Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Josh-H on November 13, 2011, 07:14:03 pm
-
I have decided to take on the somewhat unenviable task of scanning, restoring and archiving my families 'ancient' photographs as a side project for next year. Many of which are currently slowly fading away; literally stuck down in old albums and have been gathering dust at the bottom of cupboards for decades. Most of the shots were 35mm film and pretty much all the negatives are long lost. So what I have to work with are the 5 x 7 kodak quickie lab prints mostly (many of which are faded and yellow). Most of them are from the 50's, 60's and 70's. There are a few transparencies amongst them as well.
I need some advice on setting up to make this efficient and as painless as possible. I will be purchasing a new scanner for this project; so I could certainly use a recommendation on what brand/model as well as resolution to scan.
Any recommended plug ins that might assist for restoring photographs would also be greatly appreciated. In fact, anything to help streamline the process.
Likewise, general tips on how to tackle this project very much appreciated. I would guesstimate probably in the order of 1000 photographs for this project. Assume 98% of them are prints only at 5 x 7 and the remainder might be a few negatives and trannies. I assume the negs will be a better option for scanning if they are available. I won't know this though until I can spend a few days trying to pair up what negatives there are against the prints and actually assessing the quality of the negatives.
Part two of the project is going to be trying to put some meta-data against the photographs - which is going to mean wading through old diaries and journals.. but thats another problem.
-
Hi Josh,
I recommend that you buy an Epson V750 scanner and use SilverFast 8 Ai Studio. It has all the tools you will likely need for what you want to do. It is possible however that for some aspects of image repair you may need to open the images in Photoshop, because no scanning software can handle every challenge optimally.
-
Josh,
I should add a couple of points:
Yes - wherever you have the original negatives, it is best to scan those rather than the prints. Resolution and tonality will be much better. If the negatives are 35mm, while the Epson 750 will handle them decently, you would get superior sharpness from a high quality dedicated film scanner, which is hard to find these days. In the new scanner market, a Plustek 8200 is good; in the resale market you won't do better than a Nikon 5000, but it will cost you.
SilverFast has a batch scanning capability useful for frames generated in an Epson V750.
Re workflow, SilverFast has both a guided workflow pilot which takes you through the process in a logical sequence, but you can also use it in an unguided manual mode, where some additional features are available. Between the two you'll be OK.
There are image preparation functions (dimensioning, resolution, file format, bit depth, for colour materials white balancing) you should do in the scanner software and others (luminosity and colour) where editing functions are optional as between the scanner software and another application such as Lightroom or Photoshop. They have different relative advantages and more can be said about this than I can stuff in a forum post, but some experimentation will get you a long way to sorting out your preferences.
-
Mark,
Thanks for the recommendation on the scanner and Silverfast. Greatly appreciated.
What would you say the learning curve is on Silverfast?
Ideally, I'd love to keep the scan process relatively simply and straightforward and get the file into LR for meta data managing the long term archiving. I don't envisage doing much work in PS if I can avoid it.
-
Josh,
Using SilverFast 8 should not present too much of a challenge as you are experienced with image editing software. Starting with the "WorkflowPilot" mode will be helpful. As well there are context help notes within the application and links to small movies on particular features made by LaserSoft Imaging. Bringing scans into Lightroom is practical (in fact I described a means of doing so in a previous article on this website, which remains relevant save for some changes of detail due to newer versions of both programs). I would advise you to do the white-balance or gray-balance in SilverFast using their "Neutral Pipette" tool, which allows the setting of up to four points per image, before bringing the image into Lightroom. There are technical reasons for this relating to the advantage particularly with scanned media of being able to average several estimates of what should be gray. I do much of my editing work in Lightroom too, but the reason I mentioned Photoshop is that it has specialized features that can be very helpful for difficult repair work that some ancient media can require and are better done in PS than in either SF or LR. My overall philosophy in these matters is to use the tool that best suits the specific requirements of the image.
-
Hi,
I have used Silverfast and hated it. Not because of the user interface but because of the bugs. It's quite possible that the bugs have been ironed out in the meantime. The user interface on Silverfast is a bit odd but not to horrible. I mostly use Vuescan, and it is a decent option. If you can get your scanner with Silverfast at a decent price it is certainly worth trying.
Best regards
Erik
Mark,
Thanks for the recommendation on the scanner and Silverfast. Greatly appreciated.
What would you say the learning curve is on Silverfast?
Ideally, I'd love to keep the scan process relatively simply and straightforward and get the file into LR for meta data managing the long term archiving. I don't envisage doing much work in PS if I can avoid it.
-
Hi,
I have used Silverfast and hated it. Not because of the user interface but because of the bugs. It's quite possible that the bugs have been ironed out in the meantime. The user interface on Silverfast is a bit odd but not to horrible. I mostly use Vuescan, and it is a decent option. If you can get your scanner with Silverfast at a decent price it is certainly worth trying.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, what version of SilverFast are you talking about, for which scanner, and what bugs?
-
I suggest that before you (OP) start your project, read Ctein's book "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish: How to repair old and damaged photographs".
It will answer to questions and problems that you are not aware of (now). At least this happened to me...
-
I suggest that before you (OP) start your project, read Ctein's book "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish: How to repair old and damaged photographs".
It will answer to questions and problems that you are not aware of (now). At least this happened to me...
Thank you for the recommendation on Ctein's book. I was not aware of it and just purchased a copy. (I love the way Amazon lets you preview pages) ;D
-
Josh,
I have been restoring old prints for over a decade now. For scanning film or slides I prefer a dedicated film scanner (Canon FS4000, Nikon LS9000) and Vuescan to drive it. I have not scanned trannys with a flatbed so I can't comment on the results obtained from those.
As for scanning prints I believe most current "half decent" scanners are up to the task. Some prefer to shoot them on a copy table, I haven't tried that. The biggest problem you will likely see when scanning old prints is how many scratched and defects are picked up by the scanner's light source. Add to this dust spots and finger prints and you have your work cut out for you. Ctein's book has some innovative ways of dealing with some of these, Katrine Eismann's Restoration and Retouching book is also excellent in this regard.
If you are using CS5 the Content Aware feature can be a real time saver in ridding the scanned print of many of it's defects. By selecting small areas and using Content Aware Fill, which samples from adjacent areas, you can quickly clean up many of the damaged parts that used to take (me) much more time to either clone heal out.
After all he damage is repaired you will have to deal with contrast/density and color problems as well as some sharpening (I use PK Sharpener). allow yourself time to work on these and the results will speak for themselves. Older prints may exhibit bronzing which can be eliminated but not without some experimentation (hint: all files have 10 channels).
Dave
-
Hi Josh,
SilverFast Ai Studio has an excellent infrared-based technology supported by the Epson scanner I recommended, as well as good film scanners, for identifying and removing dust, scratches and other miscellaneous defects from colour positives and colour negatives without impairing image detail. It is called iSRD; it can be operated with more precision and adaptability than either Digital ICE or a somewhat similar tool in Vuescan. Infrared technology is not usable for scanning reflective media such as prints. For that, SilverFast has a dedicated non-infrared tool in the same panel, the main difference being that the detection function is manual rather than automated by the technology. Used carefully, it still saves a hell of a lot of time, with less potential risk to the image, than removing all of this debris in Photoshop or Lightroom. When it comes to doing residual work with defects not amenable to this technique, I agree with David that Photoshop's Content Aware Fill can be an excellent resource used in the way he mentioned, and it is not available in Lightroom.
-
Hi,
I had my experience with a Reflecta Digit Dia 3600 scanner, it came with a version of Silverfast. The problem I had was mostly that it gave inconsistent color, it was different on Firewire and USB and different if I was logged in as a common user or as administrator, and it could change color from day to day. The problem was mostly heavy magenta cast in the shadows. I used the scanner with Vuescan instead and got consistent performance.
Previous Christmas I bought an Optic Film scanner for my dad (he is 82). That scanner was delivered with Silverfast. I think it actually worked but the user interface was a bit to arcane for my dad. My dad used Vuescan before, so we decided to continue with that.
I guess that I shouldn't have commented on bugs, as I don't have a recent experience.
I was not satisfied with the Digitdia, BTW.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. The Digitidia looked like this: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/reflecta-digitdia-3600-film-scanner-review-4375 scan quality was not very impressive and jams were quite frequent.
Hi Erik, what version of SilverFast are you talking about, for which scanner, and what bugs?
-
I will second the recommendation for the Epson v750. though you can save some money by stepping down to the v700, which should be more than adequate for your purposes (I got a refurb v700 for Epson for around $430). The Epson s/w bundled with the printer is very full featured and should do you fine. The v700 also come bundled with a lite version of Silverfast, but I am one of those people who just did not take to it at all, and have found the Epson s/w does what I want it to do obviating the need to deal with the very steep learning curve for Silverfast.
If you are archiving family snapshot type stuff you will not need a dedicated film scanner for negs or transparencies, IMO. The Epson does a remarkably good job, and you will not need to eke out that last marginal bit of detail a dedicated scanner might give you (speaking from personal comparisons of the v700 with the Coolscan VI and V).
Since scanning done right is very time consuming, you could consider a service such as ScanCafe, which offers a print scanning service unless you want to spend many many (to me) boring hours with the scanner.
I have a similiar project waiting for me to have time to tackle it....that's probably years away at this point. Good luck and enjoy.
-
Epson Scan is limited compared with SilverFast. It's useful for elementary tasks like making photocopies and creating PDF documents. I wouldn't use it for serious photographic work, but I do use it for routine office stuff. SilverFast 8 does not have a "steep" learning curve; but like any software it does have a learning curve. It's design is much improved over SilverFast 6 as a result of which the application has become much more accessible. There are some non-trivial differences between the Epson 750 and 700. Read the product descriptions carefully, then make up your mind what is best for you.
-
Epson Scan is limited compared with SilverFast. It's useful for elementary tasks like making photocopies and creating PDF documents. I wouldn't use it for serious photographic work, but I do use it for routine office stuff.
Mark, there is serious photographic work and serious photographic work, I guess. Epson Scan has levels, curves, channels and color balance adjustments (among others), so the app obviously has a pretty complete feature set. The implication in your statement that it's "useful for elementary tasks" is simply wrong, just to set the record straight.
-
OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit - sure, Epson Scan has some basic adjustment tools. That said, I've used all these applications a lot and have learned that the devil is in the detail of what they do and how one can manipulate them, rather than simply the list of tools they include. It's all relative both between applications and between the applications and what one wants of them in terms of operational factors and results. The fulsomeness of duplicated tools and the toolset itself differs between applications. There's a reason why Epson has been bundling both Epson Scan and SilverFast Ai with the V750 scanner.
-
There's a reason why Epson has been bundling both Epson Scan and SilverFast Ai with the V750 scanner.
One of these days I really have to bite the bullet, grab the tutorials and work my way through SilverFast to get a handle on it.....
-
Lots of good ideas here so far so I'll add one simple step that has saved me lots of time with old color scans of photos that have faded or shifted colors. I'm referring to the auto color correction in Photoshop: Image/Autocolor. I've found it to be amazing in cases where I had lots of decently scanned old photos. It works for me 90% of the time with no further color tinkering although in some cases the autocolor will get you very close to where you want to be, needing just a few other adjustments.
I think the dust and crud removal is by far the most time consuming chore, especially when making enlargements. I don't like using any auto filters for dust as it often degrades the image in important areas like face detail that then requires even more work.
-
One of these days I really have to bite the bullet, grab the tutorials and work my way through SilverFast to get a handle on it.....
I recommend you do this with the new version 8 - much better interface than ever before.
-
Lots of good ideas here so far so I'll add one simple step that has saved me lots of time with old color scans of photos that have faded or shifted colors. I'm referring to the auto color correction in Photoshop: Image/Autocolor. I've found it to be amazing in cases where I had lots of decently scanned old photos. It works for me 90% of the time with no further color tinkering although in some cases the autocolor will get you very close to where you want to be, needing just a few other adjustments.
I think the dust and crud removal is by far the most time consuming chore, especially when making enlargements. I don't like using any auto filters for dust as it often degrades the image in important areas like face detail that then requires even more work.
There are several tools for restoring colour and achieving colour balance non-destructively in SilverFast HDR. SilverFast Ai and HDR both handle dust and scratch removal in a jiffy (preserving image detail integrity) with the iSRD tool on colour slides and negatives, but not for black and white negatives and reflective media. For the media on which iSRD works I wouldn't waste my time using anything else, save for the odd bit it may miss.
-
This thread has been extremely useful and helpful. I have taken all of the advice and thoughts on board and have decided to go with the Epson 750V scanner and Silverfast 8. This combination seems to be very powerful, flexible and not overtly expensive. I will make a point to spend a bit of time getting up to speed with the software before I start the scanning process 'for the real archives'. I don't envisage starting this project before January anyway - so that gives me some time to organise and get up to speed with the software.
A bigger headache is going to be sorting out the meta-data.. for that I need to sit with the 'ol relatives' and see just how good their memories really are ;D
Appreciate all the input - thank you :)
-
Take a recorder with you. Maybe there is one that takes SD cards ?
Frank
-
Take a recorder with you. Maybe there is one that takes SD cards ?
Frank
I heartily second this suggestion, one of my biggest regrets is that I didn't sit down with my parents and a recorder and go through the photos before they passed away. There are a whole lot of mystery pictures that mean nothing to us now.
Use an SD card recorder that records in standard WAV format, which will make it easy to manage your files and, if you want, to create audio tags to associate with photos. The Zoom H2 is a pretty inexpensive but very good quality recorder ($125 from B&H). Stay away from the personal dictating recorders which may use a proprietary recording format.
-
I heartily second this suggestion, one of my biggest regrets is that I didn't sit down with my parents and a recorder and go through the photos before they passed away. There are a whole lot of mystery pictures that mean nothing to us now.
Use an SD card recorder that records in standard WAV format, which will make it easy to manage your files and, if you want, to create audio tags to associate with photos. The Zoom H2 is a pretty inexpensive but very good quality recorder ($125 from B&H). Stay away from the personal dictating recorders which may use a proprietary recording format.
I was about to make this very suggestion. The Zoom H2 is very good, small, and just the right gadget for this kind of data collection.
Eric
-
Josh, since you’ve already decided on a scanner, perhaps I’m too late with a suggestion, but maybe not.
I know that you’re a talented photographer and already own high quality pro photo equipment. Have you considered using your digital camera with a macro lens? I don’t know what photo equipment you use, but as an example consider:
1. Is the lens in the Epson v750 likely to be as good as a Canon EF 100 Macro?
2. Is the CCD in the Epson likely to be as good as the CMOS sensor in the Canon 5D MKII?
3. Is Silverfast likely to be as good as Lightroom, ACR or Photoshop?
One area where scanner software seems superior in my experience is converting a negative to a positive and removing the orange color cast. If you have few negatives, however, that may not be much of a concern. You could always hire someone to scan a few negatives.
You may prefer a scanner, but since you already own high quality photo gear, you might want to try using it before buying a scanner.
-
Dean has a point. You could go this route, but it does mean first creating a few set-ups that will work reliably for the different media (colour transparencies, colour prints and black and white prints of differing finishes), including the copy stand arrangement, optimized, even lighting set-up for the various media and surfaces, exposure etc. If you do this, of course you would not need a scanning application, and you would probably be creating presets in the Lens Disortion panel to correct for that. The well-equipped photographers I'm familiar with use scanners for digitizing analog media, as do the various scanning services that I know about. But absolutely no harm experimenting before committing to new equipment.
-
Slides are easy to do and Nikon do make a slide holder that can be mounted on a macro lens (don't know about Canon). However, if you have a DX camera, you need to put some extension tubes on to make sure you don't crop the slide. See this weblink (http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html). I suspect with some practice one you got this set up, slides could be copied faster this way than via a scanner. It might be possible to jury-rig a negative holder that might work but that would require more work.
-
Josh, you may find these old posts interesting.
Can't help with the Minolta part, but here is a B&W negative (Ilford HP5+ developed in Rodinal) that I shot on a Hasselblad XPan (24x65mm) and then photographed the negative with a Canon 5DMkII/100mm macro:
Entire image:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5276023314_f4ece52fce_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/5276023314/)
A small crop from the negative:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5277096337_c6b43487d8_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/5277096337/)
As you can see, with the dSLR, you can focus down to the grain of the film. I don't know about the Minolta scanner, but you sure can't so that on an Epson flatbed. The Epson will give oyu something that kind of looks like grain, but it isn't - it's just noise.
I have the Epson V750, which comes with Silverfast AI in addition to the EpsonScan software, and the glass tray for wet scanning. I also purchased the VueScan software. And the wet scanning kit from Aztek. I have been wrestling with this stuff for a few months now, trying this that and the other, experimenting with assorted film holders, etc.
*NOTE: If you are one of those people that manages to get 36 keepers on a roll of film, stop reading now. You probably shouldn't be using a flatbed scanner anyways. But if you're like me and most other people and you have a couple of shots on each roll that you love and the rest is just dreck, keep reading. Here are my conclusions. YRMV, depending on how much patience you have.
Here's what the Epson is really good at: batch scanning at 1200 dpi quickly so that you can evaluate your images and pick out the couple of gems. This is best accomplished by using Epson's software in full auto mode, and with Digital ICE turned OFF so keep things moving along quickly. If you establish good dust control habits, a couple of clicks with the clone stamp in your favorite photo editor for stray dust is all you'll need to produce scans that are perfectly acceptable for e-mailing and posting on the web.
Silverfast. What can I say about Silverfast. If you're the type of person who enjoys activities such as pushing water uphill with a fork, Silverfast was absolutely made for you. However, if you have a life outside of film scanning, Silverfast just seems like a really bad joke. It's klunky, slow, and the UI is terrible. And unfortunately, it does not have any magical powers that will turn your Epson flatbed into a Nikon Coolscan. If you want to try it, go ahead. But just remember these four little words: I TOLD YOU SO.
VueScan is a little less user-unfriendly than Silverfast, and I admit I have managed some pretty nice B&W scans after considerable effort. But then again, I have managed some pretty decent scans using the Epson software with very little effort. VueScan is DEFINITELY faster than Silverfast when scanning at the same resolution.
So, after batch scanning and picking out my couple of gems, what do I do?
I take my picks and put them in a negative carrier from an old Beseler enlarger, and set it on top of a lightbox. Then I photograph my negative with my Canon 5DMkII and 100mm macro lens, and import the file into Lightroom. For slide films, I make any adjustments needed in Lightroom. For B&W negatives, I desaturate and take care of any stray dust spots in Lightroom, then send it to Photoshop for inversion, levels and curves adjustments. The quality level of the final result is just so far ahead of what the Epson can do, it's not even funny. I haven't really been doing this with color negatives, mainly because for whatever reason, I never seem to take any really worthwhile pictures with C41 film. But I have a Photoshop plug-in called ColorPerfect that will take care of the inversion & correction for the orange mask, and has a bunch of assorted film profiles. It seems to work just fine, but I haven't really put much time into evaluating it.
The Epson flatbeds are good scanners if you have reasonable expectations. They are versatile and a good value for the money. But they do have their limits.
-
All the comments about SilverFast are dated because the software released last month has been redeveloped from the bottom up and the GUI vastly improved. You won't need a PhD in rocket science to use it successfully. It will scan images as quickly as you scanner, resolution and multi-exposure settings allow. It's preview system is smart and rapid if used properly. The use of iSRD for dust and scratch removal requires one scan for capturing the infrared channel, and it's infinitely faster than any other means of removing crud, dust and scratches from transparent colour media without impairing image detail.
The Epson V750 will deliver very satisfactory image quality from reflective media and medium format transparent media. Depending on the stringency of your requirements, it will deliver adequate sharpness from 35mm media, but not as crisp as that from a Nikon 5000 dedicated film scanner which is no longer manufactured and can cost in the range of USD 2500-3000 on the resale market. The Epson V750+SilverFast 8 is a good choice for someone who wants the combination of decent image quality, productivity and all-round flexibility with batch scanning capability for both reflective and transparent media. Yes, you may well get crisper finer detail using a very well calibrated DSLR set-up, but I remind that you'll need to pay close attention to the lighting, alignment, lens distortions, with set-ups differing depending on the media; as well, depending on what scanner is being compared with what camera, native scanning resolution may well be higher than that from a DSLR. As usual, it's really not either/or. There are compromises in all of this, and any of these techniques and approaches can be suitable depending on the user's needs and objectives. Professional photographers with excellent digital cameras also use scanners. However as I said above, no harm testing a camera-based approach to see if that's for you before buying a scanner.
-
One thing that has been pointed out elsewhere is that the apparent difference in Epson v750/700 vs Coolscan scans has to do more with light source than resolution, akin to the difference between prints from the same negative made with a cold light enlarger and a condenser enlarger.
BTW, one advantage to the camera method is that (once you have your setup dialed in) it is FAST. The downside is that you have to be meticulous with the setup vis a vis alignment. For transparencies, I like using a TTL flash on an extension cord for the lightbox illumination myself, since that takes camera movement out of the equation. For prints, I think fact that the scanner removes lighting and flatness issues make that the preferable solution -- the scanner's resolving power is not an issue when it comes to digitizing prints. But to each his own.
-
Also, last i saw there were differences in optical resolving capability between the two as well. Something in the low to mid 2k ppi for the Epson 750 and around the mid 3k ppi for the cs5000. The other apparent difference seemed to be the dof available. In the Nikon it was very limited compared to the Epson flat bed. And, as you mention, the light sources were different as well - LED for the Nikon and CCFL for the Epson.
Frank
-
One thing that has been pointed out elsewhere is that the apparent difference in Epson v750/700 vs Coolscan scans has to do more with light source than resolution, akin to the difference between prints from the same negative made with a cold light enlarger and a condenser enlarger.
BTW, one advantage to the camera method is that (once you have your setup dialed in) it is FAST. The downside is that you have to be meticulous with the setup vis a vis alignment. For transparencies, I like using a TTL flash on an extension cord for the lightbox illumination myself, since that takes camera movement out of the equation. For prints, I think fact that the scanner removes lighting and flatness issues make that the preferable solution -- the scanner's resolving power is not an issue when it comes to digitizing prints. But to each his own.
The resolving power - for clarity I define as the PPI the scanner can deliver at its optical resolution - is relevant to the size of print one wants to make from the scanned file at a decent inkjet print resolution. The perceived sharpness and detail of a scanned print is of course limited by the sharpness and detail of the original media being scanned, which in the realm of family photos developed by photo-finishing services is usually below what we have been accustomed to in the digital era.
-
Also, last i saw there were differences in optical resolving capability between the two as well. Something in the low to mid 2k ppi for the Epson 750 and around the mid 3k ppi for the cs5000. The other apparent difference seemed to be the dof available. In the Nikon it was very limited compared to the Epson flat bed. And, as you mention, the light sources were different as well - LED for the Nikon and CCFL for the Epson.
Frank
Frank - when you speak of optical resolving capability, are you talking about the observed resolution as measured with a bespoke target, for example the USAF 1951, or the manufacturers' stated optical resolution of the device?
-
Get the V750 - you won't be disappointed. I recently tested a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and compared the scans to the V750, blog post with samples here:
http://www.timothygrayphoto.com/2011/09/hasselblad-x5-vs-epson-v750-comparison/ (http://www.timothygrayphoto.com/2011/09/hasselblad-x5-vs-epson-v750-comparison/)
FWIW, I've produced, exhibited and sold 20"x24" archival pigment prints from 6x7 slide film (RVP50) scanned with the V750.
Just be sure to invest in IT8 targets and properly calibrate the scanner. I use the built-in profiling feature of Silverfast in conjunction with their IT8 targets for both Kodak and Fuji.
-
Get the V750 - you won't be disappointed. I recently tested a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and compared the scans to the V750, blog post with samples here:
http://www.timothygrayphoto.com/2011/09/hasselblad-x5-vs-epson-v750-comparison/ (http://www.timothygrayphoto.com/2011/09/hasselblad-x5-vs-epson-v750-comparison/)
FWIW, I've produced, exhibited and sold 20"x24" archival pigment prints from 6x7 slide film (RVP50) scanned with the V750.
Just be sure to invest in IT8 targets and properly calibrate the scanner. I use the built-in profiling feature of Silverfast in conjunction with their IT8 targets for both Kodak and Fuji.
Timothy - yes, your results confirm testing I've done and had done using USAF targets for a number of scanners including the Hasselblad. As well, I have made 13*19 inch prints from 35mm transparent media scanned in my Epson V750 (one of the four scanner models I own - the other three being dedicated film scanners) - while they need a bit more sharpening than the same slide scanned in a Nikon 5000 SC, the outcome was very acceptable and likewise for other stuff I've tested - for professional purposes. As Josh will also be scanning prints, unless he wants to try setting up a camera-based workflow, or spend a big chunk of money on a film scanner and a flatbed, the Epson V750 is a very practical all-round solution, why I recommended it.
-
Mark, when did anyone trust the marketing department of scanner manufacturers ? ;D
My old web links to some of the tests are dead, but what i found here is consistent with what i remember - and yes, the old USAF target
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan5000ED.html
regards,
Frank
-
Yes, that is a very good resource on scanning and scanners.
-
unless he wants to try setting up a camera-based workflow, or spend a big chunk of money on a film scanner and a flatbed, the Epson V750 is a very practical all-round solution, why I recommended it.
Nup - I dont fancy a camera based workflow. The collection is a real mixed bag of prints, negatives and a few trannies to throw into the mix. I don't need the ultimate in image quality for each image; just a good clean result. And since this is a family project I want to keep my workflow simple and my costs low. The Epson V750 with Silverfast 8 will do for me I think.