OT. 35mm slide scanners

Forester said:

Does anybody have any advice about these. My wife has tons
of slides and the tranny adapter on the Epson isn't always
up to the job for some of the darker slides. She has used
a top of the range Nikon coolscan in the past and the
results have been excellent, but the price of these is far
too high for us - unless we win on the lottery. Any
suggestions for cheaper/secondhand ones would be great. I
imagine that with many photographers going over to using
digital more that there could be more on the market now?

Thanks

David

There are many better photographers in this group than
myself, who may well have more experience and disagree with
me - but here is my twopennyworth.

Just before Christmas I invested in a cheap(ish) slide
scanner - I chose the smartdisk 2700 @ £160 from dabs

tinyurl.com27ybkOpen ↗

I have actually mainly used it to scan 110 slides and the
results were adequate for my needs (due to the extreme
magnification required of the slide which is much much
smaller than 35mm)

I have also achieved some good results in printing out 7x4
prints from 35mm slides. The scanner comes bundled with
photoshop elements 2.0 which is quite good at editing dark
slides, although I prefer Serif Photoplus 9 as the 'wizard'
produces excellent results with minimal intervention /
meddling from myself - which has to be a good thing ;-)

I find the scanner a little slow, but that may well be down
to the prehistoric PC I use :-(

Anyway I think this scanner was the best of the budget buys
at the time

hope this helps a little

Bob remove shoes to reply

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Forester said:

Does anybody have any advice about these. My wife has
tons of slides and the tranny adapter on the Epson isn't
always up to the job for some of the darker slides. She
has used a top of the range Nikon coolscan in the past
and the results have been excellent, but the price of
these is far too high for us - unless we win on the
lottery. Any suggestions for cheaper/secondhand ones
would be great. I imagine that with many photographers
going over to using digital more that there could be
more on the market now?

Thanks

David

There are many better photographers in this group than
myself, who may well have more experience and disagree
with me - but here is my twopennyworth.

Just before Christmas I invested in a cheap(ish) slide
scanner - I chose the smartdisk 2700 @ £160 from dabs

tinyurl.com27ybkOpen ↗

I have actually mainly used it to scan 110 slides and the
results were adequate for my needs (due to the extreme
magnification required of the slide which is much much
smaller than 35mm)

I have also achieved some good results in printing out 7x4
prints from 35mm slides. The scanner comes bundled with
photoshop elements 2.0 which is quite good at editing dark
slides, although I prefer Serif Photoplus 9 as the
'wizard' produces excellent results with minimal
intervention / meddling from myself - which has to be a
good thing ;-)

I find the scanner a little slow, but that may well be
down to the prehistoric PC I use :-(

Anyway I think this scanner was the best of the budget
buys at the time

hope this helps a little

Bob remove shoes to reply

Thanks Bob,

I'll keep this in mind, however even our pretty good Epson
Perfection 1200 with tranny hood isn't good enough!! We've
had a few "problem" slides which even Photoshop 7 hasn't
cured, but a pro scanner did!

I think we're looking to spend a few hundred, rather than a
couple of thousands for a new one!

If I had my way I'd just say sod it an get a digital, but
her last roll of velvia slides of snowy Northumberland and
Braemar are fantastic. Like I read and we often forget. For
digital to match Velvia film you would need a 40 MP
camera....I think there is some way to go yet!

Thanks for the recommendation

david

Forester said:

Thanks Bob,

I'll keep this in mind, however even our pretty good Epson
Perfection 1200 with tranny hood isn't good enough!! We've
had a few "problem" slides which even Photoshop 7 hasn't
cured, but a pro scanner did!

I think we're looking to spend a few hundred, rather than
a couple of thousands for a new one!

Thanks for the recommendation

david

Ouch! Ever felt a fool?

Thankyou for your understanding and gentle reply

Bob take shoes off to reply

* Forester <[email hidden]> deigned to grace
uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

I read and we often forget. For digital to match Velvia
film you would need a 40 MP camera....I think there is
some way to go yet!

The issues aren't simple, but I was reading fairly recently
that the latest 'prosumer' digital cameras equal the
resolution of film - something like the Nikon 8700 (8Mp).
Even with my 3.4 Mp Nikon, skies look more 'grain free' than
film shots I have. I think you now have to go to 2.25"
square to make sure that film is a clear winner.

I find that in the last 3 years I've had a digital camera,
I've taken more shots than I did in the previous 30 years
with film. When with film I used to look at a scene and say
'shall I take a shot of that?' I would often say 'no - I
won't bother and save the film'; I now say 'I may as well -
it doesn't cost anything and I can always delete it'.

Regards: Jim Ford

Regards: Jim Ford

Forester said:

Does anybody have any advice about these. My wife has tons
of slides and the tranny adapter on the Epson isn't always
up to the job for some of the darker slides.

Even the best flatbeds won't do a good job of scanning 35mm
slides. I have the Epson Perfection 2450 and the results are
nowhere near as good as from a dedicated film scanner.

Quoted message said:

She has used a top of the range Nikon coolscan in the past
and the results have been excellent,

They certainly are! <smug grin>

Quoted message said:

but the price of these is far too high for us - unless we
win on the lottery. Any suggestions for cheaper/secondhand
ones would be great. I imagine that with many
photographers going over to using digital more that there
could be more on the market now?

Well after recently buying a top of the range Nikon it just
so happens that I have a film scanner for sale. I just
hadn't got around to advertising it yet. It's the Minolta
Dimage Dual Scan. It cost me £350 a few years ago. I'd be
prepared to accept £150 for it. It's still in very good
condition, boxed with all manuals, software etc. To be
honest it didn't get that much use for the time I had it.
If you need a SCSI card as well I could throw in a SCSI 2
card plus lead for another £30 (they cost me around £80 at
the time).

The only problem with it is that it's a SCSI scanner rather
than USB and the only drivers I have for it are for Windows
95 and 98. When I upgraded my computer to XP it refused to
work. I tried searching for updated drivers on the internet
but was unable to find any, so I can't guarantee that this
scanner will work with newer operating systems.

It's a very good scanner, especially for the price. I was
going to buy the more expensive Canon (£500) at the time,
but was advised by Jessops to get the Minolta instead, and
very good advice it was too. The main reason for the price
difference was that the Canon came with a SCSI card and an
APS adapter but the Minolta didn't. Probably the best
feature of the scanner is the low shadow noise, not
completely absent, but much better than most other low price
film scanners.

Most of the photos on my Wilderness Wales website were
scanned with it, which will give you some idea of what is
possible. Obviously they don't show the resolution (2438dpi)
but you can see the colour quality. You do need to do a bit
of post-processing after scanning because scanned images
usually look a little flat.

Here's a review I found of it;
photozone.dedimage.htmOpen ↗

As the reviewer points out, the supplied software isn't
brilliant and he recommends getting VueScan instead. This is
exactly what I did and it made a huge difference. It only
costs about £25 and it gives you far more control over your
scans and far better results straight out of the scanner. It
also allows you to extract the full 30 bits from the scanner
instead of a cut-down 24 bits. The software has a special
long exposure pass mode which is designed to extract more
shadow detail and which has the excellent side effect of
reducing shadow noise to virtually zero. I used this for any
shot that had large dark areas.

Anyway, email me if you are interested.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Hi,

My first slide scanner was the Canon FS2710 - pretty good at
the time, but very slow compared to what's around now. I
then upgraded to the Minolta Scan Dual III, which I have
used regularly until about 6 weeks ago. I sold the scanner
afetr purchasing an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner in February.
The Scan Dual III was pretty good but lacked ICE dust
removal technology, hence high-res scans required a lot of
manual dust-removal in PS (even the cleanest slide will show
a lot of dust - much of it picked up during the scanning
process). Slide scanning took about 60 seconds - effective
manual dust-removal took around 45 minutes :-(. However, the
Scan Dual III is perfectly decent, and you'll be able to get
one 2nd hand for less than £200 (mine sold on eBay for
£186). The Scan Dual III will produce image files of around
26Mb at highest res.

As for the Epson 4870 flatbed... Why a flatbed? Because I
also shoot Medium Format and needed to scan MF trannies.
Anyway, regardless of the medium format aspect, the scanner
scans 35mm slides superbly - better than the dedicated film
scanners I've used (but then I haven't used top-of-the range
Nikons). And it has ICE digital dust removal which is
fantastic (as you may already know). Deals with shadows and
highlights very well. Produces image files of around 80Mb
from 35mm slides, and >180Mb from Medium Format trannies. I
got my Epson 4870 for less than £310, and so far it has been
one of my best photo or computer related purchases ever.

However, if you're considering buying a scanner just to do a
few slides I'd recommend that you just send them to a lab
for scanning, rather than invest in a scanner. Try somebody
like Peak Imaging in Sheffield.

Hope this helps in some way.

Regards,

Michael S

Forester said:

... our pretty good Epson Perfection 1200 with tranny hood
isn't good enough!! We've had a few "problem" slides which
even Photoshop 7 hasn't cured, but a pro scanner did!

I think we're looking to spend a few hundred, rather than a
couple of thousands for a new one!

Are you getting all the bits out that you can? My old
Minolta Scan Dual produces far better scans using VueScan
software www.hamrick.com/vsm.html rather than that which
came with the scanner, which was, quite frankly, [censored].

Quoted message said:

If I had my way I'd just say sod it an get a digital, but
her last roll of velvia slides of snowy Northumberland and
Braemar are fantastic. Like I read and we often forget. For
digital to match Velvia film you would need a 40 MP
camera....I think there is some way to go yet!

I doubt there is that much information in a 35mm slide.
Don't forget that digital pixels are better quality than
film "pixels".

luminous-landscape.comdq.shtmlOpen ↗
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Saunders said:

Forester said:

Does anybody have any advice about these. My wife has
tons of slides and the tranny adapter on the Epson isn't
always up to the job for some of the darker slides.

Even the best flatbeds won't do a good job of scanning
35mm slides. I have the Epson Perfection 2450 and the
results are nowhere near as good as from a dedicated film
scanner.

Quoted message said:

She has used a top of the range Nikon coolscan in the
past and the results have been excellent,

They certainly are! <smug grin>

Quoted message said:

but the price of these is far too high for us - unless
we win on the lottery. Any suggestions for
cheaper/secondhand ones would be great. I imagine that
with many photographers going over to using digital more
that there could be more on the market now?

Well after recently buying a top of the range Nikon it
just so happens that I have a film scanner for sale. I
just hadn't got around to advertising it yet. It's the
Minolta Dimage Dual Scan. It cost me £350 a few years ago.
I'd be prepared to accept £150 for it. It's still in very
good condition, boxed with all manuals, software etc. To
be honest it didn't get that much use for the time I had
it. If you need a SCSI card as well I could throw in a
SCSI 2 card plus lead for another £30 (they cost me around
£80 at the time).

The only problem with it is that it's a SCSI scanner
rather than USB and the only drivers I have for it are for
Windows 95 and 98. When I upgraded my computer to XP it
refused to work. I tried searching for updated drivers on
the internet but was unable to find any, so I can't
guarantee that this scanner will work with newer operating
systems.

It's a very good scanner, especially for the price. I was
going to buy the more expensive Canon (£500) at the time,
but was advised by Jessops to get the Minolta instead, and
very good advice it was too. The main reason for the price
difference was that the Canon came with a SCSI card and an
APS adapter but the Minolta didn't. Probably the best
feature of the scanner is the low shadow noise, not
completely absent, but much better than most other low
price film scanners.

Most of the photos on my Wilderness Wales website were
scanned with it, which will give you some idea of what is
possible. Obviously they don't show the resolution
(2438dpi) but you can see the colour quality. You do need
to do a bit of post-processing after scanning because
scanned images usually look a little flat.

Here's a review I found of it;
photozone.dedimage.htmOpen ↗

As the reviewer points out, the supplied software isn't
brilliant and he recommends getting VueScan instead. This
is exactly what I did and it made a huge difference. It
only costs about £25 and it gives you far more control
over your scans and far better results straight out of the
scanner. It also allows you to extract the full 30 bits
from the scanner instead of a cut-down 24 bits. The
software has a special long exposure pass mode which is
designed to extract more shadow detail and which has the
excellent side effect of reducing shadow noise to
virtually zero. I used this for any shot that had large
dark areas.

Anyway, email me if you are interested.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Thanks Paul,

I will show this to my wife. One problem I can see is that
we use a Mac so would need USB or Firewire. Also knowing how
perfectionist she is it might be difficult to point her in
any other direction other than Nikon!!

David

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Michael S) said:

Hi,

My first slide scanner was the Canon FS2710 - pretty good
at the time, but very slow compared to what's around now.
I then upgraded to the Minolta Scan Dual III, which I have
used regularly until about 6 weeks ago. I sold the scanner
afetr purchasing an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner in
February. The Scan Dual III was pretty good but lacked ICE
dust removal technology, hence high-res scans required a
lot of manual dust-removal in PS (even the cleanest slide
will show a lot of dust - much of it picked up during the
scanning process). Slide scanning took about 60 seconds -
effective manual dust-removal took around 45 minutes :-(.
However, the Scan Dual III is perfectly decent, and you'll
be able to get one 2nd hand for less than £200 (mine sold
on eBay for £186). The Scan Dual III will produce image
files of around 26Mb at highest res.

As for the Epson 4870 flatbed... Why a flatbed? Because I
also shoot Medium Format and needed to scan MF trannies.
Anyway, regardless of the medium format aspect, the
scanner scans 35mm slides superbly - better than the
dedicated film scanners I've used (but then I haven't used
top-of-the range Nikons). And it has ICE digital dust
removal which is fantastic (as you may already know).
Deals with shadows and highlights very well. Produces
image files of around 80Mb from 35mm slides, and >180Mb
from Medium Format trannies. I got my Epson 4870 for less
than £310, and so far it has been one of my best photo or
computer related purchases ever.

However, if you're considering buying a scanner just to do
a few slides I'd recommend that you just send them to a
lab for scanning, rather than invest in a scanner. Try
somebody like Peak Imaging in Sheffield.

Hope this helps in some way.

Regards,

Michael S

Thanks Michael

I've had some really helpful replies to this question.

She does do some medium format stuff, so perhaps we should
stick with the flat bed, and we're thinking of getting a
digital snappy camera so I'm trying to talk her out of
investing in a Nikon or whatever. She also misses her
favourite darkroom (we can't set it up in this house --
waiting to move soon), but again I feel that it's become a
bit of a hassle and not as valuable as the immediacy of
digital. You can see we have a few "discussions" on this
subject! I don't want to spoil her fun but I'm sure you can
get great results with digital now and for the few
occasions where you want the very best and control over
developing then it's better to hire a darkroom for a day or
send off to a lab.

The dark slides just seem to look "noisy" when we fiddle
with them in Photoshop, so I reckon the scanner isn't
getting all the info out, or we're not doing the right thing
at the software stage. Her friend is a pro graphic designer
and he said you should always scan huge, with no correction
at the scanning stage and then do any changes once saved as
a "raw" or PNG file. On the 2000 pound Nikon the dark slides
looked perfect!

How do you get hold of the dust removal software?

I remember her slide scans from the Nikon taking a while
even on a top G4 Mac, but then she saves them as poster size
PNG files for pro use!! Each file is about 70mb! I think
that's right.

We will try Peak Imaging; just that I read someone saying
don't trust your best slides to something like Kodak CDs as
the quality is lower than you could do yourself??

The bit about Velvia was in a Photo mag this month (which
one?) where they reminded readers that a 40 MP digital CCD
would be needed to match Fuji Velvia. I don't know if that's
right. Certainly, looking at a Colin Prior poster it's hard
to imagine a digital image matching one.

David

Forester said:

If I had my way I'd just say sod it an get a digital, but
her last roll of velvia slides of snowy Northumberland and
Braemar are fantastic. Like I read and we often forget.
For digital to match Velvia film you would need a 40 MP
camera....I think there is some way to go yet!

To put it very politely, that claim is incorrect. Too many
film traditionalists (and I was one of them until relatively
recently) theorise about the differences instead of actually
looking at the end results. Almost invariably, those who
claim great superiority of film over digital don't use
digital and haven't made any real visual comparisons.

You can scan a slide at 8000 dpi and get a 40MP scan,
but there won't be 40MP of detail in it. That's a case
of the scanner having more resolution than the film. All
you'll be doing is enlarging the grain, not extracting
any more detail.

I've read a lot about this topic and there are varying
opinions on it, but I've never heard a claim of 40MP before.
Other claims range from 6MP to 20MP, but 10-12MP seems to be
nearest the mark.

I've read of scientific tests where differences could be
detected between a 4000dpi scan and an 8000dpi scan, but
those differences were so small that they were barely
noticeable. Thus it was claimed that film is capable of a
resolution of a little higher than 4000dpi, so probably
around 25MP maximum.

However, these tests were done in laboratory conditions
using excellent quality lenses on a solid tripod. Most
people do not own such good lenses and rarely use a tripod,
so the resolution that most people will get will be a lot
less than 4000dpi is capable of extracting.

A 4000dpi scanner will produce 20MP scans whereas a more
typical 2700dpi scanner will produce 10MP scans. In reviews
I read of the Nikon 4000ED, one claimed that they didn't
expect to see more detail in the 4000dpi scans but they did,
although not that much more. So a figure of 12MP seems
reasonable in this case. With a reasonably good lens used on
a tr ipod, 15MP may be possible.

In my own experience, my 4000dpi scans do indeed show more
detail than my 2438dpi scans did, but not much more, not
enough to be significant. The real test is to look at the
scan at 1:1, or 100% magnification. At
1:1, my 4000dpi scans look a bit soft (not the grain, but
the image detail), whereas with digital (6MP 300D) the
original image looks much sharper (that's with
sharpening *off*).

Using Focus Magic to *focus* the images, I find that a
radius setting of 1 or 2 pixels works best with digital,
whereas 3 to 5 pixels is usually necessary with film. The
higher numbers are necessary for shots that probably have a
small amount of camera shake, so 1 and 3 pixels may be the
best that is possible from each. These numbers may give a
rough indication of the relative sharpness of a 6MP digital
image and a 20MP film scan. Divide 20MP by 3 and you end up
with only 6.7MP. Maybe that's a bit harsh, but I really
don't think that the average 35mm shot has more than 12MP of
detail in it.

What is far more significant when discussing resolution is
how much the grain is enlarged. Velvia is famous for its low
grain, but look closely at a 4000dpi scan and you'll be
horrified. This is the real problem. Yes, film has better
resolution than digital, but if you enlarge an image enough
to show off the superior sharpness, it will also show off
the accompanying grain.

So the real question is not whether film is sharper than
digital, but how much can you enlarge a film scan before the
grain becomes unacceptable? IMO the acceptable grain limit
is reached before the resolution limit, so although film
scans can be enlarged more than digital, the grain spoils
them. And I'm talking about Velvia, Provia F and Astia, the
finest grained professional films you can buy.

It's only fair to mention that digital images do suffer from
their own equivalent of grain - noise. However, this is only
a problem with cheaper digital cameras, fast film speeds and
in dark shadows, so it's a much easier problem to control.
With a digital SLR using a slow film speed and with good
exposures, the problem is virtually non-exisitent. Grain is
infinitely worse.

My own personal jury is still out on how 20MP film scans
compare to 6MP DSLR shots, but I've taken some test shots
and will be doing a comparative test soon, not only
comparing the images on the computer but also comparing
large prints. I will post the results.

In the meantime, consider this. Mark Baigent (otherwise
known as Zeus in this newsgroup) bought himself an 11MP
Canon 1Ds a while back. Previously he used MF equipment
for his work, 6x7 I think. At 4000dpi a 6x7 MF image would
come out at roughly 90MP. Mark is so impressed with the
1Ds that he's stopped using medium format and told me that
he will probably never use it again. He's had large murals
printed from the 1Ds and the customers were blown away by
the quality.

I can produce larger images from my 35mm scans than a 1Ds,
yet the quality is incomparable. Mark sent me a few 1Ds
shots (unprocessed) and an 18x12 print from the 1Ds is far
superior to one of my 20MP scans. The 1Ds print is superbly
sharp (with *no* sharpening) and totally grain free whereas
my film scan prints are visibly softer with noticeable
grain. I'm not saying that my film scan prints are bad, but
the 1Ds is stunningly superior, and that's *only* 11MP, so
go figure.

And I haven't even mentioned dynamic range..........

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Forester said:

Thanks Paul,

I will show this to my wife. One problem I can see is that
we use a Mac so would need USB or Firewire.

Well the scanner doesn't have those options, but there's no
reason why you can't use SCSI with a Mac. I've checked the
manual and the CD includes software for the Mac.

Quoted message said:

Also knowing how perfectionist she is it might be
difficult to point her in any other direction other
than Nikon!!

Depends what you want to spend. Brand loyalty and tight
budgets don't go hand in hand. The Minolta is an excellent
scanner for the price.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Jim Ford said:

The issues aren't simple, but I was reading fairly
recently that the latest 'prosumer' digital cameras
equal the resolution of film - something like the Nikon
8700 (8Mp).

As I've just said in my other post, opinions vary on how
the resolution compares, but for practical purposes 8MP is
almost certainly as good as 35mm. However, due to the
large number of pixels crammed into the very small sensors
in these new prosumer 8MP cameras, noise levels are
relatively high.

Quoted message said:

Even with my 3.4 Mp Nikon, skies look more 'grain free'
than film shots I have.

Yes, lack of grain is a huge advantage and makes a big
difference to the look of a picture, especially on a large
print. The Canon DSLRs have effectively *zero* noise.

Quoted message said:

I think you now have to go to 2.25" square to make sure
that film is a clear winner.

Over 6MP yes, but not over 11MP apparently.

Quoted message said:

I find that in the last 3 years I've had a digital
camera, I've taken more shots than I did in the previous
30 years with film. When with film I used to look at a
scene and say 'shall I take a shot of that?' I would
often say 'no - I won't bother and save the film'; I now
say 'I may as well - it doesn't cost anything and I can
always delete it'.

Absolutely, although I'm finding that it's very easy to take
too many pictures! You then have the problem of sorting
through them later and storing them on countless CDs! A
little restraint is advisable.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Michael S said:

The Scan Dual III was pretty good but lacked ICE dust
removal technology, hence high-res scans required a lot of
manual dust-removal in PS (even the cleanest slide will
show a lot of dust - much of it picked up during the
scanning process).

Actually most of the marks on the scans are not dust at all.
I'm not sure what they are but they seem to be part of the
photo, you can't clean them off. Perhaps very large bits of
grain? Or very fine dust particles that have attached
themselves permanently to the surface of the film?

Quoted message said:

Slide scanning took about 60 seconds - effective manual
dust-removal took around 45 minutes :-(.

Read my other post for a technique which is *waaaaaaaaaay*
faster. I can clean up a scan in a matter of minutes using
it, no matter how many marks there are.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Forester said:

She does do some medium format stuff, so perhaps we should
stick with the flat bed,

A decent flatbed is fine for medium format. I wouldn't
recommend one for 35mm because the slides are so small, but
for MF my Epson 2450 is fine. I wouldn't need an MF film
scanner unless I wanted to make huge prints and I haven't
taken enough MF shots to justify the cost of such a scanner.

Quoted message said:

and we're thinking of getting a digital snappy camera so
I'm trying to talk her out of investing in a Nikon or
whatever.

Digital snappy? Look, if you're going to go digital, invest
in a decent camera like the 300D or the Nikon D70 (a better
choice if you already have Nikon lenses).

Quoted message said:

She also misses her favourite darkroom (we can't set it up
in this house -- waiting to move soon), but again I feel
that it's become a bit of a hassle and not as valuable as
the immediacy of digital. You can see we have a few
"discussions" on this subject! I don't want to spoil her
fun but I'm sure you can get great results with digital
now and for the few occasions where you want the very best
and control over developing then it's better to hire a
darkroom for a day or send off to a lab.

Yes, you can get great results with digital now. It's not
just the immediacy anymore, it's the quality too. Get
yourself a decent DSLR and you'll soon be complaining about
the grain and lack of shadow detail in Velvia.

Quoted message said:

The dark slides just seem to look "noisy" when we fiddle
with them in Photoshop, so I reckon the scanner isn't
getting all the info out, or we're not doing the right
thing at the software stage.

Cheap scanners tend to be noisy in shadow areas, flatbeds
are far worse than film scanners, so that's a big plus in
favour of a film scanner. The more expensive scanners
extract more detail from the shadows in addition to lower
noise. That was a more important reason for me buying the
Nikon 4000ED than the resolution. I could live with a
resolution of 2700dpi, but the 42 bits of detail in the
4000ED was a major selling point.

Quoted message said:

Her friend is a pro graphic designer and he said you
should always scan huge, with no correction at the
scanning stage and then do any changes once saved as a
"raw" or PNG file. On the 2000 pound Nikon the dark slides
looked perfect!

Yep, always scan at full size if you have enough memory, but
that won't improve shadow detail or reduce shadow noise.

Quoted message said:

How do you get hold of the dust removal software?

It's not software. Dust removal is a hardware feature in a
scanner, it works by shining an infra-red beam onto the film
to detect irregularities in the surface and subtracts them
at the scanning stage. It's not something you can add to a
scanner that doesn't have it. All is not lost however...

There is a fairly painless way of removing marks from a
scanned slide using Photoshop.

1. Apply the Dust & Scratches filter. Make it strong
enough to remove all the marks. Don't worry about what
it looks like.

2. Go back to the previous history state and set the
history brush to the Dust & Scratches state.

3. Select the history brush, set the mode to Lighten, then
paint over all the dark marks in the picture. Then set
the mode to Darken and paint over all the light marks in
the picture (I think I got those the right way around).

This will remove the marks without damaging the image
quality and can be done quite quickly. You can even just use
the Fade Dust & Scratches command (after applying the
filter) in lighten or darken mode to achieve the same effect
without any painting at all.

However, this will also remove any small dark or light
marks that should be in the picture. For example, I once
found myself removing lots of white marks from a hillside
before realising that they were sheep! So it's better to
paint manually.

Still much easier than using the stamp tool.

Quoted message said:

I remember her slide scans from the Nikon taking a while
even on a top G4 Mac,

Mine take about 80 seconds with ICE on.

Quoted message said:

but then she saves them as poster size PNG files for pro
use!! Each file is about 70mb! I think that's right.

Mine come out at 110-120 meg each. That's in 16 bit per
channel mode.

Quoted message said:

The bit about Velvia was in a Photo mag

Ah, I see. Film traditionalists...

Quoted message said:

this month (which one?) where they reminded readers that a
40 MP digital CCD would be needed to match Fuji Velvia. I
don't know if that's right.

No, it's not, not unless they're talking about medium
format. They're just theorising, not actually looking. They
want to believe it so badly that they don't dare look.

Quoted message said:

Certainly, looking at a Colin Prior poster it's hard to
imagine a digital image matching one.

Again you're *imagining* rather than *looking*. Have you
seen a comparably sized digital image? Bear in mind that
Colin Prior uses medium format, so to be fair, you'd need to
make a comparison with a photograph taken with a medium
format camera using a digital back (which ain't cheap). But
having said that, many professionals are switching from
medium format to the Canon 1Ds.

luminous-landscape.commf backs.shtmlOpen ↗

A few quotes;

"Photographers were telling me that they were selling their
MF gear and switching to 35mm format DSLRs, especially the
Canon 1Ds. This camera's 11 Megapixel size knocked everyone
back on their heels in late 2002 because it offered full-
frame 35mm coverage as well as resolution and image quality
previously reserved for medium format digital backs,"

"I published these results on The Luminous Landscape and
suffered a barrage of criticism from those that had not seen
such results or conducted such tests for themselves, but who
"knew" that it was impossible. Well, they were wrong then,
and for that matter still are."

"The current generation of 6 Megapixel DSLRs from Nikon,
Fuji and Canon simply trounce 35mm film"

"When Canon introduced the 11 Megapixel 1Ds in the Fall of
2002 I was among the first testers, and once again couldn't
believe my eyes. It was capable of actually meeting and in
some ways surpassing quality from medium format scanned
film. After double checking my results, then triple checking
them, then consulting with others who were doing similar
tests, I simply sold all of my medium format film
equipment."

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Phil Cook said:

Are you getting all the bits out that you can? My old
Minolta Scan Dual produces far better scans using VueScan
software www.hamrick.com/vsm.html rather than that which
came with the scanner, which was, quite frankly, [censored].

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

I doubt there is that much information in a 35mm slide.
Don't forget that digital pixels are better quality than
film "pixels".

luminous-landscape.comdq.shtmlOpen ↗

Very interesting.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt there is that much information in a 35mm slide.
Don't forget that digital pixels are better quality than
film "pixels".

luminous-landscape.comdq.shtmlOpen ↗

Very interesting.

I only skimmed it. I was really looking for the page on LL
where MR compares his 1Ds to his Pentax 7x6.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Paul Saunders said:

Michael S said:

The Scan Dual III was pretty good but lacked ICE dust
removal technology, hence high-res scans required a lot
of manual dust-removal in PS (even the cleanest slide
will show a lot of dust - much of it picked up during the
scanning process).

Actually most of the marks on the scans are not dust at
all. I'm not sure what they are but they seem to be part of
the photo, you can't clean them off. Perhaps very large
bits of grain? Or very fine dust particles that have
attached themselves permanently to the surface of the film?

That's Fuji pepper-grain. Something to do with the anti-
halation layer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Slide scanning took about 60 seconds - effective manual
dust-removal took around 45 minutes :-(.

Read my other post for a technique which is *waaaaaaaaaay*
faster. I can clean up a scan in a matter of minutes using
it, no matter how many marks there are.

Spotting for dust is one of those things you have to do, but
at least you only have to do it once in the digital
darkroom. Even with a DSLR you have to do a little.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Quoted message said:

Even the best flatbeds won't do a good job of scanning
35mm slides. I have the Epson Perfection 2450 and the
results are nowhere near as good as from a dedicated film
scanner.

I have to disagree with this advice, based (now) on personal
experience and (previously) on the advice of friends. The
Epson Perfection 4870 Photo is far superior to both the
Minolta ScanDual III and the (much older) Canon dedicated
35mm film scanners I have used. Superior in basically all
respects. I sell prints of my images to the public, and my
images are also used commercially (book covers, magazine
illustrations, product packaging etc. etc.). From a
commercial point of view, I can now supply digital files of
my Epson 4870 scans (>80Mb) direct to clients - before the
Epson 4870 I had to either provide clients with an original
transparency (albeit a duplicate!) or have the image scanned
commercially and send them the resulting file. 2 weeks ago I
supllied a design company with such a file that will shortly
be used on a compost bag (of all things!) - before the Epson
4870 I would have needed the slide to be 'pro' scanned by a
third party, adding days and cost to the whole process.
Instead I was able to have the digital file with them the
next day. I use this as an example to demonstrate the
quality of the scanner.

And regardless, 35mm 'dedicated' film scanners are no good
to me for scanning larger MF film.

I would agree with positive comments regarding VueScan.
There are lots of useful programs out there. It's also worth
trying Neat Image to reduce 'noise' in digital files.

Regards,

Michael S

Michael S said:

Quoted message said:

Even the best flatbeds won't do a good job of scanning
35mm slides. I have the Epson Perfection 2450 and the
results are nowhere near as good as from a dedicated film
scanner.

I have to disagree with this advice, based (now) on
personal experience and (previously) on the advice of
friends.

Well I'm afraid I have to disagree with your disagreement.
My Minolta scanner produced much sharper scans than my Epson
flatbed, even thought they are practically the same
resolution. I've read the same many times in comparisons
between film and flatbed scanners in reviews on various
websites. The explanation is that film scanners use a
collimated light source whereas flatbeds use a diffuse light
source, hence the flatbed scans are softer. It's also the
case that flatbeds have a smaller dynamic range than film
scanners and so don't extract as much shadow detail. This is
what I've read and this is my experience. I've never read or
heard anyone say otherwise.

Quoted message said:

The Epson Perfection 4870 Photo is far superior to both
the Minolta ScanDual III and the (much older) Canon
dedicated 35mm film scanners I have used. Superior in
basically all respects.

Well that's hardly a fair comparison is it? Comparing a
4800dpi scanner with a 2800dpi scanner? You should at least
level the playing field.

I wasn't aware of this Epson flatbed until you mentioned it,
but after quickly reading some reviews I must admit that it
sounds very impressive, definitely an excellent scanner for
the price. However, what I said still holds true, dedicated
film scanners are sharper than flatbeds. Note the following
comment from one review;

"After my Perfection 3200 review I had several emails from
people who said their scans looked soft. I did say in the
review that USM has to be applied and the same holds true
for the Perfection 4800. I used the following settings;
Amount 300, Radius 1.4, Threshold 1. Don't be alarmed at the
softness of the unsharpened scans, this is what I would
expect from a diffused light source." photo-photo-Open ↗
i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_8.htm

That's exactly what I said. Flatbed scans are soft due to
the diffuse light source. Note how much USM he had to apply
- 300% at 1.4. That's a huge amount of sharpening. Film
scanners don't require anywhere near that much.

Here's a comment based on a much fairer comparison with a
4000dpi film scanner. Take a look at the example scans to
see for yourself.

"The dedicated film scanner clearly shows it superiority
here, the edges are very clean and there is greater image
sharpness. The Epson has put in a fair performance and don't
forget it will also scan larger format films and prints too,
it is also 1/3 of the price. The bottom line has to be, for
high quality 35mm film scans a dedicated film scanner is
going to give you the best quality." photo-photo-Open ↗
i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_9.htm

It may be true to say that this scanner produces better
results than film scanners of a similar price, but not those
of a similar resolution.

Here's the verdict;

"The Epson Perfection 4870 is an excellent scanner that
should satisfy most owners. For print scanning it's very
fast and spot on with colours. For film scanning, Epson have
supplied a good selection of film holders that should cover
most peoples needs. 35mm scans were good, but need a heavy
dose of USM to get the best quality. The 4870 produced
better scans than my old Nikon LS1000 (film scanner), but
fell short of matching the newer 4000 Nikon Coolscan. This
didn't surprise me, but just how near the Epson came did.
For medium and large format scans the 4870 produced
outstanding quality, certainly good enough for any
professional photographer to use on their work. The 4870 is
a much cheaper option than buying a dedicated medium format
film scanner. I loved Digital ICE and it works a treat on
both transparencies and colour negative, this feature is
going to save you a lot of retouching time." photo-photo-Open ↗
i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_13.htm

As the review said, for medium and large format the quality
is great. Given the huge size of such files, there is
probably little advantage in getting a dedicated MF film
scanner. You're not likely to notice much difference unless
you make really large prints.

Quoted message said:

I sell prints of my images to the public, and my images
are also used commercially (book covers, magazine
illustrations, product packaging etc. etc.). From a
commercial point of view, I can now supply digital files
of my Epson 4870 scans (>80Mb) direct to clients

Well I'm glad to hear that the quality is that good. I'm
tempted to get one myself for my MF shots, the Epson 2450 is
really a bit too soft for my liking. A 22 inch wide
panoramic print which I cropped from a 6x6 slide just
doesn't have the detail that exists in the original.

Quoted message said:

And regardless, 35mm 'dedicated' film scanners are no good
to me for scanning larger MF film.

A very good point, but some of us have large 35mm
collections.

Quoted message said:

I would agree with positive comments regarding
VueScan. There are lots of useful programs out there.
It's also worth trying Neat Image to reduce 'noise' in
digital files.

Funnily enough I rarely need to use Neat Image on my digital
files, it's my film scans that need it most, to reduce grain
in the sky.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗