[Mountain Vision]

this is a one pass scan. the final scan was around 70 MB if my memory serves me.
The canoscan has something very simular to digital ICE. It is called FARE. works the same.... uses infrared to detect dust and scratches on the surface of the slide/ film.
The slide was Kodak Ektachrome (spelling?) it was either 100 speed I believe.
the slight noise in the highlights might be in part due to the compression used to get it down to web output size. (or it could be just the film)


The one thing about my film/slide scanner....it is slow, especially with the FARE on at max. but at 1/2 the price of the Nikon I can live with that.
reviews put both the canon and nikon about even quality.

now that I took a closer look at it, I would say the noise is from a bit of jpg artifacts as well as compression

cheers

randy

ICE is actually a Kodak trademark. Any scanner with IR ability can use ICE or an ICE alternative. FARE is probably Canon ICE. As much as I want IR on my next scanner, I'm not blowing a ton of money till I find a deal. The issue with dust can be remedied with a prescan cleaning on dirty film. It's weird, some rolls I scan don't need a single touchup, others are so bad that it looks like I dumped dust on the roll. I've decided to invest in some film cleaner and give my rolls (uncut slide film) a bath and squegee before scanning in the future.

I usually find that when I downsize to JPEG it makes pictures look better (less noise, or less visible)

how are you downsizing and what compression level are you using?

[slip]

I am having major photoshop problems right now.... once I get this sorted out I am going to rescan that photo and see what the highlights look like.

cheers

randy

[Alfie1965]

Sluggo Hi
A lot depends on how much post processing you want to do, and the quality of photo you want to achieve.
I use an off the shelf HP all-in-one printer scanner, cost around £100GB, I scan at 200dpi and usually enlarge 1.5 or 2 times. I rarely make any other adjustments when scanning, save as a bitmap, this is usually between 7 and 20mb depending on several variables - original size, depth of colour, how busy the picture is etc.

Go to my photo gallery and take a look at "devil in disguise?" the only post processing done to this photo was in Microsoft Paint to remove the specs of dust, scratches etc. The original is a 5x7 print on Kodak glossy paper, taken with my MZ10 and the film used was most likely fuji 200, or Konica 200.

I have never used slides so never had to scan those,

hope this is of some help

[pspentax]

Hi, this pictures are from Riga the capital of Latvia my wife country.

Taked with Pentax 645 and FA 35/3,5 Fuji Velvia50 then scan with Epson 4870 at ONLY 360DPI

So imagine the resolution, color,etc... you can get from a scan of the Epson at4800DPI the max resolution.

The all 3 pictures take me about 10min of work







Regards,

Pedro Santos

[skaktuss]

Nice pics!

Greetings from Latvia!

[pspentax]

Nice pics!

Greetings from Latvia!

~


Hi Skaktuss,

Thanks for your comment, you have a very nice country, normaly i go there every year.

You are from Riga?

Regards,
Pedro

[themeron]

I order to reveal and scanning the negatives (72 dpi only) for now.
Then I treat in Photoshop.
I sometimes order to reveal the picture for the negative and later scanning the paper (in 300 dpi).
Excuse-me for my weak English...
Hugs from Brazil!

Themeron

pic #1 - scan from negative (72 dpi and photoshop):



pic #2 - scan from paper (300 dpi - scan genius colorpage sp 2x - 32 bits):



My 'machine':



Pentax MZ-50 - smc pentax f 35-105mm lens

[denkami]

WOW ! it's really nice pictures

[Nando]

I shoot film exclusively and then scan the negatives with a Nikon Coolscan V. There are quite a few reasons why I stick to film. The main one is that I shoot mainly with rangefinders and I'm not about to pay $3k for an Epson RD1 or $5k for a Leica M8 to use my collection Leica-mount lenses.

The costs of using film are not that bad unless you are a real pro (I know of a few that used to go through $50k a year just in film). I'm just an amateur and I go through about a roll or two a week. You just need to strike up a deal with a lab to just process the film and not do prints. I get my colour-film processed for $2/roll. For B&W its cheaper when you process the film yourself. You don't even need a darkroom. Just process and scan. You can also buy bulk rolls and load up your own reusable 35mm canisters to save more money. Currently, the resolution that can be achieved with low-grain film like Adox 25 in combination with the best Leica or Zeiss glass is hard to beat with anything digital. With a medium format negative - even harder. I also like the fact that deciding on what film to use is part of the creative process and I happen to like grain. I prefer film for archiving too. No matter what technology is available, I'll always have a nice, high-resolution negative available to rescan/print as necessary. I've scanned negatives and positives dating as far back as the 1950's and had wonderful results with the photos looking like they were just taken yesterday.

When scanning negatives you can still post-process in Photoshop. You can even make use of techniques that are difficult if not impossible to do with digital. For example, using a high resolution but low contrast lens along with pull-processing to achieve that elusive aura effect sometimes referred to as the "Leica Glow". With the film/scanner combo, you can have the best of both worlds. Scanning does take a long time but it doesn't really affect me. I just batch scan everything... feeding film into the scanner as I watch TV or something. It's an almost thoughtless process. Then I do the post processing later.

Currently, I'm just into 35mm cameras. I'm looking forward to moving up to medium format. Used medium format gear by Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya, etc. are much cheaper now (thanks to everyone going digital). Processing for medium format is really expensive in my town so I would be doing mainly black and white and processing at home and then scanning with a Epson flatbed. Until something like a 24+MP, full-frame sensor is available in a M-mount rangefinder. I can't see myself going digital. The only digital cameras that really appeal to me are the small, quiet and very discrete 'point-and-shoots' with fast lenses and easy manual control like the Ricoh GRD. I would also be tempted if there was a digital SLR available with traditional manual controls - i.e. shutter-speed ring at the top, aperture ring on the lens, etc. I almost bought into that Panasonic DMC-L1 until I took one look through the viewfinder - the viewfinder sucked! It completely turned me off but at the same time gave me even more appreciation for my Pentax MX, which I love dearly.

Sorry for the rant... couldn't help myself. I'll be quiet now.

[Mike Cash]

I've recently started shooting film on a limited basis again, after an almost 20 year blank. I decided that rather than indulge my inner child by buying more and more lenses for my K100D I would look into picking up some rangefinders and other vintage cameras. Cheaper, and I get a heck of a lot more toys to play with. So far I've picked up a 1956 Ricoh 35 De Luxe (about $50) and a 1959 Konica S (about $8). Sometime this week I will take delivery of three Yashica Electro 35s (about $7 for the lot) and a batch of 12 cameras, including one 1950s TLR. Some rangefinders and some more "modern" 35mm P&S crap that I really didn't want, but they're a package deal. About $25 for all 12. If I end up with two or three functioning cameras out of the lot I'll be happy.

Back to the topic at hand:

I use an Epson 8300 (don't think they sold them outside Japan) for scanning the film. I had one hell of a time using the crappy, buggy software that came with it, and b/w scans were horrendous. Much net searching revealed that the solution was to bypass the bundled software and instead use VueScan for handling the scanning work. It was well worth the $39 I paid for it. The multi-scan function really helps out with those b/w negatives.

Here is a shot from the 1956 Ricoh:



Not a prize-winner by anybody's standards, but I think it may help to show what a good job the VueScan does in working with the b/w negatives. At any rate, taking the vintage rangefinders along with me to work helps keep photography fun for me, and there's no point having photography (or anything else) as a hobby if we're not going to have fun with it.

Here's one from the same camera that was originally a color negative:

[Nando]

I'm sure you'll enjoy those rangefinders. A friend of mine has an electro - they're great cameras. I use Vuescan software. The scanner software that came with my Nikon was horrible and uses too much resources. Once when batch-scanning using the Nikon software, the CPU temperature got so high that my computer shutdown automatically. Vuescan uses less resources, makes better scans and what I like about it the most is that there is regular updates.