Scanning

[zganie]

I see a lot of people here having trouble with there photos.The thing is your Scanner is like a copy camera.Originally when restoring photos they used a camera instead of a scanner which was specifically set up to do copywork,now Scanners are used.SO whats the point you ask? Learn how to use your Scanner,its not just push the button and we do the rest deal,its like taking a photo you have to capture the detail.Without that your causing yourself a lot of grief.
what say you
zganie

[esac]

Your post is wonderful, however its like saying 'hey lets solve world hunger'. Without telling anyone HOW to do so, we are all just going to sit around in our PJs and feel bad that there are hungry people in the world while we munch on our sausage egg and cheese mcmuffin ... mmmmmmmmmmm

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by esac

Your post is wonderful, however its like saying 'hey lets solve world hunger'. Without telling anyone HOW to do so, we are all just going to sit around in our PJs and feel bad that there are hungry people in the world while we munch on our sausage egg and cheese mcmuffin ... mmmmmmmmmmm

Excellent challenge Zganie & Esac,

O.K., here's a start. (For sure there's more on retouchpro if one searches!)

There is not much fine resolution in most modern prints. An antique print might, paradoxically be better as some of them were hand made platinum prints with the highest technic.

For restoration of a damaged photograph, 600 dpi on a $300-600 flatbed scanner is probably all that's needed. One could use Vuescan and scan for highlights and shadows and then combine.

Just as well, one can take stack the picture flat on a non wall in a non colored room and wearing non colored clothes, use one's digital camera on a tripod to take a picture. Here one can easily bracket or even take the picture in sections and stitch if the picture is to large for a scanner.

Film, however, should be scanned at a higher resolution. The smaller the film is, the more there is need for a better scanner. The figures of 48 BIT A/D convertors and Optical Densities of 4.0 are nonsense for anything below $5,000. However one can get 2.4-3.4 quite readily spending $150 to $700 on an Epson scanner.

One issue is that the stepping motors are not so perfect and the mirror system induces artifacts so the idealized marketing promises are not reached. Nevertheless, an Epson 700/750 Pro scanner, with the a liquid mount, can achieve remarkable results.

For higher end work buy and Imacon or send the particular precious film for a high resolution drum scan to a professional lab. The cost is really trivial for a high end job that is beyond the Epson scanner. The Microtek M1 although great is perhaps not yet a reliable and known to beat out the Epson.

Asher

[esac]

I'll try the suggestion of VueScan, highlights and shadows and combining. However your post really is "spend more money". I researched and begged my wife for an epson perfection v700, however $500 for a scanner just wasn't going to fly. So I settled on the HP G4050 as it generally received good reviews from users and reviewers alike.

Why 600dpi? Everywhere I read tells me that unless I am going to blow the size of the picture up to poster size, 300 or even 200dpi is all that is needed. I will try a 300 vs 600 and see if my restoration in photoshop comes out better out of curiosity.

Any other tips using the POSS (piece of shit scanner) that I currently have?

[esac]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Excellent challenge Zganie & Esac,


Film, however, should be scanned at a higher resolution. The smaller the film is, the more there is need for a better scanner. The figures of 48 BIT A/D convertors and Optical Densities of 4.0 are nonsense for anything below $5,000. However one can get 2.4-3.4 quite readily spending $150 to $700 on an Epson scanner.

Asher

What do you mean by "scanned at a higher resolution". Does dpi/ppi = higher resolution?

[esac]

I tried vuescan and I see no options for 'scanning highlights' or 'scanning shadows'. Where would I find this at ?

[pixelzombie]

unless you are scanning for a film recorder, 600 PPI is overkill...

[Asher Kelman]

Zganie,

You don't need to spend a lot of money but you do get better results if you can spend a tad more. I suggested a sscanner the price range is $150-$700. Actually you could even could be O.K. with a $70 scanner used well. If you do 5 scans and stack them in various software, you can get rid of noise. Vuesscan will allow you to do that I believe. When I gave the figure of 600 dpi, this is the generally accepted upper limit of possible information on a fantastic print that could be collected. I said this so that you would not be seduced by print scanners claiming high resolution capability. If the scanner can do 600 dpi its great for scanning and all you need for prints or for 8x10 film. Afterwards you can spot for dirt etc then reduce the size to 300 dpi using Image Image-Size-Bicubic Sharper and dump noise on the way!

A small piece of film will need to be scanned at a higher resolution as there is far more detail there. Generally you might be working from a 35mm strip of film, which is likely smaller than the final image output you will need. In "scan tips" you'll be guided to the resolution you'll need depending on the output.

So if you have 35mm film, you may need to scan at 1200 to 3,000 dpi depending on the output you want to get. If you are going to deliver a 16x20 image to be printed at 200 dpi, you'll need to scan at roughly 16x200=3200 dpi. If however you had a 4x5 piece of film then 4x200=800dpi would be sufficient!

So if your scanner is limited, try to get a bigger peice of film if possible.

Go to the hamrick.com site and you will find all you need. The next site to have bookmarked is the relarted website http://www.scantips.com/

For example the choice of 300 dpi that others suggest is discussed here while setting black and white points is covered here .

To expand dynamic range extracting shadows and highlights you can use Vuescans multiple exposure feature discussed for example here.

How good can things get check this out http://free-du.t-com.hr/dnac/hdrfrome6.jpg

Good luck,

Asher

[palms]

Interesting and well needed post, could someone give a scanning for dummies sort of tut
I mean I use my scanner maybe once or twice a year dont really like the results i get from scanned photo's (not vintage or old ones)
Someone done a post a while ago who explained to me the need to turn the sharpenning off but as for the rest still not sure on the best way to go
As for the sort and cost mine is a all in printer one etc
Things that may be of interest are
which is the best dpi to scan at, is it the same for all images?
then what is the different between the settings (colour documents, colour photo's etc etc)

so come on can anybody make me like my scanner

Palms

[zganie]

First, Esac I did not write how to do it because if you scroll down this discussion you will see,Asher Kelman,gave an excellent sites scantips.com
also notice that there is a lot of info there to much to put here and discuss

second Asher Kelman,gave some greatips and sites thanks,I do not think you have to spend a lot of money either.

[skydog]

I have ALOT of old slides and 35mm film I would like to scan, but I have yet broken down and bought a scanner. I'd like to scan to obtain good quality photos for myself and the family - probably 8x10 max. I however am not impressed with the quality posted above: http://free-du.t-com.hr/dnac/hdrfrome6.jpg. Is this as good as it gets? I see fine vertical lines that look like the film..is this from the scan or part of the original photo? For some time I have been looking at: Nikon CoolScan VED and Epson V750. I'm willing to pay around $700 but I don't want to go much higher. Since I don't have experience with either scanner I keep debating which one would serve me the best. The Cool Scan may provide better quality. The Epson, on the other hand, could be used as a film/slide scanner as well as a regular scanner. Would I really see a difference in quality for my use? Can I expect more than the scans above or is that as good as it gets and I am expecting too much?

[One4UAll]

First, go to http://www.scantips.com. There, you'll find out why a color print scan requires no more than 300 dpi. Second, go to http://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=, which is a newsgroup discussing scanners, and where you can post your own questions. Third, realize scanning is not a simple matter, and if you're not willing to spend the time to learn to do it yourself, then take your photos/film to a local service.

[This was not aimed at skydog, but at the entire discussion. Skydog: I scanned many 35-mm slides & negs on my Epson 4870 flatbed scanner with results that satisfied me. The 4870 is an earlier model of Epson's flatbed scanners. I don't think you can go wrong in investing in the Epson V750, and you can scan an entire roll of 36-frame 35-mm film or 8 mounted slides at a time, as well as capability in scanning prints and documents.

Significantly, Epson incorporates ICE technology, which reduces/eliminates dust spots, etc., at the scan. Epson's software, EpsonScan, is easy to use; just use the "professional" mode. Unless you are sophisticated in scanning and want a variety of effects, I don't believe you need VueScan, not that I have anything against it.]

[Asher Kelman]

Zganie,

Let me add the excellent reviews at photo-i in the U.K. on relatively inexpensive but capable scanners here . The reviews refer back and compare to results with other scanners so it's useful to get a good idea. I introduced Vincent to Vuescan! Now he's a fan of the program. It's truly a very rich piece of software at a good price.

The reference to http://free-du.t-com.hr/dnac/hdrfrome6.jpg seems to use as an example a poorly exposed image to show how an image can indeed be extracted even with such a poor slide.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

First, go to http://www.scantips.com. There, you'll find out why a color print scan requires no more than 300 dpi. Second, go to http://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=, which is a newsgroup discussing scanners, and where you can post your own questions. Third, realize scanning is not a simple matter, and if you're not willing to spend the time to learn to do it yourself, then take your photos/film to a local service.

One4All,

The news group link is helpful, no it's excellent for questions!

Let me re-address this 300 dpi figure. The discussion suggest that sometimes 400 dpi might be worthwhile. If the image is perfect, then go ahead with 300 dpi. However, if there's spotting needed, then 600 dpi which is very modest and then reducing after correction is much better as it better hides any corrections.

Further for excellent fine B&W pictures and some Polaroids, there can be as more obtainable detail gathered that way. I don't have a religious attitude to 300 dpi and it's pointless to do so. After all, the scanners all have far greater optical resolution. These scanners generally have optical resolutions beyond 1200 and up to 3000 to 4000, so to fixate on the 300 pixel advice is not needed.

Zganie,

just try 300 dpi versus 600 dpi, and compare for detail. Then repair scratches and spots and reduce the 600 dpi to 300 dpi and compare again. If there's no advantage, then 300 dpi is fine for your work!

Better just read the reviews on Vincents British site. One review will suffice tune your brain to what's possible. Then you will have very few questions beyond where you get the money from and the best price!

Asher

[One4UAll]

Asher, thanks for your response and information. Re: the 300 dpi figure, you're right: it depends on what you want to do with the print's file. If it's going to be post-processed, then the more pixels, the better, but up to a point (600 dpi) as you suggest.
We're talking about a color or b/w *print*, not film.

On the other hand, with film, I scanned all my valued 35-mm, 645, and 6x6 images at the highest resolution and at 16-bit depth. Huge files. But, as you point out, I have all the info I need & I can go from there.

The other consideration is file size, which involves trade-offs, esp.re: one's system's capability. I decided, when scanning my negs & slides, that some were "family" (low res., low file size) and some were worth pursuing to print for public viewing (high res., high file size).

I suppose I'm preaching to the choir, here, but it seems to me that there are many people like me accessing this Website who want to process treasured images themselves, maybe as a hobby, maybe for profit, or a combination.

Scanning is a serious business. Do it well, or don't do it at all.

[janie]

I have been scanning old black and whites. I tried at 300, 600 & 1200. For retouching purposes in this case, the 300 works fine. I didn't see a huge difference between the three, more vivid at 1200. I used 600 for pictures that had more damage, as they were then easier to work with in PS.

Since I'm not a professional, I just use an HP printer/scanner.