Old 01-04-2016   #81
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
Comparing these jpegs #2 has better detail and appearance of sharpness.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #82
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,891
I much prefer the second image, I picked it instantly before I enlarged either. Sharper, more punch, more detail. Enlarge both, then look at the mouse on the train, as well as the child's face in the train. But you don't even need to enlarge it to see that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #83
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
Now on my 27 monitor viewed at 1600 pix, you can actually see grain in the 2nd one. It's clearly superior.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #84
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Thanks, keep them coming please!

I won't give anything away right now...
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #85
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Now on my 27 monitor viewed at 1600 pix, you can actually see grain in the 2nd one. It's clearly superior.
Grain or sharpening artefacts? Are you sure?
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #86
gscadwalader
Registered User
 
gscadwalader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3
Agreed, the first one looks just a little 'smudgy' to me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #87
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMoke View Post
Grain or sharpening artefacts? Are you sure?
definitely not sure.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #88
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
To me, #2 looks a bit too oversharpened. This reminds me scans I got from minilab.
#1 is from what I'd like to start working.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #89
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Honestly, I've never really understood all the marketing hype about "The Find Lab", "Indie Film Lab" etc. in the US,
and the labs like "Carmencita", "UK Film Lab" and at last "Mein Film Lab" who just copied the American marketing idea 1:1.

They are concentrating on scans. And not on high resolution scans, but only minilab scans.
? I have only used thefindlab from that list. Their largest scans from 35mm are 4500 by 6800 pixels. Their scans are stunning.
Minilab is 2000 by 3000 tops.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #90
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMoke View Post
Grain or sharpening artefacts? Are you sure?

What film was used? If Tri-X then grain. If Acros, then sharpening artifacts!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #91
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
What film was used? If Tri-X then grain. If Acros, then sharpening artifacts!
That was HP5+
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #92
dwojr
Registered User
 
dwojr is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 197
Second version looks sharper to me
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #93
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwojr View Post
Second version looks sharper to me
Not over-sharpened??
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #94
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
#1 looks like more noise reduction was applied to the scan.
Esp noticeable on the building surfaces and the child's face.
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #95
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMoke View Post
Not over-sharpened??
Frank

I'm confused now. Are we comparing straight scans packaged into the same size jpeg or edits of said scans?
What is the end game you are seeking here?
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #96
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Frank

I'm confused now. Are we comparing straight scans packaged into the same size jpeg or edits of said scans?
What is the end game you are seeking here?
Ok, here we go: they are scans from my Canoscan 9000F MkII for Number 1 at 4800 dpi, and an XL scan (36495444) from MeinFilmLab.de for Number 2!

The Canoscan was treated to a dose of clarity, contrast and sharpening in Lightroom to allow it to compete at all with the pro-scan. I doubt I'd be able to coax more detail and sharpness out of it.

The XL scan is the original jpeg, delivered by MFL. No additional fiddling with the file.

I guess the professional scan wins here!

I just want to make sure that going the pro-scan-way is the right one for me! I won't be able to afford a more expensive scanner, if anyone would suggest that.
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #97
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
#1 looks like more noise reduction was applied to the scan.
Esp noticeable on the building surfaces and the child's face.
No noise reduction, just bad resolution
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #98
jbielikowski
call me Jan
 
jbielikowski's Avatar
 
jbielikowski is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 971
I use USM in PS twice when dealing with CanoScan 9000F files, first 300; 1(or 1,5); 0 for input file, and in the end 33; 0,3; 0 for 1050x700 files (I use "bicubic with smoothing gradients" for downsizing). Your 1600px file need additional USM at 77; 0,7; 0 to look better but not oversharpened as the lab file. YMMV
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #99
kiemchacsu
Registered User
 
kiemchacsu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 39
Posts: 1,067
Do you have any idea what scanner the lab used?
__________________
Cheers,
Trung Nguyen

RF
F
photo essays: Hanoi | Hoi An | Ha Giang | Fish Market
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #100
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,177
The problem for me was the process...sure the lab used a better machine, but I was able to get scans much closer in tonality to what I wanted. For instance, you could further process the first image to have highlights and contrast that look more like the second scan, but not the reverse. Who should decide to whether to lose highlight or shadow detail to get higher contrast, you or the lab worker? I eventually got a lab to give me flat scans, but not all offer that option, and by then I got used to home scanning and have not looked back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #101
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 50
Posts: 1,237
I almost think that the second image (the lab scan) looks a little too sharpened / grainy. The image just seems a little overly "coarse", but perhaps that is due to the inherent grain of the HP5+.

The benefit of the second scan is you can post-process later on and add more smoothing or reduce fine grain, etc. as your taste desires. With the first image there isn't a lot of room to work with.

That being said, I think with some experimentation and parameter changes it would be possible to get a "sharper" and more detailed scan from the Canon 9000. From what I've read the Canon is a very good machine.

Personally I own an Epson v700 and although it's not nearly as good as a pro / lab scanner, it does a really good job with most negatives. For my purposes it has paid for itself many times over.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #102
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiemchacsu View Post
Do you have any idea what scanner the lab used?
Fuji Frontier SP3000
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #103
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMoke View Post
That was HP5+
Then definitely it is grain. I know you have now given the answer, but before you did I said #2 in a heart beat. I stand by that. Any 'issues' you may have with the scan maybe more with the way HP5+ scans, and it's look.

I would be very happy to use that lab if I was on the European continent.

Now try them using Fuji Acros. A very fine grain B&W film, and let's see if there are any perceived artifacts. I don't think there will be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2016   #104
MiniMoke
Registered User
 
MiniMoke is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 56
Posts: 455
I've fiddled with my scan some more, but it's definitely impossible to approach the resolution of the lab scan.

I can get a bit closer than the example above, but it stays softer.

Now who looks at pictures at 100% magnification....? Apart from RFF members

You're right Huss, the lab scan is the better option, and a lot less work, as I said when I started this thread. Not to speak of color negative scans.

Just more expensive..... .

I think I'll stand with my first decision to send my film out to the lab to get it scanned. Saves a lot of valuable time, and who said photography was a cheap hobby?
__________________
Meet me at www.whyfilmcameras.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #105
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 955
The slight fuzziness on #1 let me spot it as a Flatbed scan.

At the end I got a V550. Knowing that the flatbeds are quite limited in capability for 35mm it will mainly be for Medium Format. 6x9 at 2400ppi looks quite good!
I have scanned a bunch of negs already, taking about 2h per roll. (Perhaps it's the old Vista laptop it is tethered to now). I just let the batches scan while I'm doing other stuff around.

For Medium format it's faily good and lets me have more control over the output and costs... The small lab scans don't do much justice to such negatives. Just need to get hold of colour control and such. I did follow Colton's tutorial for neg scanning and Portra scans quite well.

However, for 35mm I think I might lab scan the odd roll.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2016   #106
joeswe
Registered User
 
joeswe is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
BW slides in a direct print with Harman or Imago direct positive paper with may enlarger. Probably I will try the new Galaxy paper solution next year as well.
Jan,
I would be very interested to know more about your personal workflow. How do you match the high gamma of a typical BW slide to the contrast of direct positive paper?
I am still looking for an easier (and more economical) workflow to quality print from b&w slides (easier than making a film internegative and contact printing from it, that is).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2016   #107
ultra8
Registered User
 
ultra8 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiemchacsu View Post
Do you have any idea what scanner the lab used?
We use Fuji SP3000 and Noritsu HS1800 scanner in the lab. All sharpening options are off. The customer can shoose the contrast options during the order. What you see here is the pure grain from the HP5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2016   #108
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,261
I just upped the quality on my camera scans. I replaced my Nikon D300 (12Mp with fuzzing filter on the sensor) with a D7200 (24Mp, no fuzzy on the sensor, too), the 55/3.5 micro-Nikkor and tube with a 63mm/2.8 El-Nikkor with a Bellows 5 and slide/film copying attachment. Copies are sharp, and now I'm seeing real grain instead of grain aliasing. Also, since the neg is directly mounted to the camera I don't have to worry about vibration now. The 63mm lens turns out to be an excellent performer, best at f11, which surprised me.

The biggest part of the cost, the D7200 was going to happen anyway, so I don't count that part of the cost. The rest set me back $175.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:22.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.