Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-10-2018, 07:36 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
I use a cheap flatbed scanner, the epson v370. It claims all sorts of high resolution modes (9000+ dpi...), but realistically I get around 4000dpi, which is enough for my needs. The main advantages over lab scanning (not 1080p free scans, but comparable resolution) are that it's cheaper after a dozen or so rolls, and that I can output 16bit tiff if I need to pp more than the scanning program allows. The disadvantages are that, well, it's a cheap scanner that requires patience to get better outputs, and it comes with so-and-so software.


QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
A dSLR capture of a medium format negative is a decent solution, though the final pixel count will be somewhat less than that of the sensor due to loss from cropping. For 6x6cm captured with a 24Mpx camera, the nominal capture resolution would be 4000px per side for a total of 16Mpx. Calculating back to lineal resolution, that comes out to about 1700 dpi before deducting for optical loss. The nice part is that the RAW files are generally much smaller than 16-bit TIFF and much easier from the storage perspective.
It's a lot of overhead so perhaps not really worth it unless the negative is in excellent shape, but I've seen examples of scanning 1:1 with a macro lens and stitching. It is most relevant it for medium format negatives (or I guess 35mm scanned with an apsc camera). It also requires a bit more gear (light table, a camera support that offers fine adjustments to move it around)

09-10-2018, 08:46 PM   #17
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,122
I have three scanners - one by Nikon {16 multiscan}, one by Plustek {2 multiscan}, and one by Epson, listed in the order of usefulness. I have media dating back to the mid-1960's, and most of that have collected scratches and/or mold/fungus spots. A photo will preserve those perfectly, but I find that true scanners, especially the multiscan ones, are able to deal with those to some degree; the Nikon LS-2000 scans each time at a different angle, then uses parallax to eliminate bad spots not embedded in the emulsion. Afterwards, I edit in gimp (Nikon and Plustek scanners can create TIFF files} - inspecting at 200% and dealing with any remaining issues.
09-10-2018, 09:11 PM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8
I use a Epsom V600 for 6x9 and 35mm. Yes, massive TIFs result from 4800 scans on medium format color negs. I've been pleased with the results. My strategy for dealing with long scan times: the scanner stays connected to a laptop rather than my desktop. I just let it go, My bigger problem: Lightroom wants to back up these monsters to the cloud. I became allergic to my cable company's tactics and switched a good enough DSL service some time ago. When these huge files started to hog up my bandwidth I contemplated going back to cable service. Then I compelled Lightroom to do its business locally and things are back to normal.
09-11-2018, 12:01 AM   #19
Senior Member
Russell W. Barnes's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Near Penrith, Cumbria, England UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 296
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob 256 Quote
'...when you scan negatives using the K-1 (or any other camera), how do you handle the orange mask?'
I start by going 'Auto-colour' in Photoshop 7. This gives me a good point to work from most times. Because the orange cast is uniform across the whole neg, it is relatively easily removed.

09-11-2018, 01:14 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Andrea K's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by pentageek Quote
'Almost' the same setup - K-1 without Pixel Shift and DIY stand. I scan 6x7 negatives and slides.
It's a crime!

---------- Post added 11-09-18 at 10:15 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
A dSLR capture of a medium format negative is a decent solution, though the final pixel count will be somewhat less than that of the sensor due to loss from cropping. For 6x6cm captured with a 24Mpx camera, the nominal capture resolution would be 4000px per side for a total of 16Mpx. Calculating back to lineal resolution, that comes out to about 1700 dpi before deducting for optical loss. The nice part is that the RAW files are generally much smaller than 16-bit TIFF and much easier from the storage perspective.


Steve
I take 4 Pixel Shift shots from a 645 film frame.

---------- Post added 11-09-18 at 10:16 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Bob 256 Quote
I don't want to hijack this thread from IgorZ, but this question might help the OP as well: when you scan negatives using the K-1 (or any other camera), how do you handle the orange mask?
I take a shot of a non exposed part of the film
09-11-2018, 02:30 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Si Chiang Mai. Nong Khai Province
Photos: Albums
Posts: 358
used to scan them with a scanner, haha, what else
09-11-2018, 06:57 AM   #22
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Andrea K Quote
I take 4 Pixel Shift shots from a 645 film frame.
I am curious as to your setup and what software is used to manage the stitch.

Assuming 1:1 magnification and 56x41.5mm frame (Pentax 645 and variants) the pixel dimensions would be about 11481x8494px (~97Mpx) with a lineal vertical resolution of ~8500 dpi before optical degradation. That is drum scan territory assuming a stellar optical path, high quality light, and precise alignment.

FWIW, such does not address the OPs issues of time and file size. The resultant TIFF files would be massive and the effort to make them, extreme.


Steve

09-11-2018, 07:42 AM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jumbleview's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 1,066
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob 256 Quote
I don't want to hijack this thread from IgorZ, but this question might help the OP as well: when you scan negatives using the K-1 (or any other camera), how do you handle the orange mask?
I shoot in the raw (dng). Then open the file with Photoshop Element (through the Camera Row). I use ColorPerfect plugin (on Photoshop Element as a host) for negative conversion. Controls of this plugin are not intuitive so I use default ColorNeg parameters. The only part I adjust is the type of film in a drop-down menu. After converting image is saved as tiff or psd. Further editing I do either with Adobe Camera Row or with Alien Skin software.
09-11-2018, 10:20 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 420
QuoteOriginally posted by Andrea K Quote
It's a crime!
In comparison to four-frame stitch you do, yes it's a crime. I've tried to use PS, but have not seen significant difference (I was using M 50/4 Macro), so I gave up the concept. You inspired me to try stitching method
09-11-2018, 01:10 PM - 1 Like   #25
Veteran Member
IgorZ's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,735
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by abruzzi Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Russell W. Barnes Quote
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.
09-12-2018, 02:27 AM - 2 Likes   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
fs999's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,587
I had the chance to have a 30% discount for a Plustek OpticFilm 120 with SilverFast AI Studio 8
09-12-2018, 02:44 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Andrea K's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by pentageek Quote
In comparison to four-frame stitch you do, yes it's a crime. I've tried to use PS, but have not seen significant difference (I was using M 50/4 Macro), so I gave up the concept. You inspired me to try stitching method


about the PS use: you have to look for better color gradations and less noise, not "only" resolution.
09-13-2018, 07:52 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
While scanning way above the scanner's true resolution at 4800 ppi doesn't give you any more resolution, it will allow you to make a larger print for a given print resolution. If that's how you want to archive the images then nothing wrong with that. A 2400 ppi scan of a frame from 120 roll film is a descent size image for archiving too.

The thing with DSLR scanning I've noticed is no one does it for very long. People come and go doing it. And if you look who is posting pictures in the long term it is a scanner. But the DSLR looks to get the job done without getting serious with an expensive scanner.
09-13-2018, 08:23 AM - 1 Like   #29
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,123
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
People come and go doing it.
If you've already got a decent DSLR... why would you bother with the expense and hassle of film?
09-13-2018, 08:34 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
If you've already got a decent DSLR... why would you bother with the expense and hassle of film?
I know why I do but I can't speak for others. But clearly anyone still shooting film today is doing it for reasons other than convenience and practicality I would suspect.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, camera, canon, color, dpi, epson, exposure, files, film, jpeg, k-1, loss, lot, negatives, pentax k-1 ii, photography, pixel, pixel shift, post, quality, resolution, scan, scanner, shift, tiff
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your vehicle: what do you have, why do you like it, and what do you not like? Auzzie-Phoenix General Talk 2978 1 Day Ago 01:01 AM
Scan a print or scan a negative? murrelet Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 11 01-02-2018 03:54 AM
I couldn't resist, scan vs scan. little laker Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 4 03-22-2010 04:01 PM
Do you name your lenses like you name your kids????..I do jackbullet Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 08-03-2009 05:28 PM
Do you scan your film? What do you use? filmamigo Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 11 09-03-2008 07:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top