GeneW
Mentor
As part of my ongoing commitment to film (despite enjoying my digital cams) I purchased yesterday a Konica Minolta Scan Elite 5400 scanner. This is my third-generation scanner, my first being a Canon CanoScan 2710, then a Minolta Scan Elite II, and now the 5400. In each case I've sold my existing scanner to a friend when upgrading.
I also use an Epson 2450 flatbed for scanning prints and medium format.
I'm seeing a difference in the scans made with the 5400 even when I scale down to web size 8-bit jpgs. It's like moving to a better optic on the camera. I see more detail and clarity.
Thought I'd pass along my experience for anyone interested in a serious scanner that does a great job with traditional B&W film such as Tri-X or HP5. I haven't run any colour through it yet but I expect it to be a very good col scanner as well.
Here are two scans, the first from my Scan Elite II and the second from my 5400. Both reduced to 72dpi and 680 pixels on the long edge. The second scan is slightly more cropped. The shot is from a Leica CL with 40mm cron.
Scan Elite II:
Scan Elite 5400:
The image is heavily backlit but I can see sharper grain and detail in the second.
BTW, at full resolution it produces an image that can make a 16x20" digital print at 300dpi with NO upsizing interpolation. I'm a happy camper. Now I need a bigger HD for my computer
Gene
I also use an Epson 2450 flatbed for scanning prints and medium format.
I'm seeing a difference in the scans made with the 5400 even when I scale down to web size 8-bit jpgs. It's like moving to a better optic on the camera. I see more detail and clarity.
Thought I'd pass along my experience for anyone interested in a serious scanner that does a great job with traditional B&W film such as Tri-X or HP5. I haven't run any colour through it yet but I expect it to be a very good col scanner as well.
Here are two scans, the first from my Scan Elite II and the second from my 5400. Both reduced to 72dpi and 680 pixels on the long edge. The second scan is slightly more cropped. The shot is from a Leica CL with 40mm cron.
Scan Elite II:
Scan Elite 5400:
The image is heavily backlit but I can see sharper grain and detail in the second.
BTW, at full resolution it produces an image that can make a 16x20" digital print at 300dpi with NO upsizing interpolation. I'm a happy camper. Now I need a bigger HD for my computer
Gene
The second image appears to be much sharper. look at the fabric wrapped on the wall behind the subject. You can see a stiching pattern of some kind not visible in the other.
By the way, I just purchased the multi scan pro and am just starting to play wit it.
By the way, I just purchased the multi scan pro and am just starting to play wit it.
GeneW
Mentor
Is that the one that can do 35mm and MF? Sounds like a great scanner. Let us know what you think of it. I'd love to have a MF film scanner for my Rollei TLR, but I'll get by with the Epson 2450 for now.Jorge Torralba said:
Gene
Gene, the second scan does look noticeably better! But it also has lost detail in the bright areas outside in the background.
GeneW
Mentor
Doug, you're quite right. I didn't attempt to make them exactly the same. I decided I wanted a contrastier image and was willing to sacrifice the outside areas, which didn't add much anyway.Doug said:
Gene
I have been using the Epson 3170 for scanning in my Negatives. IAt 3200DPI and 16bit resolution it does a decent job. I like being able to set up strips of negatives to "batch Scan" in. It does up to 12 negatives, each scanned and sent to Photoshop as an individual file. For $170, it does a good job on color. For B&W, the RGB mask "noise" is readily visible.
My OLD Microtek 1850 (1990) uses a filter wheel to make three passes for color; and does not use a mask for B&W. It is SLOW but does a great job on monochrome. I had to trick Windows 95 into using it; Microtek states that it will absolutely not work on Windows 95 and above. HA!
My OLD Microtek 1850 (1990) uses a filter wheel to make three passes for color; and does not use a mask for B&W. It is SLOW but does a great job on monochrome. I had to trick Windows 95 into using it; Microtek states that it will absolutely not work on Windows 95 and above. HA!
Yes, it's amazing how some old scanners are still usable... I have an ancient Abaton 3-pass color 300 dpi scanner from the 80's. Its software went too obsolete for use years ago, but the Photoshop plug-in that came with it still works fine to control the scans. Does well on prints...
taffer
void
Brian Sweeney said:
I'm using the 3170 too, but paid significantly more for it :_(, not sure if for the "photo" word only... sigh. Anyway I didn't found the plain 3170 in the stores here, and oth it does a pretty good job. It's my first scanner so being able to scan prints, 35mm and up to 6x9 transparencies I really can't ask for more.
And yes, that batch scanning option is great. My only complain is when scanning MF, as sometimes there's a really annoying "line" crossing the picture, I suspect it comes from the light tubes on the transparency module.
Here is a scan from my new Minolta scanner:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/401/size/big/password//sort/1/cat/510
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/401/size/big/password//sort/1/cat/510
L
lars
Guest
Jorge, what scanner do you have? I have a Minolta Dimage Scan II and get inconsistent (sometimes horrible) results scanning bw films like HP5+ and Tri X and I don't really want to switch to a C-41 film.
Any tips?
...lars
Any tips?
...lars
M
mothra
Guest
Has anyone used the Nikon Coolscan V ED? And if so, how is it? Is it good with B&W negs?
Larry, I believe Jorge said it's the Multiscan Pro, which is what I have too. We are suffering the expensive consequences of wanting a medium format dedicated film scanner!
JohnL
Very confused
I am researching the film scanner question. I have few negs larger than 35mm, but many 35mm, also mounted slides. I am attracted to the Konica Minolta Dual IV ($300 from B&H). 3200dpi, dynamic range 4.8, lots of software, mostly their own.
Does anyone have any experience with this machine?
Thanks, John
Does anyone have any experience with this machine?
Thanks, John
GeneW
Mentor
No direct experience, John, but the Dual III and IV have had good user reviews. People who have them like them a lot. I owned a Minolta Scan Elite II which is essentially a Dual III with Digital ICE, and it was a good scanner.JohnL said:
I'd personally miss Digital ICE because you spend less time spotting after the scan (Kodachrome and trad B&W excepted). I'm now using a Konica Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and, if the difference in price is feasible for you, it's a large leap in capability over the Dual IV.
Gene
JohnL
Very confused
Thanks for feedback, Gene.
The Dual IV comes with a utility called "Dust Brush" which I suppose is intended to replace Digital ICE. No idea if it is as good, though.
While the extra cost for the Elite wouldn't actually break me, I find it hard to justify. I'm a beginner at this and if I grow into something better later, I can probably unload the used equipment here without too much loss.
John
The Dual IV comes with a utility called "Dust Brush" which I suppose is intended to replace Digital ICE. No idea if it is as good, though.
While the extra cost for the Elite wouldn't actually break me, I find it hard to justify. I'm a beginner at this and if I grow into something better later, I can probably unload the used equipment here without too much loss.
John
GeneW
Mentor
Good plan! Exactly what I did. And the Dual IV will take you a LONG way.JohnL said:
Gene
lars,
I have the minolta scan multi pro. Its an awesome unt. I just printed a 40" long picture from a scan of some fuji velvia and the results are equal to a wet print. I am truly convinced that the darkroom has met its match when it comes to medium size prints. 24 x 30, 30 x 40. And the better the scanner the better the prints.
I have the minolta scan multi pro. Its an awesome unt. I just printed a 40" long picture from a scan of some fuji velvia and the results are equal to a wet print. I am truly convinced that the darkroom has met its match when it comes to medium size prints. 24 x 30, 30 x 40. And the better the scanner the better the prints.
M
MikeinDayton
Guest
Question from a newbie: I shoot 35mm film exclusively and scan using an Epson 1660 Photo scanner with std. negative adapter. The optical resolution is 1600 dpi, and that (after some expermentation) is what I am using. Higher (extrapolated ) resolutions actually look worse when printed. At 8" by 10" the output resolution should be about 200 dpi, which I am told is fine. I am told that this scanner is not truly state of the art, and that flatbed scanners generally suck for film. 1660 dpi is clearly eclipsed by other models these days. I have been saving to jpeg format, and my files are not that large (600-800 kb) compressed. I recently saved some files in tiff format, and noted a huge file size,like 17+ mb. When printing up to 8.5" by 11" ( the max size my printer, a new Epson Photo R200, will print) the results look pretty good.
My question is this. Do I even know what I am doing? Should I be saving in jpeg format? Is there an advantage to saving in tiff (or raw)? Is this scanner effective for 35mm negatives? And most importantly, if the uncompressed imput is really up to 17 mb, am I justifed in feeling superior to the sheep of the world who have all gone out and bought digital while I play with antique Retinas, Kievs and Contaflexes??
Maybe I asked a couple questions...
My question is this. Do I even know what I am doing? Should I be saving in jpeg format? Is there an advantage to saving in tiff (or raw)? Is this scanner effective for 35mm negatives? And most importantly, if the uncompressed imput is really up to 17 mb, am I justifed in feeling superior to the sheep of the world who have all gone out and bought digital while I play with antique Retinas, Kievs and Contaflexes??
Maybe I asked a couple questions...
K
Kris
Guest
Mike,
The advantage of saving as TIFF or PSD is this:
You keep adjustment layers (colour adjustments, contrast adjustments, etc) as layers. The price you have to pay is huge file size but in case later on you realise that the photo look too bluish or too orange, you can readjust the colour balance without losing original image quality.
JPEG format is good for web display because of small (relatively) file size.
For better explanation, go to http://www.luminous-landscape.com and go to Tutorial pull down menu on the top, then select Instant Photoshop
Hope this help
The advantage of saving as TIFF or PSD is this:
You keep adjustment layers (colour adjustments, contrast adjustments, etc) as layers. The price you have to pay is huge file size but in case later on you realise that the photo look too bluish or too orange, you can readjust the colour balance without losing original image quality.
JPEG format is good for web display because of small (relatively) file size.
For better explanation, go to http://www.luminous-landscape.com and go to Tutorial pull down menu on the top, then select Instant Photoshop
Hope this help
JohnL
Very confused
1600 dpi on a 24x36mm (35mm format) negative gives you 3.3 MP, which should print fine up to about 5x7" and quite acceptably up to about 8x12" from the full frame.
If you use TIF format, you retain all the information captured by your scanner. If you use JPG files there will be some loss of color information, but you will still have the same number of pixels. Its a trade-off between color quality and file size. If the JPG files are meeting your needs, and / or if your disk space is limited, then JPG is probably the best choice, otherwise use TIF.
HTH, JohnL
If you use TIF format, you retain all the information captured by your scanner. If you use JPG files there will be some loss of color information, but you will still have the same number of pixels. Its a trade-off between color quality and file size. If the JPG files are meeting your needs, and / or if your disk space is limited, then JPG is probably the best choice, otherwise use TIF.
HTH, JohnL