Personally I've never met a negative that I could print that couldn't scan. I use an unusual scanner though, so maybe that is a component. So I expose/process with (silver gelatin) printing in mind. I'm talking about b&w specifically.
People who suggest a second scan at a slower speed to shoot through the shadows (Silverfast) don't make sense to me. One has to assume that the scanner manufacturer is setting the speed and intensity to match the ADC to prevent noise from becoming an issue. That's the normal, optimum speed. So those who slow down the scan just increase the noise in those areas. They might as well use one regular scan and then use the shadow slider when they edit. They'd get the same amount of details and the same amount of noise, maybe less.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I did a comparison between an Epson V850 flatbed and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner using Tmax 100 BW film. The results were comparatively favorable. What do you think?
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I did a comparison between my epson 4870 scanner ( cost hundreds ) and my epson xp640 (cost $65 )
and the $65 scanner was as good as the expensive one. doesn't matter to me about how the scanner works or why its just a camera/ and I just use it as or not as intended.
yup
Last edited by jnantz; 15-Nov-2022 at 15:38.
Almost certainly not. This is more or less the way the scanner/software is designed to be used.
If you have a sheet of film that you can easily print in the darkroom, it's usually easy to scan also. The only time you might want to optimize a sheet of film for scanning is when you'll never print that film in the darkroom.
Bruce Watson
Old habits don't die.. 35mm to 5x7 sheet film is made in the same way for decades, to be optically printed via silver gelatin on fiber based graded paper typically grade 2 or 3. This means fitting the negative to be made to meet these requirements.
Scans are done using an old Epson 4990 on a old windows Thinkpad with the old Epson software... None of these images are processed via modern image software.. It is the basic Apple as delivered image software used for these image files.. Identical for digital camera images. Scanned images are made to be shared via digital data file size limited. These digitized images will never be made into prints, unless the images are "pirated". These negatives are easy to scan, usually direct with little to no "slider adjustments".. Little to no real concern for the "best quality" scans as there is no point or reason given how these images will be used. It is why images posted are done using the forum image software and why they look the way they do.. Posting "good" digital images are too much hassle and work for what is needs are.
It really comes down to what the image goals are. Knowing the goal for the negatives are optical printing does drive the entire negative making process.
Bernice
I can not see the scans.
A good example to demonstrate a difference between a drum scanner tone reproduction capabilities and a flatbed one would be to scan the rebate area (borders with the holes) on 135 Velvia or Provia at 2000-3000 dpi then apply an aggressive tone curve to open up the shadows (increase the value of dark tones) without moving the back point up in value. How much that difference will make to the final image is hard to predict as there is too many factors contributing to how the image will look (size, content, editing, printing, displaying).
In resolution department drum and flatbeds will likely be even up to what is specified as max optical for each.
Naturally, details in the scans from a flatbed will look less "sharp" than those from a drum scanner . Another way to say it - scans from flatbeds look softer while the ones from drums look crisper. That difference is easily compensated for by applying adequate amount of sharpening in post. Nothing wrong with doing that mindfully.
Depending on the image a non-sharpened one from a flatbed could look "better" (smoother, softer) than the one from a drum. Majority of aspects is relative and depends on many things other than scanner's tech.
I would not be too concerned about those differences unless there are specific criteria to meet. And no scanner unlikely to save a poorly executed (captured / developed) image.
Bookmarks