Scanning Workflow Tips: please share

[Bob Kerner]

I'm about to start scanning my first 4x5 negatives. Until now I've been looking at contact sheets and scanning the contacts on an all-in one scanner and ingesting them into Aperture for cataloguing.

I'd like to ask a couple of generic questions and ask for any tips you might offer to a someone new to LF scanning (I've scanned 35mm in the past).

1) For those of you who send your film to a lab, do you still go to the expense of having the lab make a contact, or do you do it yourself? I can see where the contact would be helpful weeding out the really crappy stuff faster than scanning, but it costs a few bucks and ultimately ends up in a landfill.

2) If you make your own contact sheets with the scanner, do you scan at best resolution or something lower for the sake of a quick preview to decide whether the image is a keeper?

3) Is anyone using Aperture to catalog their LF material? If so, any problems scanning at max. and importing into Aperture (I read somewhere here that Lightroom is unkind to really big files, wondering if there are similar issues with Aperture).

I'm anticipating getting an Epson 750, if that matters for answering my inquiry.

As always, thank you very much for your help!

[Noah A]

1) No. Since 4x5 is an expensive format to shoot I do much of my editing when I'm out shooting. I primarily check my color negatives on a light table, but if I'm in doubt I'll do low-res scans of the negs in question on my Epson flatbed. I don't worry about quality and don't even remove the negs from the negative pages. I often don't even save the scans.

Normally, I'll do high-res scans of nearly all of my photos unless they're obviously bad. After the high-res (4000spi) scans are done of a project I archive them all and ideally I'll never touch the negative again.

At that point I'll let photoshop batch-process the files into contact sheets which I print, cut up into individual frames and use to decide on a final edit and sequence.

I guess if I shot fewer sheets and cash grew on trees, I would consider getting contacts from the lab. But I've never seen the need really. My days as a newspaper photographer taught me to edit from color negs and I'm happy to do so.

2) I would scan low res. Even if you're printing them at contact-size all you'd really need is 240-300dpi. If you want to make, say, 8x10 proofs to help you decide than you can go a bit higher, but you don't need to go crazy. Big scans take more time. The exception would be if you decide to scan and save nearly all of the frames, in that case scan them once at high resolution and be done with it.

3) Can't help you here. I've never used LR or Aperture. I use Photo Mechanic to caption my files (I do documentary work that goes to an agency). It's slow with big tiffs, but it does what I need and has good IPTC editing capability.

Once you get the scanner you may want to try experimenting with your film holders or even try wet-mounting. I use a drum scanner, but I've had limited success getting sharp, newton-ring-free scans from a flatbed. I'm sure others who use flatbeds more extensively than I do can be of assistance here...

[mrladewig]

1) For those of you who send your film to a lab, do you still go to the expense of having the lab make a contact, or do you do it yourself? I can see where the contact would be helpful weeding out the really crappy stuff faster than scanning, but it costs a few bucks and ultimately ends up in a landfill.

Never had a lab make a contact. I started out shooting and scanning E-6, and now also shoot and scan alot of C-41. But I don't make contact prints. Reason below.

2) If you make your own contact sheets with the scanner, do you scan at best resolution or something lower for the sake of a quick preview to decide whether the image is a keeper?

Typically if I just want a review scan, I'll do it at 600 or 1200ppi. I don't bother fluid mounting or using my betterscanning holder, but I do try to remove dust from the film and the scanner platten.

3) Is anyone using Aperture to catalog their LF material? If so, any problems scanning at max. and importing into Aperture (I read somewhere here that Lightroom is unkind to really big files, wondering if there are similar issues with Aperture).

I use Lightroom for my cataloging, along with a spreadsheet where I store the shoot info before I send the film to the lab. When I scan, I try to always record the filename with the other film info in the catalog.

Initially Lightroom 1.4 and earlier wouldn't display large images. But since Lightroom 2, this is no longer the case. That said, I do find that lightroom becomes unresponsive on my desktop when I try to view a large scan at 1:1 or try to open the image in develop. However, my desktop is a 5 year old Core 2 Duo running 32 bit XP with 3GB of RAM and it really isn't up to level or a modern x64 with 8-12GB and quad cores or more.

[Ken Lee]

Low res is enough for proofing, and for showing on the web.

If you scan a 4x5 negative at 360 spi, the image file is 1440x1800: as large as most monitors can display.

Scanning at low resolution - and only 8-bit depth - is faster too.

Why clutter your hard drive(s) with huge files ? Small ones are faster to catalog, faster to generate thumbnails, faster to load, view, etc. etc.

Because Epson scanners are in focus above the glass, you won't get an optimal scan at any resolution, unless you raise the film appropriately.

For that, see BetterScanning.com, or make your own film holder, using Anti Newton's Ring glass. There has been much how-to discussion on this forum.

[Bob Kerner]

Why clutter your hard drive(s) with huge files ? Small ones are faster to catalog, faster to generate thumbnails, faster to load, view, etc. etc.

My thought/theory was this:

Do a quick preview scan to identify keepers versus trash. Scan the keepers at max resolution and catalog. Yes, it will eat up space. My concern was that if I scan at low res and something happens to the negative, I'm left with a low res scan. OTOH if I scan at max. I'll at least have something very close to the original should something happen to the negative. I can also work quicker if I already have the best copy on my system and want a quick print rather than having to find the negative and re-scan.

Yes, I know about Better Scanning holders. They are on my "needed" accessory list when I order the scanner.

[Peter Mounier]

I use Aperture v2.1.4 on a Mac G5 Quad (ppc). A few of my 4x5 scans, with photoshop layers are as big as 500mb. Recently I tried to export one of those files after doing more editing in Aperture but it wouldn't export with the Aperture edits because it said the file was too big to export. It would export the original 500mb files (with PS layers, but no Aperture edits), but not the files with Aperture edits. So there is a limit. I was able to export an Aperture edited file that was a 410mb file with PS layers when imported, but not one that was 438mb.

Peter

[Preston]

I do a quick preview at full resolution to weed out the trash. I then scan my keepers at the maximum optical resolution. I then catalog the scan files. Once this is done, I create a full resolution 'master' file from the scan file, which gets cataloged. The 'master' file is tweaked as necesssary in PS. I then create smaller files from the 'master', as needed.

I agree with Bob, that having a full res file is a decent, but not perfect, hedge in case something happens to the original film. Also, having a full res scan eliminates re-scanning, which is time consuming.

Just my 0.0002

--P

[Noah A]

My thought/theory was this:

Do a quick preview scan to identify keepers versus trash. Scan the keepers at max resolution and catalog. Yes, it will eat up space. My concern was that if I scan at low res and something happens to the negative, I'm left with a low res scan. OTOH if I scan at max. I'll at least have something very close to the original should something happen to the negative. I can also work quicker if I already have the best copy on my system and want a quick print rather than having to find the negative and re-scan.
...
.

This is my thinking as well. Of course I try to protect my negatives. But since I print digitally, and since (let's face it) scanning technology isn't exactly an area where manufacturers are spending a lot of R&D money these days, I figure my drum scan is probably all I'll ever need. Which means I can store the negative away somewhere safe and perhaps never touch it again.

[Bruce Pollock]

Interesting and helpful thread....

1) At that point I'll let photoshop batch-process the files into contact sheets which I print, cut up into individual frames and use to decide on a final edit and sequence.

Can anyone provide Photoshop guidance on how to print multiple images on to one sheet as a sort of contact sheet/preview? I've been trying to figure this out because sometimes it's helpful to have a hard copy reference.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Bruce,

Make a new blank background at the resolution you want the final printer output to be, making sure that the background size is tall enough and wide enough to accommodate all the images you want to place onto the background, and save the file with a recognizable contact sheet name. Make your images that you want to place into the new background the same resolution, and a smaller size, then drag the modified image into the new background from the image file you want to store.

Move each modified dragged image around in the new background as you see fit, save the file, and print the homemade PS contact sheet...

jim k