more "real" resolution per scan, but I won't go there. What I have done for my personal work is:
- Treat the negative as your "archive" copy and scan "proofs only" as part of the routine flow. Do these at fairly low resolution suitable for onscreen display. JPEG may work fine for this purpose.
- For those frames to be scanned at higher resolution, say for print output, scan at 4800 dpi and down-sample the scanned TIFF to the 1500 dpi or less using one' favorite tool
- For higher resolution scans, keep in mind the target display resolution and pixel dimensions. For 11x14", 2800 pixels on the long axis (200 dpi) is adequate for printing.
The first point above may be the hardest to accept. The negative is the original and should be treated as such. It is archival, assuming proper storage and avoidance of flame. It is amenable to higher resolution scans as well as optical enlargements at a future date. A scan, on the other hand, is less flexible and much less permanent.
Steve
Yes, scanner upgrade would be ideal... Good Coolscan deals sometimes come up, but I am a bit worried buying a 15 year old machine that does not easily work with modern computers. I keep shooting MF hoping that I would upgrade the scanner at some point in the future (after the kids are done university... The youngest one is in day care right now
)
Thank you for advice - I tend to just scan everything, but you are right, I should be more selective to save time and space...
---------- Post added 09-11-18 at 01:13 PM ----------
Originally posted by filmamigo Most things I have scanned at the lab, giving me 6 megapixel JPG scans. These are perfect for web use and moderate prints.
I do also scan at home. 120 is scanned on an Epson Perfection V500. For most scans I use the Epson software - I find it handles exposure and colour balance decently without much intervention. I also have and use Vuescan, mostly for 35mm scanned by a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. With glassless scanning of the film and adjustable autofocus, the scans are sharp, even if the resolution is "only" about 10 megapixel.
I agree with Steve about treating the negative as your archive.
I do scan to a big .TIFF, but can't consider the .TIFs to be "archival". They are too big and unneeded. The .TIF can be disposed of once it has been imported in Photoshop and saved to .PSD. In Photoshop I do the usual - crop, flip, exposure, dodge and burn, spotting dust, curves and tonal adjustments. When all is done, I will output a clean, finished .JPG at full quality, and possibly scaled down to 6 or 10 megapixels. Personally, I end up keeping the .PSD file and the .JPG -- but I'm not sure why. The .TIFs and .PSDs are pigs, and I have yet to go back and "reprocess" a scan. If I did, it's probably because I would have scanned it with a better scanner, and so would redo the whole process anyway.
hmmm. That makes sense... The problem is that I'd forget what I have in my archive... So maybe I should keep low-quality scans of the whole film and high quality JPEGs of some photos. That way I at least would know what I have... And you are right, I have yet to go back and reprocess a scan.
---------- Post added 09-11-18 at 01:14 PM ----------
Originally posted by dsmithhfx Epson v600. I scan 35MM @3200 ppi, color 48-bits and b+w 16-bits using the Epson software, do initial post for exposure and curves, convert to 24-bits sRGB (both color and b+w), and save to zip-compressed tif files in CS3. I scan 120 (6x6) @ 2400 ppi, otherwise same process.
I have yet to figure out the whole 'bits' business... Silverfast has options for this: 48 to 24 bits etc. Need to read up on that
---------- Post added 09-11-18 at 01:16 PM ----------
Originally posted by Alex645 For years I've been scanning 35mm and 120 negs and slides on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Like the OP, at 4800 ppi res it is slow and the 645 TIFF files are huge. I've found that VueScan is fairly easy to use, but also offers many options and is acceptable in terms of glitches with an iMac running OS 10.12.6 Sierra.
In January, I'll be upgrading to OS 10.13.6 High Sierra replacing the Minolta with a Plustek OpticFilm 120. Not sure yet if that will be with SilverFast or VueScan, and if this turns out to not be an "upgrade", I"m just hoping it won't be a downgrade!
I've been looking at that scanner. Would be interesting to know what you think about it. Good luck!
---------- Post added 09-11-18 at 01:17 PM ----------
Originally posted by abruzzi I retain them in TIFF format, unless I'm exporting for display. My goal was to have a "raw" film. i.e. a storage format that changed the original pixels as little as possible so gave me the most leeway for adjustment. However I didn't want to store the out-of-camera raw because Aperture doesn't have a concept of adjustment layers. Each adjustment you add is added to the base image, and I haven't seen a way to order adjustments. So if I import a negative into Aperture, then use "curves" to invert the negative, it will look like a positive. But if I add another adjustment, say "levels" (I know you wouldn't use both, but as an example), the histogram still looks inverted, and the adjustments are all backwards.
So, generally, the adjustments I bake into the TIFF file are: crop to the negative frame, invert, maybe adjust the black and white points. If color negative, I remove the orange mask too, though I'm still experimenting with the best way to make that happen. All that is currently done in Photoshop. Then its imported into Aperture, where all adjustments are non-destructive, and I finalize levels, remove dust, crop for composition, make color adjustments, sharpen, etc.
Aperture has a concept of "versions" where any master can have multiple versions that include different adjustments to the master. I then export the version for online posting, or other uses. That will usually be JPEG.
Thanks!
---------- Post added 09-11-18 at 01:20 PM ----------
Originally posted by Russell W. Barnes Here's how I do my 6x6 negs...
Benbo tripod above 230V a.c. fluorescent light-box, with neg held flat by a stiff card mask. Copied using a Sony RX100 II on manual focus, ISO100 and 2-sec self-timer, in RAW. Camera aligned flat with a bubble-level, just visible there; the little orange thing. Errant curly negs sometimes disciplined with a sheet of picture glass (watch for teflections!).
Images converted to 8-bit TIFF files in Sony's ARW file-handling software thence to Lightroom 3 with Photoshop 7 for inverting to positive. Negs filed in those translucent paper sleeves and put away in A4 files as the master copy.
Apologies for the crap photo. Hand-held at > 1/10 sec!
Thanks! Seems like if we use this thread as an informal poll on scanning methods, DSLR scanning is more popular.