daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 29, 2010 18:49:09 GMT -5
Bob, I know the Minota 5400 is fair quality. My brother bought a Nikon CoolScan (not the top of the range though) a few years back. It's scanning couldn't exactly be described as fast (though faster than a flatbed at the same dpi). The results from it are good but maybe I'm expecting too much. Perhaps only the top of the range would really satisfy me: a bit too pricey though.
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 29, 2010 20:19:38 GMT -5
Dave
The Minolta is about as much as I am/was willing to pay for a scanner and no it is not fast either. Dedicated film scanners, as opposed to flat bed scanners, are now getting to be a thing of the past. If you are considering one that is new, I believe only Nikon offers one model and that may be only what is left in the supply pipe. You really have to experiment to get the results you like and that takes time. I use an Epson flat bed for scanning medium format negs and it does an good job for my purposes.
Bob
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 30, 2010 11:15:08 GMT -5
I use a fairly old Epson Perfection 2450 flatbed. I tried Vuescan but didn't get such good results as with Epson's Twain 5 scanning straight into Photoshop CS3. I don't care for the Fully Auto setting on Twain 5, I prefer to select manual control. With regard to scanner depth of field I put an old AA key straight on the glass, put a sheet of white card over it and scanned it as a colour photo at 900 dpi. For putting it in Photobucket, and into here, I changed it to 72 dpi by 600 pixels wide. I've got no argument with the definition, nor with the depth of field. PeterW
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2010 17:08:39 GMT -5
I do find the Epson software much better than that which HP send out - at least that with the Scanjet G4050. I have just come across a folder with negatives from several films taken in the late 1990s. One film (mainly in the English Lake District) has half a dozen frames at the end which are almost monochrome. The Scanjet reads them as being B&W. I can't find any way to stop it doing this. I shall have to try re-scanning on the older Epson (?model number). I have re-scanned the film in the Scanjet using Vuescan and the result is perfection. The Scanjet has a full bed negative capability. It does let you scan five strips of negatives (up to six frames on each) in one sitting. So it is possible to load, scan aand then do something else for half an hour, rather than having to return to the coalface every few minutes. Peter, I have been able to scan things like your AA key, and they look very good. However have a look at these, scanned from a 10x8 photo (which I printed towards the end of 1973, or early 74). The enlargement was on stippled paper. First photo resized to about 400x518 pixels. second photo, detail 600x785 pixels third photo, enlarged detail 458x500pixels, showing the stippling In certain sizes the scanned photo has the appearance of being grainy: but I think most of that appearance is the stippling. I certainly don't know of a simple way of removing that stippled appearance.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 31, 2010 8:51:43 GMT -5
Hi Dave, First, lovely picture of a happy baby! I don't know of a scanning treatment that will get rid of the effect of stippled paper. Wish I did because ocasionally friends of the family ask me to copy and "repair" an old photo that has become damaged. Sometimes the photo is on stippled paper. The only method I know for treating it in a scanned copy is to use a combination of Gaussian blur and Unsharp Mask. With portraits, I think the eyes are all-important, so what I've done in the past is to pull up the image size on screen then, working on separate layers, isolate the eyes by picking out each eye with the pen tool and making a path selection. The stipple effect inside each eye was taken out using the clone tool. Then, selecting the original background layer I used Gaussian blur to merge the edges of the stipple effect. Finally I used Merge Visibles and then Flatten Image to combine the layers. It can be quite a longish job so I did it quickly (and without too much care) on only one one eye in the second of your baby pictures. With the whole picture printed at 10x8 inches the face will be smaller than this, and the "handwork" less likely to show. With a bit more care and fiddling I 've no doubt what I've done could be improved. What do you think? PeterW
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 31, 2010 10:47:01 GMT -5
Peter, what do I think? I'll send you the full scan and you can send me back the finished article! I've spent ages on some photos doing that sort of thing: if it's only the occasional photo it's not too bad.
I have several 10x8 enlargements, and umpteen (Patterson) index prints from that period of the early to mid '70s. If I still had the negatives it would be straightforward.
I do think photographic copying, with angled lighting, gives a better result than scanning as less glare is bounced back to the lens than there is with the scanner.
As you say, in most photos of people the eyes have it: if the eyes are sharp much of what goes on elsewhere is not noticed.
There is, of course the possibility of cloning (particularly) eyes from another photograph. (If I can find the files I'll post the before and after of cloned eyes on a wedding day photo - something done much easier with photoshop, than by old fashioned means.)
It is always interesting to see and hear the thoughts of others. Thanks for wasting some of your time on it.
Dave.
|
|