Share your ultimate v700 B&W 4x5 workflow!

[Darin Boville]

You know how, back in "the day," people always said you had to do your own testing with film to come up with your own personal exposure index? And how after all kinds of tedious testing you came up with the same exposure index as everyone else who used the same film and developer?

That's sort of where I'm at now with regards to scanning. I need someone to point me to or share with me a detailed workflow--scanning for dumb monkeys--that will get me what I need for a project I plan to start printing (that is to say, scanning, then printing) starting Monday. I need to know how to engage the super-duper lens, how to sharpen for best results, any and all tricks to eck out every little bit of resolution and tonality. But for monkeys. My brain already hurts enough.

I've seen Ken's page at http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php so maybe that would be a good starting point. I've googled, of course.

I'm scanning fifty or so sheets of 4x5. If I recall correctly it is all Tri-X. I'll have to check on that--it's been eight years. I'm using an Epson v700 and I have the BetterScanning gizmo, which I know how to calibrate, but have not yet done so. I plan to use Vuescan but if Silverfast or Epson is a better answer I'll do that. I don't want to become a scanning expert, I just want to get these scanned and get printing. I want to scan at the highest resolution possible, files sizes be damned. I'm not sure about print sizes yet. Probably in the 11x14 range but may get to 16x20-ish. Probably on something like Epson Velvet or whatever it is called. Pictures are of cornfields, a bridge, grass, trees and sky.

(By the way, if there are any rumors of a new scanner coming out for 4x5 stop me right here and I'll wait.)

Anyone want to hold my hand through this? :)

--Darin

[RichardSperry]

Put the negative in the holder. Generous canned air application to bed and film.
Scan without any scanner software editing checked(hit reset). 4800dpi, 100%, 16bit(you said file size be damned).
Open tiff in PhotoShop.
Unsharp mask to taste(settings depend on your resolution). Contrast, curves, and exposure to taste.
Healing brush all the dust and lint.
Save to PSD. Do not save edits on original tiff.
Open in LightRoom for cropping, straightening, and local editing. I like the curves tools here much better than in PS.
Export to the size and file format you want.
Make sure your PSDs and LRCats are on your fast SSD.

[Bill Burk]

Thought about contacting Stephen Johnson?

[Mark Stahlke]

My B&W negative scanning workflow is kind of strange. Using my Epson 4990, I scan in 16 bit RGB mode and then user Nik SilverFX Pro to "convert" to black and white. The Nik software makes it easy to control brightness and contrast. The only other things I usually do are dust spotting and sharpening.

[Heroique]

Here are five steps to start you off:

Step one: slow down
Step two: get going on scanning height calibration
Step three: slow down
Step four: slow down
Step five: slow down

[Darin Boville]

Here are five steps to start you off:
Step one: slow down
Step two: get going on scanning height calibration
Step three: slow down
Step four: slow down
Step five: slow down

Eight years isn't slow enough? :)

--Darin

[Heroique]

Well, one productive way to minimize your effort is to search for posts by the late Ted Harris.

His scanning workflow tips turn years into weeks, weeks into days, days into hours.

Boy do I miss him.

[bob carnie]

Ted , yes I miss him as well, he came here and did a workshop for scanning , he really knew his stuff.

Well, one productive way to minimize your effort is to search for posts by the late Ted Harris.

His scanning workflow tips turn years into weeks, weeks into days, days into hours.

Boy do I miss him.

[sully75]

I scan as 16 bit BW neg in EPSON Scan (all the scanning software sucks ass, Epson Scan is Free). 2400dpi. I adjust the levels based on what I want the picture to look like, not on the wonky histograms (the histogram adjustments in Epson Scan make no sense). Basically I make it a little flatter than I ultimately want it to be so I don't lose anything. I do check as best I can that I have not blown out the highlights.

Bring it in to photoshop where I rotate and crop it. I tend to size things really large (5x7 negatives I crop to long edge 28" at 360 dpi) because, well...why not? My computer is pretty fast and I don't need to spend time figuring out exactly what the perfect size it. Then all my adjustments in photoshop and bring it in to lightroom for printing and exporting.

[Frank Petronio]

I use the lowly Mac OS to scan without any adjustments and do my edits in ACR and PS, found Kimwipes do a better job of cleaning the plaplten than regular paper or blowing.Test the height, I just use the stock holders.

[Bill Burk]

I agree with Paul that scanning software tends to be less than great. But I will put in a good word for VueScan. Ed Hamrick will email you right away when you have a question or a problem. It works by numbers you can save and keep for reference later. Consistency. I don't like having to learn a new GUI everytime I want to make a scan.

Darin, I mention Stephen Johnson because he is a renowned digital photography instructor within 15 minutes of you. I don't say that I'm a scanning expert, but I'm 15 minutes from you, we could work blind-leading-the-blind style.

[timparkin]

I agree with Paul that scanning software tends to be less than great. But I will put in a good word for VueScan. Ed Hamrick will email you right away when you have a question or a problem. It works by numbers you can save and keep for reference later. Consistency. I don't like having to learn a new GUI everytime I want to make a scan.

Darin, I mention Stephen Johnson because he is a renowned digital photography instructor within 15 minutes of you. I don't say that I'm a scanning expert, but I'm 15 minutes from you, we could work blind-leading-the-blind style.

I work with a drum scanner and wanted to research how to get the best possible result from my v750. After a great deal of effort the following was the conclusion

I use the betterscanning holder and kami fluid, mounting the film to the underside of the glass. I remove all of the screws apart from one on each corner to ease focus checking. You only need an accuracy of 1mm or possibly 0.5mm if you want to be really fussy.

1) Scan at either 4800dpi or 6400dpi (i use the epson software disabling all colour management, sharpening, dust removal etc) - this doesn't make sense at first as maximum resolution of scanner is probably only 2200-2600dpi but scanning at 2400 dpi only gives about 2000dpi results. Oversampling and downsizing increases resolution. It also increases the frequency of digital noise which means you can apply a noise reduction algorithm at twice maximum resolution frequency without reducing detail

2) Potentially use the green channel as it's cleaner - the advantages here are tenuous and you might be better off scanning in monochrome to save disk/memory space.

3) downsize before rotating as you can get aliasing patterns when rotating small angles - even better, don't rotate - get it right on the platen. I lost a large portion of my life discovering tartan patterns caused by <1 degree rotations on noisy images (you can see the results yourself, fill a photoshop file with noise and rotate by half a degree).

4) Use Imagenomic's Noiseware for noise reduction - stunning software that allows you to tweak the reduction at different spatial frequencies. ignore the 'protect detail', contrast and sharpening options.

5) Photokit sharpener to apply 'medium edge' sharpen

Finally downsize to 2500dpi

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

I make sure the scanner glass is clean, clean the negative (b&w only) as well as I can, put the negative in the film holder (Umax), put the film holder on the glass, close the cover, open the software (Epson), set the black and white points, do a prescan mostly just to check alignment, then do the final scan at 2200 ppi. There isn't a whole lot to it when you view scanning as nothing more than a necessary step to getting the photograph into the computer where the real work is done. I do no sharpening in the scanner, I save that for PKSharpen after editing in Photoshop.

I used Vuescan and Silverfast for many years. Both are excellent programs. But I now just use the simple Epson software because I decided that the added time and complexity involved with those two programs wasn't worth it for me. Others of course might differ, especially people who do color or who do more editing in the scanner than I do. I also should mention that I've tried scanning at much higher ppi and never found a benefit that was observable in the scan or the print. If others think it's beneficial that's fine for them.

I took the late Ted Harris' scanning workshop in Columbus years ago. It was very useful but sadly no longer available. I also spent a lot of time years ago with Wayne Fulton's book "A Few Scanning Tips." You might find it and other information on his web site very useful, I know I did.

[timparkin]

Here's a comparison of 2400dpi, 4800dpi and a drum scanner..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/scans/epson-comparison.jpg

The fine detail in the roof on the left and the general smoothness of the sky show the differences the most.

Tim

[sanking]

Tim,

Thanks for the comparison. Shows that the Epson V700 is not as bad a scanner as some people claim.

What aperture did you use for the Howtek 4000 dpi scan?

Also, did you do any noise reduction with any of the scans. Seems odd that you are getting more grain with the Epson V700 than the Howtek. My own comparisons show the opposite.

Sandy

[timparkin]

Tim,

Thanks for the comparison. Shows that the Epson V700 is not as bad a scanner as some people claim.

What aperture did you use for the Howtek 4000 dpi scan?

Also, did you do any noise reduction with any of the scans. Seems odd that you are getting more grain with the Epson V700 than the Howtek. My own comparisons show the opposite.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

Yes I've done a serious amount of sharpening on the Epson one to pick up the sharpness (Epson scans come in with very little contrast but quite a lot of resolution). I used a smart sharpen in gaussian mode (almost 500 at 1px).

I used noise reduction on the drum scan and the 4800 dpi scan as I could do so without destroying any detail - I couldn't reduce the noise on the 2400 without destroying info..

I've gone back and made two psds. One with the raw scans (inverted and black/white pointed) and one with the epson layers sharpened.

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/scans/epson-comparison-all.zip

Tim

p.s. The epson scans were wet mounted which makes a reasonable difference to noise

[Darin Boville]

I've gone back and made two psds. One with the raw scans (inverted and black/white pointed) and one with the epson layers sharpened.


Hey Tim,

I'm not sure I understand what the comparisons are showing me. Is one a unadjusted Howtek scan and the other an unsharpened Epson? (That's what it looks like but it does't seem to match what you say in the text.

--Darin

[Edit" Nevermind! I just saw that each file has four layers with different examples in each.]

[Darin Boville]

Tim,

Your post with the sample files has to be one of the most useful I've come across. Having all of the raw files and comparison/sharpened files in such an easily accessed and compared form makes all the difference. Simply outstanding. Thanks.

--Darin

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks Tim, good info

[rustyair]

Wow Thanks Tim, The sharpened v700 file looks amazing comparing to Howtek drum scan file. Sample file is awesome too!

One question to Tim, Does that mean v700 scanned file could be printed as big as the howtek file?

[Frank Petronio]

You can print anything as big as you want. It's not like the image is going to fall to pieces and the larger it is, the further away you view it. The 14x44-foot billboards you see from the highway are printed at 20dpi, I made one with a 2-megapixel digital camera (and a lot of Photoshop work) back in the late 90s.

The Howtek is still a lot smoother while still being sharper but it does inspire me to tighten up my v700 procedures.

[rustyair]

You can print anything as big as you want. It's not like the image is going to fall to pieces and the larger it is, the further away you view it. The 14x44-foot billboards you see from the highway are printed at 20dpi, I made one with a 2-megapixel digital camera (and a lot of Photoshop work) back in the late 90s.

The Howtek is still a lot smoother while still being sharper but it does inspire me to tighten up my v700 procedures.


I meant same view distance.

[Frank Petronio]

Again, nobody is stopping you from printing as large as you want. The difference between a v700 and a drum scan is going to be incremental and unless you do two equal prints, you may well be impressed with the v700 scan. However once you compare, you'll be convinced - I think.

The thing is, if you spend several hundred bucks on a big print, you might as well throw down another hundred for a better scan and do everything as well as possible.

For my work, I scan on a v700 and print modest sizes (I have a 13x19 printer). This works fine for portfolio prints, gifts, and most display-art images. However if I do something big for a show or a client, I can justify spending the cash to do it better. I couldn't afford to do it for everything unless it was all sold, got a grant, etc. Luckily, if you use the Epson scanners and Photoshop properly, you can get very good results from cheap consumer equipment. Just don't fool yourself into thinking it is just as good.

I have a 30x40 Jon Cone Iris print on watercolor paper hanging in my garage, the aluminum backing got dented and it's no good for nice display. But I scanned that in 1992 on a 600 dpi Xerox Kurzweil B&W flatbed ($3600, SCSI) and it looks damn good. I'm sure a modern drum scan and a 30x40 on glossy Baryta would look even better, but I can still appreciate the relatively crude old scan/print.

[timparkin]

Wow Thanks Tim, The sharpened v700 file looks amazing comparing to Howtek drum scan file. Sample file is awesome too!

One question to Tim, Does that mean v700 scanned file could be printed as big as the howtek file?

In terms of resolution I would say so - if the neg had more detail then the Howtek could probably get more than the Epson but the differences would not be noticeable unless you were scanning side by side. If you had a really sharp neg (medium format or a very nice lens at f/16-22) then the Howtek will get more out..

Tim

[Darin Boville]

O.K., here I go.

I'm running tests with the Betterscanning rig so now's a good time to worry about all those semi-mysterious Vuescan settings.

Questions!

1) I have Mode set to "Transparency." Will that cause the higher resolution lens to be engaged?

2) Make gray from...should that be set to Green or Auto or....?

3) Number of samples. Should I do more than 1--time of scanning doesn't make a real difference to me. How high should I go?

4) Multi-exposure. Should I check this?

--Darin

[David Higgs]

I've found that multi-exposure and increasing samples is a random affair. Sometimes you end up with an improved scan but more often than not, the Epson isn't accurate enough in it's positioning and with multiple samples there is a loss of resolution. I'd be interested if anyone is getting different results - I'm dry scanning at present.

[Darin Boville]

I spent the day yesterday--and I mean "the day" as in "all day" scanning my first batch of negs. Had all sorts of problems with weird shadows (well, bright spots, really, since it is reversed) on the neg. Fairly clear shapes, sometimes more rectangular, sometimes more semi-circular. Looked like the cut-outs on the side of the BetterScanning holder. I've got a very generous gap between the edge of the neg and the mask so maybe that's it. Or maybe because I'm not using the supplied opaque mask but using blue masking tape instead. So I covered all the gaps with more tape. I think it is working but it was a slow day. The negs look good, though. I'm using multi-sample so if that isn't right I hope somone chimes in soon! :)

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

I've found that multi-exposure and increasing samples is a random affair. Sometimes you end up with an improved scan but more often than not, the Epson isn't accurate enough in it's positioning and with multiple samples there is a loss of resolution. I'd be interested if anyone is getting different results - I'm dry scanning at present.

I gave up on multi-scanning because of the loss of resolution.

[SergeiR]

I gave up on multi-scanning because of the loss of resolution.

Interesting. I never really tried to compare it (except for speed).. but its good to know that i didnt use that option for a reason ;)

(still do multiexposure, though)

[Darin Boville]

I gave up on multi-scanning because of the loss of resolution.

Hey Kirt,

Do you mean just "multiscanning" (which I take to mean multiple passes of the read head) or "multisampling" (which I take to mean a single pass of the read head with more samples taken at each point)? Or both?

I'm doing multi-sampling now but not multiscanning.

--Darin

[rknewcomb]

I am reading this post because I'm just starting out using the computer to enlarge negs. Holy crap I've got a lot to learn. 40 years of darkroom experience shot to hell.
Robert N.

[sergiofigliolia]

Interesting post.
I just changed computer so ignore what my previous settings were.
I'm using vuescan. Yesterday I did a 4x5 BW neg scan at 2400dpi, 24bit colour(maybe 48? can't remember exactly) and the file came huge (1TB).
Do you advise going to less bits?
For the first time experimented with 3 samples per dot and without reading this post it looked less sharp to me...

[sergiofigliolia]

sorry I meant 1GB file!

[klocksib]

It's funny; I just started down this path too. My better scanning mount is in production as we speak. Here's the workflow I've been using (along with settings), for better or worse... it'd be good to get feedback, I'm sure some of it is way off base.


Calibrate monitor using Spider Pro to compensate for current ambient lighting in room. Wipe down the scanner glass to ensure no dust dropped onto it
Mount the 4x5 negative in the Epson tray (for now)
Remove dust from the negative using a rocket style blower; double check the neg is seated as flatly as possible
Fire up VueScan
Load up my (now) default settings, which include:
Files

Media: B/W Negative
Bits per pixel: 16 bit Grayscale
Make Gray From: Auto
Preview Resolution: Auto
Scan Resolution: 6400dpi
Auto Focus: Always
Number of Samples: 16 (number of readings without moving the scanner head)
Multiexposure: No (as others have said, this does two full passes with different exposure settings; good in theory, bad in practice) [1]

5b. Crop:

N/A; select using cursor

5c. Filter:

N/A, everything is turned off

5d. Color:

Color Balance: White Balance
Curve Low: 0.25
Curve High: 0.75
B/W Vendor: Kodak
B/W Type: TMAX CI = .40
Output: Printed Size: Scan Size
Tiff File: Yes
Tiff Size Reduction: 3

Prefs

Image Memory: 800mb (maximum allowed)

Run a preview scan; zoom in, set my crop over the preview
Select [Scan] when satisfied
Take the generated Tiff import into Lightroom

Create a copy
Modify curves, dodge/burn
Export into Nik's Sharpener Pro; give it a work over; save back to Lightroom
Export to a gigantic jpeg




[1] it's feasible to do this setting the curves manually, scanning twice, then aligning and blending manually in Photoshop.

[sergiofigliolia]

I use more or less the workflow specified in http://www.photographersgarden.com/storage/Vuescan_Nikon_LS8000_linear_scan_english.pdf

Difference being I don't set autofocus (as you can't on Epson V700), I don't use 64RGBI but I do anyway a slide scan (even if it is BW neg film).

Yesterday I started with the following and it was not bad:
I take 16 samples per dot, 6400 dpi
then open file in photoshop apply Colorperfect as specified in: http://www.colorneg.com/scanning-slides-and-negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson-Scan/
Then clean dust and afterwards I resample to 2400dpi (as a method I use the one suggested by photoshop for downsizing).
Then I can convert to black and white either with a black and white layer in photoshop or with a plugin like Silver EFEX.
Save as PSD (as the file will we much smaller).
I export for web the full jpeg and upload to my flickr account.

I have tried before using only the green channel of the RGB file but the image appears to be somewhat poorer.
I'd like to experiment with the V800/V850 adjustable height holders as specified in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120128-Betterscanning-altternative-Epson-V850-800-holders-work-for-V750-700/page2).
I hope this would be a benefit for 120 film scans of which I am not fully happy at the moment.

This was the result but I am not sure it helps at this resolution:

131408