scanning help please

[rwwright]

as you can see, the scanned photo is totally unacceptable. image below is a jpg from save-for-web and set to 1200 by 800 at medium quality
kodachrome slide, about 12 years old.
plustek 7500i scanner. set to 7200 dpi. small part of slide included in scan (but full scan looks the same)
no corrections have been made except a few dust spots removed. i have no doubt that it can be improved greatly with processing and have done others. noise removal, color correction, bring out shadows, sharpen etc etc. BUT surely scanning is better than this.

any advice is welcome.

i am in north dallas/mcKinney area. would be happy to have someone come over and show me how stupid i am. happy to come to your site with slide to see what you get and how you do it. etc etc.

[peeker]

Two ways to get better results:
- Scan to a TIF file instead of JPEG, so when you start correcting the image in PS, you aren't starting with a compressed file.
- Review and purchase Vuescan software for your flatbed scanner. It has always done a better job than the manufactures scanner software I have used in the past.

Here are some of the filters it uses to clean up negatives and slides...
Filter tab

[rwwright]

thanks for your response.

i just posted the jpg so people could see it. the origional was a 60 meg tif file. it looks just like the jpg shown. Also i didnt mention i was using silverfast software that came with the scanner.

[venchka]

Based on information from folks who know about these things and my own scanning experience, setting a flat bed scanner to 7200 dpi is a waste of time and disc space. Read the specs. for your machine. Find the "Hardware Resolution" for your machine. Use that figure or even a little less. The current crop of Epson scanners peak at about 2,100-2,400 dpi. I'm guessing that the Plustek does too. Maybe less.

Kodachrome slides are hard to scan. Not impossible, but not as easy as color neg. or B&W. Silverfast is touting their Kodachrome profile. However you may have to upgrade the software to get it. Silverfast software is ridiculously expensive.

Here's a scan from a summer of 2009 roll of Kodachrome at 2400 dpi on an Epson Perfection 1680.



For pixel peeping, a link to a larger version:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/171930-1/Front+Row.jpg

Scanning takes patience and practice. A lot of practice. And then more practice and more patience. When you "get it", it's worth the effort.

ps: I always scan to TIFF files. It is worth the extra time and disc space.

[rwwright]

your photo has significantly more detail and far less noise than mine. mine wont look that good even after processing.

ps: plustek 7500i is not a flatbed scanner, it is a film and slide scanner that is susposed to get 4000 dpi results optically. film that i have scanned looks about the same as the slide. all of my non digital media is at least 10-20 years old.

[srwatters]

I currently use an Epson V700 and in the past owned a Nikon Super CoolScan 5000. I too have struggled with getting scans to look like my digital images. And that IMHO is the problem. We're comparing a medium (film) that was developed (pun) to be viewed on paper or via projection. Here's one of my scans of T-Max 100 B&W shot with the Hasselblad:

Reduced for web viewing:


And a link to the full size jpg that weighs in at about 25MP. You're going to see grain at 100%, but when you resize it to 'normal' screen viewing or actually print it on paper, it looks wonderful. I don't know if what you've shown above is a 100% crop, but I'm betting it is. Can you show the full scan at web viewing size?

This image was shot on Fuji Astia in 35mm format with my old Nikon F5:



It's surely not digital, but I think it looks OK. I wanted a 70's style look and think this one did that well. Of course, YMMV.

[venchka]

Let's hope that Astia isn't digital! Scott, you dig more out of a negative with the V700 than anyone I know. I think your models are the reason. Who looks for scanning flaws in a photo like that?

I didn't know your Plustek was a film scanner. You still aren't gaining anything by going beyond 4000 dpi. You may also be seeing the difference between the Nikon Coolscans (best film scanners for the money) and the Plustek.

Thanks for confirming that my Epson 1680 is doing ok for an antique.

[rwwright]

you are clearly getting more detail in your scanned images than i am. i did build mine at approx 100% to show the details. I havent found any closeup model photos from film days but some others that i scanned and printed as 8x10 dont look too bad, just not as good as a print from the film would have been.

[venchka]

Scott doesn't play fair. Best lenses. Great film. Decent scanner. Mega-talent. And the #1 ingredient: Super Models.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by venchka

Scott doesn't play fair. Best lenses. Great film. Decent scanner. Mega-talent. And the #1 ingredient: Super Models.

My last fair fight was in the third grade and that was against a girl

[The Philos]

I bet she was a model.

[rwwright]

retry with adjustments diff photo. gets quite a bit better now, and may have to settle for this. dont think i could make a 13x17 print from this.
this is standard jpg extract from lightroom at 50% quality. scanned at 3600 and cut size in half in photoshop. lots of spotting and selective sharping etc

[srwatters]

Much better!

But how do you feel about the process now?

Did you do much post processing sharpening? I find that sharpening specifically and uniquely for the output medium (screen, print, etc.) will give you much more pleasing results.

[venchka]

She's a keeper.

I turn off sharpening in the scanner. I use the Lightroom preset capture sharpening and like Scott said, choose the appropriate output sharpening (low) when I export. If I can see the effect of sharpening, I do it over. I always export to JPEG at 100%. My largest print from a scanned negative so far is 16x20 from a 6x7 negative. It worked fine.

[rwwright]

i guess i feel better about it now. i am afraid i just expected more than was reasonable or perhaps even possible. the photo posted is probably 20 years old. i am not sure what lenses, but i believe it was with the nikon 105mm lens recommended at the time for portraits and nc2020 body in studio on tripod with novatron lights. there are certainly a lot of dust or something on the slides and negatives (probably some spots of growth or something since they are so old)

i am not sure i can get really good 13x17 prints from my better old slides, but i can get all of the selected family and trip snapshots to digital media with reasonable effort.