CanoScan 8400F

[nextreme]

Hi Everyone,

I just bought the above mentioned scanner, and was wondering if anyone else is using the same and has some images in their gallery ? I'm really struggling trying to get a decent film scan from 35mm APX 100. I'm using the software that came with the scanner, through PS elements on an intel imac.

Any help would be appreciated, like what software you are using, settings, etc.
I'm really not getting anything near the quality I see in the gallery (not sharp) but the negs look great.

thanks
steven

[ibcrewin]

I find that it's hit or miss.. Sometimes I get it right sometimes I don't. I'm still experimenting.

[FrankS]

Hi Steven. I'm using this scanner and some of my gallery pictures are done with it. Before that, I was using a flatbed scanner to scan 8x10 prints. You can get sharp sharp results with the Canon 8400f. I also use PS Elements that came with the scanner. In the "filters" drop down menu, there is a sharpen, sharpen more, and unsharp mask function.

[markinlondon]

I find all scans need a little post processing, Steven. Even print scans need a slight touch of USM to get them back to something like the original. If you resize or alter the resolution of an image it pays to give a little USM to restore the image sharpness as some is always lost. I find PSE's "save for web" feature seems to do this for you and use it as my final step when preparing frames for web display. I use an old Canon D1250 flatbed (or did until I discovered there were no OSX drivers for it!).

[nextreme]

Thanks for the replies guys.
Frank, I actually had read your initial posts after you bought your scanner, and was impressed with the results you were showing. I always had it in mind since then.
I guess I'll keep testing, but not sure it's a keeper yet.

[FrankS]

Steven, here's roughly what I do:

scan neg
open file with PS Elements
crop
enhance: brightness, contrast, levels
dodge and burn, mainly burn
filter: sharpen
save for web

[nextreme]

Hey Frank, and you're using the canon supplied driver ?
I'm getting much better results with slides that b&w negs. I guess thats normal ?

[FrankS]

Hey Frank, and you're using the canon supplied driver ?
I'm getting much better results with slides that b&w negs. I guess thats normal ?

Yes.
I don't know about scanning slides yet.

[smileyguy]

If it helps at all I'm using the Canoscan 9950F. Some of my stuff can be seen at my flickr account here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wesmoredigital/). It's all been scanned on that scanner with the supplied driver via PSCS2. Some are negs (colour or b&w) and some are slides. Some are with my Konica RF and some are with my EOS3.

The biggest things that I find to be helpful are letting the lamp warmup for about a half hour or so. It may seem silly or overkill but I think it definitely helps. Also, try to make sure that all your profiles match. I use ARGB for everything and if there's a mismatch between scanner, PSCS2 or monitor it's noticeable. I find my scans will come out dark and muddy if there is a mismatch.

Those are just my two cents.

[nextreme]

Hey Guys, I've posted a scan in my gallery named JazzFest. I think it's on par with other members shots (in terms of scan quality). Let me know if you think its what should be expected from the 8400F

thanks !

(not sure if this links directly to it)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=58788&limit=recent