Beautiful Images... What Scanning Method ?

[creep]

I use v750pro, without fluid mount but with Silverfast software, which is buggy, but works for simple things i do.

The scanner must be calibrated with a it8 target before doing anything.

I scan my bw negs as positive and use HDR scanning in 16bit, then invert in PS this gives the best results, since the adjustments in Silverfast are funny compared to the math of Photoshop.

Holders are no prob for me, as for tmx, txp, hp5, foma etc. the 35mm ones are really c&^*%p....

c41 work is pain in the a$$ with all the software, but i find epson scan a bit easier for this, nevertheless the imacon is available in 5 minute drive from me, so all the color critical thing goes there.

[ashlee52]

I hope a few more people can discuss their technique. I need to buy a new scanning set up and hope to benefit from everyone's experience.

[Peter De Smidt]

We need to know a little more about what you intend to do. What size images do you want to end up with? What type of output method are you considering? For instance, a few years ago, Brooks Jensen made a bunch of prints by making a 600 spi scan of a master print. He then made digital negatives and contact printed them on silver gelatin paper. The results were outstanding. Doing this, though, required that the final print size closely matched the original print size. If, on the other hand, you want to make large prints, then a film scanner is the way to go.

[Ken Lee]

"I hope a few more people can discuss their technique".

You might enjoy this brief article on Scanning with the Epson 4990 which deals with black and white.

I take the dubious position that it's best to get things right, as early as possible, rather than "down-stream" in the process.

In other words, skip subjects that don't look beautiful. That's 99% of the issue. For the remaining 1%, expose the photo as well as possible, and develop accordingly, to correct the negative with expansion and contraction. Development by inspection with an Infra Red viewing device takes this even further and makes things easier.

In the scanning phase, you have your last big chance to get things perfect if they aren't already. This is where you make the transition to digital, and if you want to keep things looking as analog as possible, it should be your last tonal correction.

After that, you can use a tool like Photoshop to make small corrections, but it's best to minimize them, or your images will look like they come from a slick commercial magazine

[Kirk Gittings]

This is in the wrong forum. This is for image sharing. I am going to move this to the digital processing forum.

[Jon Shiu]

I make the prints in the darkroom, enlarging and contact prints, and then scan on an Epson V700. I have also tried scanning the 4x5 b/w negatives and printing digitally, but the prints kind of lack the texture, depth, tone and "liveliness" of good darkroom prints on glossy paper.

I have some done some pinhole and toy camera stuff, scanned the darkroom prints and made digital prints on matte art papers and these have been fine and sometimes better than the darkroom prints in richness/tone, so it depends on the type of photo, for me.

Jon

[Lenny Eiger]

There are so many technically (and aesthetically) beautiful images being shown here.

If you want to talk about beautiful scans I would check out what a drum scanner can do. Then at least you would know... They are not that hard to use. Not much harder than learning how to load film in a holder. The techniques of scanning are much harder, but they are analogous to shooting and understanding how to pull every bit of quality out is the same on any piece of equipment.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I find it amazing that so many here post messages about the ultimate quality of something, and then put a very low price on it - whether its a camera or a scanner. Would anyone say, I want the best car every made, that can go over 200 miles an hour, and I want it for $2000? I don't think so. It's very different from saying I want the best car for under $2000 - of which there will be many used cars that are often quite good. But they aren't Ferrari's.

The scanner I use costs 40K when new. There's a lot of reasons its superior to an $800 machine. PMT technology is sensitive enough to sense a few photons bouncing around in the optical box. Technical beauty, certain to be distinguished from aesthetic beauty, is made with equipment that is technically superior.

People do get results they are happy with using 750's, but they have to start with a much lower quality scan and do the best they can in Photoshop. It is always nice to imagine that you can pull it off with a cheaper solution, very few of us need a Ferrari on the streets we get to drive on. But a Ferrari is a Ferrari, nonetheless, and when one discusses ultimate technical excellence, it might be in the discussion (altho' I might like to take a look at a Tesla.)

Lenny

[Brian Ellis]

I don't post images very often because my recent work hasn't been LF. But when I do I post from 4x5 or 8x10 negatives that were scanned with an Epson 4990 scanner, edited in Photoshop, printed digitally, and saved to an external hard drive or DVD. I open them from the hard drive or DVD, reduce the size to conform to the Forum requirements, and post. You shouldn't be shocked that you don't see a huge improvement between your 4x5 and good DSLR images. Much better work can be produced from a good DSLR than some participants here think.

[Lenny Eiger]

You shouldn't be shocked that you don't see a huge improvement between your 4x5 and good DSLR images.

With all due respect, a DSLR can't go head to head with a good scanner. The subtlety just isn't there.

Lenny

[Jeremy Moore]

8x10 scanned on an Epson v700, emulsion side down on the flatbed platen with a piece of anti-newton glass on top.

4x5 and smaller scanned on an Epson v700 using the Betterscanning holder and drymounting using 3M tape.

If I'm printing larger than 4x I'll wet mount.