View Full Version : What do you use for scanning your negs?
Just wondering what you all use to scan your negs? Dedicated film scanners or flatbeds?
I am considering getting a Coolscan 5000 ED..
thirteen
01-10-2009, 10:21
I use a Coolscan 5000 and have been very satisfied with the scanning of color negs and positive film. I've never tried B&W on it. The bundled software I think is better than Silverfast (which I bought and was never happy with the results). IMO you cannot do better.
capitalK
01-10-2009, 10:43
I use a Nikon CoolScan that they have at work. I think it's the reason I have started shooting so much film in the past 6 months. I have never been happy with the CD's I got from the lab and my Epson Perfection 4180 scanner left much to be desired. The CoolPix scans make me feel like I am dealing with full-blown images and gives me way too much information to play with, more than I will ever need.
Jason Sprenger
01-10-2009, 11:11
I use a Canon FS4000US which is long discontinued. Today, I'd buy the Nikon offering.
Chris101
01-10-2009, 11:26
I scan 35mm negatives with a 5000, and am very happy with the result. I have printed the resulting files with an Epson R2400 at 13x19 inches and LOVED the results.
Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. Works well and is the very easy to operate. good black and white mode too. First scan and minor correction on contrast ( i still shoot for wet darkroom so the contrast needs to be bumped slightly in scans) and then transfer to Lightroom 2 for filing and any further corrections.
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-10-2009, 11:31
Coolscan 8000ED. I shoot a lot of medium format, so I needed the bigger scanner. I'm very happy with it and I imagine the 5000 would be just as good if you only shoot 35mm.
I do both Black & White and Color.
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/shovel-vine.jpg
35mm color slide (can't remember the film used, too long ago!)
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/new-mexico/images/pics/rainbow-snow1.jpg
35mm Black & White negative (Ilford Pan-F in Rodinal)
Michiel Fokkema
01-10-2009, 11:34
Minolta dimage scan multi pro and minolta dimage scan elite 5400.
Both are so much better than he epson 4990.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
I use a Canon FS4000US and a Nikon 80000ED. Both are great but the Nikon is better, even without the MF capability. I'm saving for the 9000ED because I fear mine are on the way out and want to make sure I get a new one before they don't make them anymore.
John Robertson
01-10-2009, 11:53
Canon FS4000US with Vuescan. Better than Canon software, allows multi-pass scanning for instance.
I use a Canon FS4000US and a Nikon 80000ED. Both are great but the Nikon is better, even without the MF capability. I'm saving for the 9000ED because I fear mine are on the way out and want to make sure I get a new one before they don't make them anymore.
I have the 8000 ED. As far as I know, Nikon stopped making both of them some time ago. It is a problem getting Vista ready software for them.
brainwood
01-10-2009, 12:06
Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III. It doesn't have as many features as the Elite but has the same Scanner inside
35mm Ilford HP5 Plus
I use the El Cheapo Epson V300 at $100. For web presentation it is more than enough and for the price it's very good. I am positive you could also print up to say 5x7 from the scans. The bundled software (Epson Scan) works well and is easy to operate.
If you don't intend to do medium format the V300 is as good as the V500 so you could save a bit :-)
At the time I posted a wannabe review here :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65307
Lilserenity
01-10-2009, 12:23
I use a pretty ancient (in technology terms) Coolscan III (LS30) which I have to run on a Windows NT 4 box (it can work on 2000 with the Nikon software, and XP with VueScan but I'm taking the if it ain't broke principle...) -- which is about 10 years old.
It's not bad at all for C41 (and therefore chromogenic BW films) and E6 slides, but its 8bit per channel depth is limiting the quality of scans compared to optical prints and more modern 14bit per channel scanners.
For B&W film, I find it, not that great. It's 'OK' - I find I have to work it in photoshop a lot and the B&W wet prints I make beat what the LS30 can produce hands down.
But, the reason for me saying all this is that you can get a good dedicated film scanner such as a Coolscan IV which will do you pretty well for C41 and E6 for not a massive outlay.
I will be getting another scanner but instead it will be a half decent flatbed with the emphasis on scanning the final wet prints rather than the negatives, I'm thinking of the Epson V500 which I will scan the prints + slide positives on.
Coolscan IV's can be had for not that much money now, and the LS30/III is even cheaper still as it's a SCSI device and getting on a bit now (1998 I think)
Vicky
Bob Michaels
01-10-2009, 12:29
I use a Minolta MultiPro, a medium format film scanner that has not be manufactured for a few years. If it went up in smoke tonight, I would search for a used replacement that was exactly the same.
Borghesia
01-10-2009, 12:49
Also A Minolta Multi Pro here.
Great scanner for 35mm to 6x9, good results on all types of film.
I hope I never have to depart from it. It's the heart of my photo hobby. If I could ever find a spare lamp, that would clear my mind.
I use epson v500, the scans are very nice and you can even get up to 12800 dpi scans. It would be nice if it came with a glass negative carrier.
I have the 8000 ED. As far as I know, Nikon stopped making both of them some time ago. It is a problem getting Vista ready software for them.
True, but they were replaced with the 5000/9000 ED. The same S/W and drivers work with both. The Vista version can be downloaded from Nikon.
I use the Nikon 4000 ED and fine B&W scans show scratches and blemishes a fair amount. I expect the 5000 to do the same.
I wonder if others have the same experience?
I use Ilford HP5, FP4 and Kodak HIE IR
Chris101
01-10-2009, 14:32
... I use the Nikon 4000 ED and fine B&W scans show scratches and blemishes a fair amount. I expect the 5000 to do the same.
I wonder if others have the same experience?
I use Ilford HP5, FP4 and Kodak HIE IRYes - with the 5000. I need to keep my negatives as clean as I do when printing on a condenser enlarger and a good lens such as EL-Nikkor or Componon-S. But spotting is easier (if more tedious) digitally than with a 00000 brush! Plus, they don't make real Spotone anymore.
Joe Brugger
01-10-2009, 14:33
Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III. It doesn't have as many features as the Elite but has the same Scanner inside
35mm Ilford HP5 Plus
Same here. Do a maximum resolution scan with the Minolta software, keeping a close eye on the black and white points, and do the rest of the work needed in Elements. Most of the pictures in my portfolios went this route.
I used to have a Coolscan 5000, but the increase in MF film work kinda forced me (in a good way of course) to buy the 9000, which is what I currently use. Both are great for the price, and I would recommend either equally - it all depends on wether you shoot a lot of MF or not :D
I currently use a v700. Although the results for C-41 are acceptable, I'm pretty unhappy with the results for real black and white film (which I shoot 95% of the time)... You can see a few details on this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68421
Recently updated from a HP S20 to a Coolscan 5000. I am very pleased with the enhanced resolution and speed of the Coolscan, although I am not all that impressed with the Nikon software. I plan to try VueScan.
KenD
mabelsound
01-10-2009, 15:28
I've been using the 5000ED with Vuescan and Lightroom 2 for about a month. It is fantastic, both with B&W and color. Vuescan demands some experimentation, but once you've made your presets, you're golden. I have hacked the stock feeder to accept whole rolls of film...I just hit scan, leave the room, and come back an hour later to a folder full of TIFs. Awesome.
My 2 cents.
I've used both the Nikon LS-5000 and the Minolta 5400 and at one point did a side by side comparison and found the 5400 to have a slight edge in image quality, the LS-5000 was much better for speed and batch processing.
Both are excellent, so you need to choose what your preference is.
If you are doing a lot of film scanning, go with the Nikon. A roll or two, now and then, the Minolta would be my choice.
amateriat
01-11-2009, 18:16
For the last four years, the Minolta DS 5400 (first version) hase been my mainstay. Simply wonderful.
- Barrett
I use epson v500, the scans are very nice and you can even get up to 12800 dpi scans. It would be nice if it came with a glass negative carrier.
Not really. The optical hardware limit is about 2,000 SPI. Anything above that is done with smoke and mirrors and software.
Does Betterscanning make holders with ANR glass for the V500? Or supply ANR glass inserts for the Epson holders? Worth checking out. EDIT TO ADD: Doug Fisher at Betterscanning makes holders and ANR glass for the V500.
To date, I have used my ancient HP scanner for 35mm. The scanner is limited to 35mm format. I'm one of those folks with too many cameras and too many formats. I have been going to friend's house to use his Epson 4990 to scan 6x7 and 4x5 originals. The 4990 works very well. All of that will be changing soon since I found an Epson 1680 for $150. I will be able to scan all of my originals myself. I am also going to add the Betterscanning holders.
Stay tuned for an update on the Epson 1680.
FA Limited
01-12-2009, 08:13
get it done at a lab? it might be a bit pricey but usually less so at dev time and saves a tonne of effort if you can find a good lab. scanning is hard work.
a cheapo plustek 7500AI
Morback,
How do you like this scanner?
I read a article in the Dec. 2008 Shutterbug by David Brooks and he said that he is now using this scanner. His previous scanners were Minolta and the last was the 5400II.
Hard to believe that the Plustek is a better scanner, but there must be something that made him switch.
He does a Digital question and answer piece each month and usually is pretty good.
I emailed him, but have not heard back yet.
In short, I am satisfied.
I scan flat and do all of my processing in photoshop. Including cleaning, I don't use any of the scanner's presets. This scanner will scan every scratch and dust particle, and you will want to firebomb your local lab if you are not processing your own film.
The drawbacks are:
Grayscale scans lack depth.
Film holder could be much better, no way (so far) of scanning the negative borders (I'm thinking of cutting my holder)
Every defect on the negative will be visible. (I decided not to use any of the built-in dust removal technology, I prefer to do it by hand and have a sharper scan)
On the plus side:
Cheap
Responsive Customer Service
"Sharp" scans (almost scans the grain)
Small and light (almost portable?)
Fast
On the sharpness side, I've been using a little bit of unsharp mask in photoshop, but after viewing them on my flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/morback), I find that there is too much edge contrast. It might be the conversion from .psd files to .jpg.
If you do have a look on my flickr, all the negative without the edge are scanned by the Plustek. the few that show the border are scanned by drum scanner. And please excuse the mess, I'm in the process of organizing all of my pictures.
I'm certainly satisfied for web and small prints, I have not tried large prints with it yet.
Hope this helps.
Do you have any 100% non-sharpened 3000+ dpi or better available for comparison with other scanners?
tedwhite
01-12-2009, 18:07
Morback: I have the Plustek OpticFilm 7200. Don't know what the difference is between mine and yours, but your model number is higher so perhaps that translates into better. I've been using Silverfast and the black & white scans seem sort of OK but generally need a bit of post-processing in photoshop, not much, and I've dropped the unsharp mask tool use. I think it came with Vuescan. Perhaps I ought to try that also.
I've been using my flatbed Epson 4990 for scanning prints, especially 8X10's and it seems to work OK. Does a lousy job with 35mm negs but an adequate job with medium format negs.
For a cheapo scanner, the Plustek is not a bad deal at all, and it does make several passes over the negative before finishing.
^ Ted, I repeat my question above :)
a cheap reflecta crystalscan 7200 @ 3600 dpi
Mr_Flibble
01-13-2009, 04:42
HP Scanjet G4050, ...should've read the reviews before buying.
Slow, Slow, Slow.
Quality is not too bad though and it does offer TMA-frames for 35mm, slides, 120 film and 4x5" negatives.
Would love to buy a professional negative scanner...but lack of funds is a serious drawback.
tedwhite
01-13-2009, 16:46
dfoo:
No, I don't. I only learned how to use the Plustek a couple of weeks ago. I can certainly do a non-sharpened scan, but I have no idea how to do 3000dpi. Usually I'm scanning at 300dpi. I'll fiddle around and see if I can figure out how to do 3000dpi.
dfoo:
No, I don't. I only learned how to use the Plustek a couple of weeks ago. I can certainly do a non-sharpened scan, but I have no idea how to do 3000dpi. Usually I'm scanning at 300dpi. I'll fiddle around and see if I can figure out how to do 3000dpi.
It would be great to see a full sized 100% image. Are you sure you are scanning at 300 DPI though? That would produce an extremely small scan for a 35 mm negative (about 413 x 295 pixels).
A cheap Plustek 7200 and a old Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.
Vuescan and Silverfast and Epson software sometimes.
I can live with that.. some day a coolscan 5000.. some day!
Note: I get better results with Plustek @7200 with one pass than on multiple passes. Mine just don't get the second our third pass at same location (very slightly but noticeable). Besides the difference on Software used has a big effect too.
Direct from them, defaults and no treatment whatsoever.
tedwhite
01-14-2009, 04:12
dfoo: I resize the neg in Silverfast (output) to about 5X7, then scan. I have no idea whether I'm doing anything properly or not (no manual). I have resized to 8X10 and gotten an acceptable B&W print.
Ted, somewhere in all the menus or screen windows there is a place to change resolution. It's there. You just need to find it. Try 2,400.
QUESTION: Knowing that the hardware in these consumer flatbed scanners is limited to about 2,000 SPI, are the users who say they get better results at 7,200 ever tried 2,000 to 2,400? Besides making HUGE files, is 3,200, 6,400, 7,200 or larger really making better scans? Are the prints better? Forget what you see on the screen at 72 DPI. Prints at 360 DPI are the only way to judge scanner output.
MULTI-PASS: Again, these are consumer scanners. They don't have precision stepper motors. Keeping multiple passes registered is iffy at best. Has anyone tried multi-pass scanning at lower resolution? It might work in the area of 1,800 to 2,400 SPI.
I use a Canon Canoscan 8800F I am able to do 32mm 120mm and slides. It is a good scanner for my limited use that I need it for.
Nate Butler
01-14-2009, 07:10
I've been using an Epson 4490 for 35mm, but have been underwhelmed by the results. I could purchase a Coolscan, but I don't know that it's worth the price for me, so I'm trying something different: use the Epson to scan for web and to create indices of each roll, and any shots I'd like to have at a higher res I can have done at my local photo shop (which uses a Coolscan IV ED) for about $1.25 each. I usually end up with only 1 shot per roll that I feel is worth getting a higher-res scan made, anyway.
Gradskater
01-14-2009, 07:20
I have a plustek 7300 that gets the job done. you can see pictures here (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=plustek&w=22012708%40N00&page=2) if you are really bored :)
I scan at 3200 to a tiff, then convert that tiff to jpeg (highest quality). No particular reason why 3200 and not 3000, or 3400. Scanning directly to jpeg in silverfast gave funky colors.
That gives me a jpeg about 7-9mb in size thats easy to adjust in iphoto. I scan it in color, then convert to black and white. My eyes can't see any difference in the tiff vs. the jpeg, and the prints from the jpegs look great to me up to 8x10. I haven't tried anything larger. I do use the scratch and dust software in silverfast, and I think it works well.
This picture (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2403063538_bbe5c1746a_b.jpg) shows what I end up with using this workflow. Good range of tones in the picture, window just a little blown out. I use this scanner and method based on price, speed, and convenience, not necessarily the best 300% crops and such.
get it done at a lab? it might be a bit pricey but usually less so at dev time and saves a tonne of effort if you can find a good lab. scanning is hard work.
This is very well put. I have a Nikon 8000 ED which I hardly have time to use - and learn how to use well. And I have 'tons' of negatives from 30 years of photography that I want to scan. I would come a long way if I spent the money I could get for the scanner on having a pro lab scanning for me. Just imagine the time I would save....
johnwnyc
01-14-2009, 07:36
Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the stock Minolta software. The Dimage has great carriers, particularly the glass multi-format carrier (which you can use to scan Xpan negs, BTW). I usually use Scanhancer.
It resolves very well (is that English???), right down to the grain with 400 speed films. Many Fuji films require some additional noise reduction in the blue channel with this scanner.
The scanner is long discontinued and the software could stand to have some things improved. But I've used it for many years and I've been quite happy with it. I do quick scans of an entire roll, six frames at a time. I import those into Aperture to archive. After editing I go back and do high quality multi-pass scans of my picks.
Gradskater-Why convert the TIFF before editing? I would suggest that you edit the original TIFF file. Unless storage is a concern, or your editing software won't open a 16-bit TIFF file, there is no need to make a JPEG.
robert blu
01-14-2009, 09:46
Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED , Nikon software, Lightroom and sometimes PS CS3. HP9180B as printer, mainly B&W.
for me it's ok.
rob
I have a plustek 7300 that gets the job done. you can see pictures here (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=plustek&w=22012708%40N00&page=2) if you are really bored :)
I scan at 3200 to a tiff, then convert that tiff to jpeg (highest quality). No particular reason why 3200 and not 3000, or 3400. Scanning directly to jpeg in silverfast gave funky colors.
...
I know I sound like a broken record, but can you upload a full scale (3200 or more) unsharpened jpg of a black & white (and color if you get a chance) to flickr and post a link?
Gradskater
01-14-2009, 10:15
Gradskater-Why convert the TIFF before editing? I would suggest that you edit the original TIFF file. Unless storage is a concern, or your editing software won't open a 16-bit TIFF file, there is no need to make a JPEG.
I don't have a storage limit, but the tiffs do slow my computer way down when processing, editing them. It just frustrates me, and I can't visually see the difference in the tiff quality vs. the jpeg. Just makes things run quicker, and also won't fill up my ipod which I use for an additional backup.
OK, fair enough. I was just curious. I trudge along with the TIFF files thinking that I might loose something if I convert to JPEG. maybe I have a problem.
With JPG you have to be careful. If all you do is save the JPG once and then you are done, that is fine. But if you want to make changes later, then you can run into problems with image degradation.
Gradskater
01-14-2009, 15:06
I know I sound like a broken record, but can you upload a full scale (3200 or more) unsharpened jpg of a black & white (and color if you get a chance) to flickr and post a link?
Ok, these are about 9mb each, jpegs from the plustek 7300. The second one with the trees is distorted and out of focus a bit on the left side. I dont think the negative was completely flat when I scanned it. I am surprised at the scratches that show up at that size!
These are most likely walgreens film, iso400, so not the smoothest film by far. I don't know if the scanner is resolving grain or if its just noise. What do you all think?
One (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/3197497014_cb3354f31e_o.jpg)
Two (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3196652059_dfcc08383c_o.jpg)
kipkeston
01-14-2009, 15:27
LS-50>vuescan>PS3
ok, I hope I'm doing this correctly.
Top one is uncontestably the drum scan, and then comes plustek. The further down you go, the more multisampling it has (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x and then 16x).
I realized the sharpness is equal, but the tonality is so-so...
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6K_1w2oEI/AAAAAAAAApc/wzG122l25sE/s640/Drum.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6LAXiCfnI/AAAAAAAAApk/a283wiT1vLQ/s576/Plustek_1x.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6LAw0hwoI/AAAAAAAAAps/5ZEaFvT19b4/s576/Plustek_2x.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6LBC15JPI/AAAAAAAAAp0/BkeWcz7JYik/s576/Plustek_4x.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6LCC5ZOZI/AAAAAAAAAp8/oNnkHzOD_Lk/s576/Plustek_8x.jpg
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_AQeDz2d2-Ck/SW6LVWnxYFI/AAAAAAAAAqI/Ad8kjkJcvtI/s576/Plustek_16x.jpg
These are 5000dpi scans, as you can see the Plustek picks up the grain and all the external particles. I'm not seeing a difference in the multi-sampling, are you?
Gradskater
01-14-2009, 16:57
I forgot to add, those 2 pictures I posted were only scanned once. I don't use the multi-sampling feature. I could not see a difference with multiple passes.
If I really want to get rid of grain, I just use noise ninja, like in this picture. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/2538376966_74acc6e0cf_o.jpg)
topazbullet
01-14-2009, 17:12
I'm lucky enough to have access to a Heidelberg Nexscan where I work!
morback, it looks quite sharp! Are those 100% crops? Are you sure the tonality is not just due to the difference in the scan gamma? Did you look at the histograms of both scans?
Gradskater, the scans look pretty good also. I think what you are resolving there is the film grain. If you tried ISO 100 film I'm sure it would be much smoother. Do you have a tri-x 400 sample to try? That would be interesting... I worry about the limited dmax of the plustek with real silver film.
with my Epson 4990 I scan at 4800ppi and then immediately downsample to 2400... seems smoother and less noise than if I just scan at 2400... hard to tell though since the images are already pretty smooth (IE. soft) and noise isn't a problem.
Ted, somewhere in all the menus or screen windows there is a place to change resolution. It's there. You just need to find it. Try 2,400.
QUESTION: Knowing that the hardware in these consumer flatbed scanners is limited to about 2,000 SPI, are the users who say they get better results at 7,200 ever tried 2,000 to 2,400? Besides making HUGE files, is 3,200, 6,400, 7,200 or larger really making better scans? Are the prints better? Forget what you see on the screen at 72 DPI. Prints at 360 DPI are the only way to judge scanner output.
MULTI-PASS: Again, these are consumer scanners. They don't have precision stepper motors. Keeping multiple passes registered is iffy at best. Has anyone tried multi-pass scanning at lower resolution? It might work in the area of 1,800 to 2,400 SPI.
How much dMax is enough, guys?
I'm in the market for a new scanner, and tossing up between the Nikon 5000ED and the V. 4.8 vs 4.2 dMax.
Hmmm.
What do you want to scan? Slides? C-41 neg film? B&W silver film?
All of the above. I shoot a small amount of Velvia, a fair bit of Reala/Portra and plenty of Neopan.
Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV x 2. 16 bit PSD.
How much dMax is enough, guys?
I'm in the market for a new scanner, and tossing up between the Nikon 5000ED and the V. 4.8 vs 4.2 dMax.
Hmmm.
As far as dMax is concerned, that's not really an issue between the V and 5000. Those figures (4.8 vs. 4.2) are theoretical anyway.
With the 5000 the real advantage is effeciency. That is, slightly better speed and the possibility to use the roll film adapter SA-30 to scan a complete roll in one go.
As far as dMax is concerned, that's not really an issue between the V and 5000. Those figures (4.8 vs. 4.2) are theoretical anyway.
With the 5000 the real advantage is effeciency. That is, slightly better speed and the possibility to use the roll film adapter SA-30 to scan a complete roll in one go.
Ah, thankyou. Efficiency doesn't bother me - you've just saved me a pile of $ :D
Ah, thankyou. Efficiency doesn't bother me - you've just saved me a pile of $ :D
You're welcome. But eventually you may start to lust after the effeciency. I had a V, but if i would buy again a 35 mm only scanner it would definitely be the 5000ED. Doing the actual scanning is not much fun if you intend to scan complete rolls or anything more than a few frames every now and then.
Ah but I'm sure it's a huge step up from a dysfunctional Epson V350 though!
Also, I'm not a hugely prolific shooter and have tended to adjust each scan individually so far.
The bigger problem is where you intend to get the V ED? I cannot find one in stock, and furthermore the prices for used ones are ridiculous (might as well buy a new 5000!)
Saw one in a local shop - Australia's a decade behind the rest of the world you know ;-)
I don't have a storage limit, but the tiffs do slow my computer way down when processing, editing them. It just frustrates me, and I can't visually see the difference in the tiff quality vs. the jpeg. Just makes things run quicker, and also won't fill up my ipod which I use for an additional backup.
I get along fine with my 25Mb 35mm, 60+Mb 6x7 and 130+Mb 4x5 16-bit TIFF files with Lightroom. I don't and won't trust JEPG files.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If you process the TIFF to a DNG, you can reduce the TIFF size by a third, and not lose any data :)
Tuolumne
01-15-2009, 14:09
with my Epson 4990 I scan at 4800ppi and then immediately downsample to 2400...
How do you do this?
/T
If you process the TIFF to a DNG, you can reduce the TIFF size by a third, and not lose any data :)
How do I do that?
venchka, select the photos, then select Library/Convert Photos to DNG. When the dialog pops deselect [X] Only convert raw files. Then press Ok. Wait a bit, and you've just got some disk space back!
OK, which software program does that?
OK, which software program does that?
and...
I get along fine with my 25Mb 35mm, 60+Mb 6x7 and 130+Mb 4x5 16-bit TIFF files with Lightroom. I don't and won't trust JEPG files.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Lightroom does that :)
If you want to convert image files to DNG, Adobe provides the software free.
Here's the link:
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html
Without further adobe software to process the DNG its a pretty useless though.
Thanks!
DUH! I found it in Lightroom. A 68Mb TIFF file becomes a 48Mb DNG file. That will be a quick and easy way to reduce the file size slightly and preserve my original TIFF files.
Praxis Unitas
01-16-2009, 11:38
I have hacked the stock feeder to accept whole rolls of film...I just hit scan, leave the room, and come back an hour later to a folder full of TIFs. Awesome.
Do tell about the 'hack', please!
I use the 5000ED. If you want to try befor eyou buy, check out the 'scan cafe' service. It's dirt cheap, and they use the 5000ed and 9000ed for the process. I just got some MF negatives back form their lab. They look great, and at 75 megapixels, you can't beat the resolution!
Check these links for details on the mod:
http://www.helmut-stoepfgeshoff.de/sa21-sa30e.html
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00FGuM
I have a V700 but haven't used it much at all since I bought it. I started shooting more with digital cameras and simply haven't gone back to doing any film lately. I did scan a few old medium format FP4+ negatives that look fine and a few 4x5 color transparencies that look great. The only 35mm I've done with it was some very old Tri-X negatives my step-son had been wanting me to print for him. They were a challenge--they had been taken over 20 years ago, underexposed, drugstore processed and stored under poor conditions with a lot of resulting scratches, embedded debris and a little fungus. The scans actually looked more than adequate and he was pleased with the prints I made for him. I really need to learn this scanner better. It appears to have excellent potential.
nightfly
01-16-2009, 14:15
I use an Epson 4990 for my 35mm negs and am pretty happy with the results although I seem to be in the minority. Mostly tri-x scanned with Epson scan and at 4800 dpi and post processed (mostly levels and curves) in Photoshop. I've printed up to about 11 x 14 and have the prints hanging in my house and would have no issues printing them for public display or selling.
I'm not very fussy about sharpness but tonality wise I am and have no issues. For medium format I've made prints with this combo that are spectacular at 12 x 12. Very sharp and detailed.
I'm not much of pixel peeper and I push my prints to be pretty contrasty so loosing shadow detail isn't an issue for me, but I'm pretty satisfied with the results.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.