|
Cool I'll put up the photos tomorrow after work!
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Anyone have tips for scanning slide film in Epson Scan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Anyone have tips for scanning slide film in Epson Scan? Just like scanning negatives without having the orange mask. 16-bit TIFF Positive, turn off sharpening and the auto contrast thingie. You still have to fix the levels in photoshop since the auto contrast correction will clip them. Digital ICE is nice but won't work well on old Kodachrome slides so watch out for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Seems like the only way I can get a properly exposed scan is by turning on the Color Control option with continuous auto exposure selected. Is this normal or am I overlooking something? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
I just finished scanning a ton of slides and didn't have to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
fix your levels in Photoshop afterwards like any other scan
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Cool I'll put up the photos tomorrow after work! Hey man just checking in on this
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Hey man just checking in on this Was super busy, I'm taking the photos as I type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
I'm scanning some instamatic film on an Epson 4490. It is not cutting the film properly in the preview at all. What can I do to fix this? (turning off trimming does not help) Ignore that I am stupid and have it on color instead of grayscale for BW (there is no 16 bit color option, just 24 bit and 48 bit) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I'm scanning some instamatic film on an Epson 4490. It is not cutting the film properly in the preview at all. What can I do to fix this? (turning off trimming does not help) 48 bit is 16 bits per channel, which is what you want. Turn off 'trimming' and specify the target size as the 126 frame size (29 x 28mm).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:48 bit is 16 bits per channel, which is what you want. Turn off 'trimming' and specify the target size as the 126 frame size (29 x 28mm).  I set the target size, then I turned trimming to "off", and it grays out the target size boxes and changes the height to 19.3mm. It still is cutting the previews all wrong, whether I have trimming on or not, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between the two, or any difference when I change the target size... After I preview, it pops the settings right back to the default. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:This doesn't seem to help. I had basically all the same stuff happen with my last roll. I ended up just clipping and further spreading out the shots the software was having a hard time finding the borders on. Usually one, sometimes two, per strip. So instead of two scans of four it was like, one side being 2 and 2 and the other side being 1 2 1. Which was OK in the holder and a colossal pain in the rear end for storage after the fact. Then I posted some shots in here and everyone told me they had a green cast I couldn't see so I decided to stop shooting film for a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Epson Scan will only find frame borders for you if you use 35mm film. It won't find them on smaller or larger format film. You need to uncheck the "thumbnails" box at the very bottom and make your own frame borders using the marquee tool instead. And your shots need to have enough contrast between the subject and frame borders or else it will get confused too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Also scan in positive and invert in photoshop 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Also scan in positive and invert in photoshop ^^^ Also, these areas worry me:  Why sharpen here? Why set the target size to whatever instamatic means and UPscale?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:^^^ It sucks but you ALSO have to watch out for this  This button is "auto exposure" which is basically telling epson scan to throw out any data it doesn't think you need. "Select All" on the preview and hit "reset" to clear it. It always does a lovely job for me, and it the software re-selects that option automatically anytime you make a new selection on the preview  It is really lovely that you have to fight the software so much to make it not mangle your images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
just got my first ever drum scan. holy moley....
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:just got my first ever drum scan. holy moley.... Post comparisons
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
I'm trying scan some negatives for the first time. I've got a Canoscan 9000fmkii and I'm using the supplied 35mm slide holder. I've tried several different scan settings using the supplied software (Auto & 'Scan Gear' custom settings) as well as the OS X built-in scanner function. I'm using 2400dpi TIFF, positive color. (I can't seem to find a way to select bit depth, although I've ticked the box that says [16/48-bit] somewhere deep in the Canon software settings. My first couple of scans from home-developed B&W film came out looking pretty soft. Since the negatives were a little curled, I decided to throw in some color strips that I'd had developed at a lab. They're good and flat, although not perfectly so. Unfortunately, they still come out looking the same:  That's a little more than 66% crop of the full-size image, with a very quick and dirty color inversion/levels job in PS. When I use this same lens adapted to a digital camera, it produces images that are very sharp across the whole frame. Is there something else I can do to pull some more detail out of this? SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Your holder isn't in focus. Consider putting tiny pieces of paper underneath the feet to raise it slightly, if that makes it worse you likely need to start filing the edges to bring it down. Hot tip: if the grain on the negative isn't in focus, the negative itself isn't in focus, regardless of the actual image.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I can't speak for that model but I had a cheaper CanoScan that I tried to use for film scanning and it got similarly poor results. 100% zoom:  And then I got a cheapo used Epson 4870 and didn't look back:  Maybe Canon just make lovely film scanners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Yeah I had a CanoScan a while back that was equally garbage but I also paid like 5 bucks for it at a thrift store.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
It's got a really great lo-fi aesthetic, perfect for a moody night in with your friends
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Surely is isn't that lovely, is it? It costs about the same as the Epson and has good reviews. Based on the consumer reviews I browsed (admittedly not that many) it seemed like a toss-up between this and the Epson V550/600. Could the Epson really be that much better? If there's a just a slight edge to the Epson in critical image quality at high magnification, I can live with Canoscan. But it has to be in focus - the results I'm getting right now aren't acceptable to me. I guess I won't start shaving down the film holder if I'm going to return it. But I will try adding some paper shims and placing the film directly on the glass, to see if I can get it to resolve grain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
If you put it on the glass you're going to get newton rings. If it happens to be sharper despite the rings, you know you'll need to shave it down. If shimming it up makes the image worse, consider shaving it down. It's an iterative process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
I ended up just buying a sheet of glass and taping the negatives down with gaffer tape since I think it's focused right against the glass. Make sure you get etched glass and place the curl against the sheet of glass so you dont get newton rings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
I want to say thanks everyone for your help. I've been trucking along on the scanning and now I'm into the 90s so the film is more standard and thumbnail view is doing it for me. I am finding that my parents took a lot of terrible photos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Can anyone see a significant detail difference between these two 66% crops?This is with equal sharpening applied in PS. (Unsharp Mask with scanning software looks even worse.) Everything should be the same in terms of processing, except that the colors are ever so slightly different. I wish I could find somebody around here with an Epson V600 to compare to. Touching the glass:  Correctly placed in holder:  No Newton rings. The film is very well-flattened so I guess that's to be expected? Raising the holder seemed to degrade the image further. I think the negative touching the glass looks ever so slightly sharper, but not to a really appreciable extent. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Touching the glass is probably out of focus in the other direction, but less so than the holder 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Welp! Back to the store you go, Canoscan. I've tried 5 different arrangements of film, paper shims, and film tray. None of them produce scans that look like they're in focus. Even after careful sharpening in PS, I can compare some neg scans I did today with some from the same negs I had made at my local drugstore, and the drugstore files are invariably much sharper and show better clarity, even though they're jpegs about 1/20th the size of the scanner's tiffs. Will pick up an Epson tomorrow. I hope it does better. I'm shooting an event tomorrow, too, and I'd like to have negatives developed and scanned by the end of the weekend. If I could get both those things done at home, that would be awesome. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Welp! Back to the store you go, Canoscan. Well, not saying your Canoscan isn't a total POS, but drugstore scans use a dedicated 35mm machine, which produces better results than even a really nice flatbed. The reason lots of us use flatbeds is because they can do MF/LF as well, plus many of the dedicated 35mm scanners are getting pretty long in the tooth and drivers/software/ports can be a pain, not to mention the slower workflow. Not saying the Epson won't be reasonable quality (I would definitely expect an improvement over what you posted), but it's possible you still might like the drugstore ones more close-up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Will pick up an Epson tomorrow. I hope it does better. I'm shooting an event tomorrow, too, and I'd like to have negatives developed and scanned by the end of the weekend. If I could get both those things done at home, that would be awesome. I just bought a V600, it's way sharper than what you posted on 35mm. e: better but not by a huge margin, I guess that's what the betterscanning holders are for unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
The drugstore scans I get are very plainly sharp and in-focus, but the level of detail is very low due to resizing. Here a link to one of the scans. (Sorry, can't autogen a bbcode link on my phone) https://flic.kr/p/yQX2X2 I like the color and am glad it's in-focus, but will appreciate the latitude that a large 16 bit tiff gives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Drugstore scans also have a fuckload of sharpening applied to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Thanks for telling me about epson, thread. There's quite a difference between my new V550 and the now-returned Canoscan. How strange that one produces such dramatically shittier results compared to the other, and yet they are priced and reviewed largely the same. Maybe my Canoscan was just defectively misfocused, but I wasn't going to bother with exchanging it for another. The V550 solved the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Sorry to double post, but what's up with the epson software making multi-page TIFFs instead of saving discrete files? I can only get photoshop to display the first scanned image in the 'stack' of scans. I have to go into Preview and export each page individually (on a Mac). Can I change this behavior?
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Yep, its on the dialog box that you type the name and file type for the scan, change it to uncompressed tiff and uncheck the multi-page check box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I just don't shoot enough medium format, so I'm thinking of dumping that and my Epson V600 for a dedicated 35mm scanner that should hopefully give me sharper results. Which scanners should I be looking at? PlusTek seems like a pretty popular brand; is there a rundown of the differences between all the models?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Do you prefer resolution or speed? If the latter, I'm sure everyone already knows my answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
^^ the pakon can't do B&W or slide film though
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:38
|
|