Post sample of scanned negative work...pls

[poker]

Hi,

About three years ago I bought a HP scanner with the film/slide attachment to scan in negatives. I expected to scan in old negatives, adjust in photoshop, then print it out to my Epson. It never happened. The quality of the scanned negative was very poor. At this point, I believe negative scanning at the consumer level is a pipe dream.

If you know how to do negative/slide scanning from home using consumer level products please post a sample and share you technique if possible. I'd like to have a reason to try again but only with a foundation from your example.

Thanks

[mtbbrian]

All of my Holga stuff is scanned.
I have a newer scanner, an Epson 4180. It sounds like it is better than the one you have.
I also scan slides with it too.
You can check either my site or my gallery here.
I am pretty happy with the resluts. I do make some prints with it, but mostly I use it for web applications.
Brian

[adina]

I used a dedicated neg scanner. Then cleaned up the dust and adjusted the color/contrast.

[walterick]

I got the Epson 4990 for Christmas.

It kicks $@!@$%!

It scans prints up to 8x10, 35mm film, 35mm slides, 120, 4x5, and 8x10.

Here are some scans from my Lake Powell trip on Velvia (220) and Tmax 100 (35mm.)

As for technique, the scanner does most of the work. I think most of your problem lies in your hardware!

[photophorous]

I have a Canoscan 8400F. For the money(~$130), I'd say it's pretty good, but if you're looking to make prints, it might not be what you want. Here are a few examples just in case.

Silos - 120 neg, TMAX, taken with Yashica TLR
Colorado Blue Sky - 35mm Fuji slide film...can't remember which one
Clear Lake Reflection - 8x12 print (that didn't quite fit and is dirty in the corner), taken on 35mm Fuji Superia 400.

Happy shopping.

Paul

[Asylum Steve]

The quality of the scanned negative was very poor...

What exactly is wrong with the scan?

What you might try to get better results is to scan your neg in as a positive (like it was a color slide), then invert the image in photoshop...

[mwfanelli]

Hi,

About three years ago I bought a HP scanner with the film/slide attachment to scan in negatives. I expected to scan in old negatives, adjust in photoshop, then print it out to my Epson. It never happened. The quality of the scanned negative was very poor. At this point, I believe negative scanning at the consumer level is a pipe dream.

If you know how to do negative/slide scanning from home using consumer level products please post a sample and share you technique if possible. I'd like to have a reason to try again but only with a foundation from your example.

You should be using a film scanner instead of a flatbed/adapter. The quality is vastly superior for negs and slides.

[Asylum Steve]

You should be using a film scanner instead of a flatbed/adapter. The quality is vastly superior for negs and slides.

...on the final use. Combo scanners are fine for web-based graphics.

[drg]

I am linking to a couple from the gallery I have here on PR. The black and white storm image was shot with a p/s camera and the color on Fuji NPH with a Canon 1v (I'd have to look up the lens). I do use dedicated negative/slide scanners. Negative scanning does require some patience and getting the parameters correct. If your software has any kind of 'tutorial' for film scanning run through it a couple of times to get all the steps right. H-P has had some pretty comprehensive guides with many of the scanner products.

[racingpinarello]

Scanning is a learning process. While I do use a dedicated film scanner, I have reached decent quality from an Epson flatbed scanner.

What I would do with a flatbed scanner is to buy a slide with a color chart, Kodak has one that I use. Scan that, and make a profile from it. After your initial scan you will be able to correct the color balance with curves. Save that as an action in photoshop as your first step.

Then you should be able to do minor adjustments to fix saturation, sharpness, and detail. I have my scan profiles built into my Nikon scanner, but I have used the action in Photoshop as well. Most of my images on my website are from scanning negatives and slides.

Loren

[Axle]

I use a relitivly new HP Consumer grade scanner with some decent results. I just scan in at a high DPI level (as high as I can go), and then same the images in TIF format before cleaning them up in Photoshop and scaling down to save to jpg.

Here are some of my examples (Film used Fuji Sensia 400 on a Minolta X-7A 50mm f/1.7 lens)




(On her wrist (left) there is some marks, those were actually on her, not the slide)

[poker]

Thanks for all the advice and samples. I tried to use the darn flatbed with the negative attachement and it is too embarraing to post. The color is very off and there is so much noise.

I tried Steve's suggestion of "What you might try to get better results is to scan your neg in as a positive (like it was a color slide), then invert the image in photoshop..." The result was an even more difficult file to modify in PS....at my level of knowledge.

Many of you obviously know how to deal with it...maybe there is a steep learing curve to this....and/or dedicated film/slide scanners are also best I'll try a few more times but it's frustrating.

[walterick]

Eric, how old is your scanner?

I had a Microtech with the "light bar film scanning attachment" thing and it sucked. No one has ever gotten those to work right, I don't think.

To get good results from a flatbed neg scan, it has to be a "dedicated" flatbed film scanner, like Epson 4990 I use. It doesn't have one of those "light bars" you hook up, it has the the whole thing built in. It does a fantastic job, because the scanner was designed from the start to do negative scanning, and not just prints. The older ones with that plug-in thing weren't.

Take a look at some other flatbed scanners out there. I really don't think it's you, I think it's just your scanner.

GL

Rick

[jorgemonkey]

I am pretty happy with the resluts. I do make some prints with it, but mostly I use it for web applications.
Brian

What exactly is a reslut?

[another view]

I tired Steve's suggestion of "What you might try to get better results is to scan your neg in as a positive (like it was a color slide), then invert the image in photoshop..." The results was an even more difficult file to modify in PS....at my level of knowledge

Actually I do this too. This is (only one handy at the moment...) Ilford Delta 3200 shot at 3200 and scanned on an ancient film scanner. I have an Acer 2720S, and Acer is now known as Benq. You can find one of these on ebay from time to time for under $100 with the SCSI card included, which you'll need because unless your computer is suitably ancient it won't have one. Biggest downside with this unit is no Digital ICE - but they have another model (2740S?) that has it. You can't use ICE on B&W, but since I scan as a color transparency it may work - not sure on that. This thing even does 16 bit scanning which is really nice, and has a Win XP driver available.

In Photoshop, the first thing I do is Invert, then usually convert it to B&W by using the channel mixer technique. Are you familiar with that? It was quite a learning curve to get to this point but you'll get there. Some films scan better than others. This isn't the best example either because it's a film that (when shot at ISO3200) handles contrast almost like slide film - and concert lighting has a lot of contrast. Hope this helps, but I'm happy with the results given all the excuse making I just did.

[freygr]

Hi,

About three years ago I bought a HP scanner with the film/slide attachment to scan in negatives. I expected to scan in old negatives, adjust in photoshop, then print it out to my Epson. It never happened. The quality of the scanned negative was very poor. At this point, I believe negative scanning at the consumer level is a pipe dream.

If you know how to do negative/slide scanning from home using consumer level products please post a sample and share you technique if possible. I'd like to have a reason to try again but only with a foundation from your example.

Thanks

This is from a 620 roll film folding kokad camera, scanned on a Epson 1200U photo scanner, the second is from a Nikon Cool Scan 35 mm film scanner. Both only have been resized. The 35mm was gainy to start with the resizing gave it more gain.

[tink]

This was a 35mm scan from my Epson Perfection 2580



This was done by the lab



ETA forgot to say that neither were touched up in PS
Also, when scanning, some scanners auto fine tune by doing things like unsharp mask etc. I turn all extras off and just scan mine as a colour image then desaturate if the colour is off. Fortunately for these two pics they were ok. Sometimes the scans come up a bit purpley

[Franglais]

I am in the process of scanning my film collection using an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo flatbed and a Nikon Coolscan IV dedicated film scanner.

The Nikon is definitely better. With a difficult image the automatic analysis of colour and density is closer and I find I have more control. Result looks slightly sharper and the highlights burn out more gracefully. Plus with most films the hardware-based dust removal feature really works (unlike the Epson's system which is done in software)

I use the Epson flatbed for all the portrait sessions I did of people on silver-based black & white film. The Nikon can't do dust removal on this whereas the Epson can and makes some improvement. The images in these sessions are almost all identical and I find that the "Amateur" setting on the Epson where it finds and scans 12 images automatically is very productive. I just leave it for half an hour. If later on a find there is an image that I particularly want to do better then I put it in the Nikon and spend more time of it, correcting the dust by hand in PS if necessary.

My technique - I use the flatbed at maximum resolution (3200dpi) to make a colour JPG from my black-and-white negative then I desaturate in Nikon Capture batch to ensure it's neutral.

Charles

[yogestee]

Hi Eric,,scanned on an Epson Perfection 2580 neg/flatbed scanner...Negative scanned at 300dpi by 30cms X 20cms..Then reduced for this forum..A little unsharp mask in PS and density adjusted..

Fuji Superia 200

Jurgen
Australia

[yogestee]

Eric,,here is a scan from a 35mm transparency..Ektachrome 400 pushed two stops to 1600iso (check out the grain)..Epson Perfection 2580 neg/flatbed scanner..Scanned at 300dpi 30cms X 20cms (approxamately) then reduced for this forum..

Jurgen
Australia

[poker]

I reread every post on this thread more than once. Here is what I did:

Windex my scanner glass
Aircan my scanner, negative, and negative holder
Scanned at highest DPI available @ 2400
Turned off every software feature
Cloned out all the imperfections
Resized for the thread

I'm happy. I think it's "ok" enough for website work.

Thank you all for the samples and advice. This is the best result I've ever come out with. You all raised my faith but help me understand the limitation. I'll use it to add to my online work but I will probably not print from it. Thanks again!!!:thumbsup:

FYI: Kodak Royal Gold 200, Canon A2, Canon 540EZ on bounce, maybe used the Canon 85mm f/1.8

Scanner: HP Scan Jet 4470C with XPA attachment for slides/negative

Rick, it might be the same as the lightbar you described.

Thanks again!:thumbsup:

[another view]

Funny how the same shot looks different on different monitors. I've seen this thread on three different computers and my shot looks horrible on my wife's laptop but not bad on an uncalibrated CRT and pretty good on my calibrated CRT.

Couple of thoughts about your image - it does look good but I think I'd probably reduce the saturation a little (which is my preference, and I'm not seeing it on your monitor...). Scanning over 2400dpi might not be much of an improvement anyway - especially with grainy film like I had (or the Ektachrome 400 +2 sample). You could be just making the grain more apparent in that case. Royal Gold 200 shouldn't be bad based on my experience with RG400 years ago. At 2400dpi and a 35mm neg, and with careful post processing, you should be happy with 8x10 prints or possibly a bit larger. My film scanner is 2700dpi and with a good, sharp Provia slide I'm sure I could go larger. Cleanliness is very important - amazing how much stuff still shows up on a scan even after cleaning everything as you did... Scanners with Digital ICE will be a huge benefit. If I scanned a lot of film, I'd replace my scanner with one that had it, because it can't be added to a scanner.