# How to scan slides



## RGF (Jul 25, 2016)

I have a Mac Pro with thunderbolt and USB (though I can add adapter cable to attach a firewire device) and a Nikon 4000 scanner.

Any suggestions on how to scan slides (besides send them out)?]

Thanks


----------



## dcm (Jul 25, 2016)

RGF said:


> I have a Mac Pro with thunderbolt and USB (though I can add adapter cable to attach a firewire device) and a Nikon 4000 scanner.
> 
> Any suggestions on how to scan slides (besides send them out)?]
> 
> Thanks



Sounds like you've got the hardware other than the adapter. Are you looking for software or process suggestions? Are you scanning for online use or do you need something with higher quality - basically how do you intend to use the result?

I've scanned slides dating from 1950s to 1990s on an Epson v750 flatbed using VueScan on a Mac mini. The VueScan/v750 combo support infrared (ICE), fading (ROC) and grain (GEM) corrections similar to your setup. I recently finished 500 slides from the 50's. Don't have any specific experience with the 4000. It might have been nice to use for my 35mm scanning, but I was also scanning a lot of 120 and MF film which the 4000 doesn't handle. 

Get familiar with your equipment first and work on the process for your target result - it took a while to dial it in for me. I picked some samples (good and bad), scanned and post processed them several times to get started. I varied the scanning settings to observe the effect on post processing to minimize the amount of post processing required. For the Nikon you would want to observe the effect of ICE, GEM, and ROC. You might also want to experiment with the resolution to see what works best - 4000ppi, downsampled to 2000ppi or 1000ppi, versus 2000ppi, downsampled to 1000ppi, versus 1000ppi. Biggest bottleneck is likely the Firewire link so scanning at twice the resolution may take 4 times longer to transfer and much larger files with little improvement in the final result. You may may need to re-calibrate your settings/process for groups of slides from different periods. 

I was going for primarily online usage so I scanned at 1600ppi RAW, post processed, and resampled to 800ppi JPG for the final result. This lets me get a good initial image for all of the slides. I still have the 1600 dpi RAW or I can go back later to rescan any stellar images at 3200ppi and resample to 1600ppi for HD images.


----------



## RGF (Jul 26, 2016)

Thanks . I will install vuescan after my new thunderbolt to firewire adapter arrives.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 26, 2016)

Some good comments there from dcm. I bought a Epson 750 myself, more for the ability to scan multiple slides - everything I read suggested that scanning a lot of slides one at a time can be soul-destroying and I decided to send out the few I would want to make a better job of. 
I don't think the 400 has autofocus so I don; tknow if dcm has any suggestions how to allow for different mount thicknesses or the odd bowed slide.

I would give serious thought to rigging up a lightox and photographing them. One very detailed review I read back in about 2007 showed very similar results between photographing and a Nikon scanner and since cameras have moved on a lot since then the gap may well be negligible. I am finding the same sort of thing with the Epson and given most of my slides were taken with consumer 1990s lenses it reduces the chance of seeing a difference.


----------



## pwp (Jul 26, 2016)

Here's my list of saved bookmarks on the subject, including a handy CR thread:

Camera Scans
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/11/11/using-a-dslr-to-scan-negative-film-by-stefan-schmidt/
http://petapixel.com/2014/02/11/neat-diy-projector-rig-lets-digitize-15-slides-per-minute-automatically/
http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning
http://thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/reflectas-latest-35mm-scanner-digitizes-your-negatives-at-an-insane-10000-dpi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PetaPixel+%28PetaPixel%29
http://lensvid.com/gear/scanning-slides-using-a-dslr-the-fast-way/
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21877.0
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf
https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107834.0

I did some stunning camera scans from an important transparency with the 5DIII, more than doubling the quality by shooting ultra close ups of less than half the tranny at a time and stitched three frames in Lr. Worked like a charm.

-pw


----------



## LDS (Jul 26, 2016)

dcm said:


> I've scanned slides dating from 1950s to 1990s on an Epson v750 flatbed using VueScan



What are your impression of the V750 to scan slides?


----------



## kaihp (Jul 26, 2016)

I went to the forum thread that pwp linked to and saw the Canon 9000F flatbed scanner mentioned. I have one of those, and want to warn against it: just don't waste your time (and money) on it for scanning slides/negatives.

The fundamental problem with the 9000 (and likely others too; do your own research) is that the scanner is focused on the glass, but the negative/slide holder has a finite thickness which means that the negatives/slides are 0.5mm displaced from the scanners focus plane. The resulting IQ is pathetic and even when scanning at the highest resolution (3600dpi or so), the IQ is significantly worse than in the scans I had made (~1200dpi) when I developed the film originally in 2001.

Other flatbed scanners may or may not have this problem, but if I ever start scanning the old family photos, I'll be using my 5D3 and a macro lens for the capture process.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 26, 2016)

@ kaihp:

Hmm, interesting to read about your (unfortunately disappointing) results with the CanoScan 9000F.

I have one of its predecessors, the 8800F, and I've run a couple of film scanning jobs through it (one of slides for personal use, the other of negatives for a client), with what I thought were excellent results. (And the client was thrilled, although she had no idea what to expect.) Then again, all the slides and negs were from the 50's and 60's, all shot with equipment of unknown quality, and some were in poor condition. 

Since, in addition to mounting the film or slides into one of the provided film guides and removing a cover from the underside of the scanner's lid, one must select film scanning from the ScanGear menu, I presumed that this action triggered an internal adjustment in the focus plane.

I didn't purchase the 8800F for the purpose of scanning any quantity of film, but for the couple of times I've wanted to use it, I've been very satisfied with the results.


----------



## dadohead (Jul 26, 2016)

Last year I scanned over a 1,100 slides and negatives on a Nikon 9000. Took about a month nearly full-time. Before I did it, I had a shootout between the Nikon and an Epson v700. The Nikon won hands down. Not even close. I could boot my Mac into a virtual machine that would run the execrable NikonScan software and had a shootout between that and VueScan. VueScan won. (And NikonScan remains a primary reason why I won't consider a Nikon camera to this day.) There is a long, long learning curve to VueScan, and even once you know it, it will surprise you, and not in a good way. But, once you get it dialed, you can get scans from it that rival drum scans. Your biggest problem is going to be that usb to firewire connection and that tube Mac, so good luck with that. 

My only tips? Get cotton gloves, a can of air, a nice brush, a rocket blower, and some Edwal cleaner, if you can still find it. (Amazing stuff; it was taken off the shelves in California.) Profile the scanner if you can and lock in the color settings in VueScan and use the profile to color-correct the scans in Photoshop post scan, otherwise you spend a lot of time tweaking each scan in a UI that isn't really suited for it. Scan at the highest machine resolution (which I think is 4000 dpi for that scanner) and 16 bit. You're making archival scans. Trust me, you don't want to do this twice. Set up VueScan to focus on preview and on final scan. Try some multi-sampling and multi-pass; after you've grown old waiting, you'll probably decide that one pass is good enough. Have two stations so you can prep the next slide while the machine is scanning. You can also work on and assess scans while waiting for the next scan. I don't know about the 4000, but the 9000 was slow boating, especially on 120. I created my folder structure for the archive on my desktop while I was working on the project and eventually just ingested the whole folder structure into LR. VueScan has a pretty good auto naming facility, but it isn't the most intuitive in the world. Actually you'll wind up saying that a lot. VueScan--great program, wretched UI. I skipped ICE and GEM. ICE will slow the process and soften the scan a little, and I'm so fast in Photoshop that I can do a better job in about the time a scan takes. Also, ICE doesn't work on a regular B&W and that was the bulk of my task.

When done, sell the scanner for more than you paid for it. Unless you're a film freak...


----------



## KBStudio (Jul 26, 2016)

For small quantities I have found the best results were a calibrated lightbox, Sony A7rII and a Canon 100mm f2.8L IS lens. I have created a black mask slide holder and use the camera tethered to a MacBook Pro. The results are impressive. Even better than the same slides scanned on a Flexscan. Though this is far from a production set up, it has met my needs.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 26, 2016)

WOW! Really great info and experience here!
I have slides and negatives in 35, 2 1/4, and 4x5 that need to get done.
I am now seriously thinking that the best route is with a light source
and the 5DS. I'll have to buy the correct lens to do this with, so I'm open
to suggestions.
I'll built a custom jig for the slide, camera, and light source mounting. I'll probably
invest in a good LED panel. I'm thinking that a commercially available slide/negative carrier
would be a wise choice for keeping them flat. The 4x5's will be the trickiest.
Shooting tethered will make the experience a bit more bearable.
If you have any suggestions for the light source and lenses, I'm all ears.


----------



## LDS (Jul 26, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> If you have any suggestions for the light source and lenses, I'm all ears.



Usually a macro lens is best suited for this task, because they are designed for a "flat field focus", which is important when photographing flat objects at close distance.


----------



## AUGS (Jul 27, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> WOW! Really great info and experience here!
> I have slides and negatives in 35, 2 1/4, and 4x5 that need to get done.
> I am now seriously thinking that the best route is with a light source
> and the 5DS. I'll have to buy the correct lens to do this with, so I'm open
> ...



A few weeks ago, I was offered access to a 617 medium format film camera when I go away doing landscapes. The only thing holding me back is the excessive cost of processing, contact prints and scanning those transparencies - 4 images per roll of 120 film gets expensive. Using the 5D3 resolution at 100% would yield a 240Mpix image on the 617 image! Big enough for a 90"x30" print at 300dpi. A 5Ds/R would be an enormous file ( approx 600Mpix??).

I bought a cheap light panel used for tracing images this week, and will use my 5D3 and 100L macro for "scanning" some 35mm slides shortly. When I finalise my process and happy with the setup, I'll look at getting a better quality light-source to do the job properly. Then I'll start thinking about getting some serious landscapes done.

One thing you need to consider: if you intend to flatten the slide with a glass sheet (wet or dry), make sure it is anti-Newton glass to prevent the horrible interference rings.

I'll be keeping a keen eye on this thread. Thanks to the OP for kicking it off! Very timely for me.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 27, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Since, in addition to mounting the film or slides into one of the provided film guides and removing a cover from the underside of the scanner's lid, one must select film scanning from the ScanGear menu, I presumed that this action triggered an internal adjustment in the focus plane.



Jon,

I also expected that selecting film/slide scanning would trigger a repositioning of the focus plane, but my experience indicates that it doesn't. Selecting the film/slide scanning (and removing the cover) turns on the backlight for sure (I discovered this the hard way).

The scans looks kinda-okay if you don't have a reference scan (like I had). When I then compared it to the original scan (a 2-300kb jpeg) I was shocked how much crisper the original was.


----------



## RGF (Jul 28, 2016)

dadohead said:


> Last year I scanned over a 1,100 slides and negatives on a Nikon 9000. Took about a month nearly full-time. Before I did it, I had a shootout between the Nikon and an Epson v700. The Nikon won hands down. Not even close. I could boot my Mac into a virtual machine that would run the execrable NikonScan software and had a shootout between that and VueScan. VueScan won. (And NikonScan remains a primary reason why I won't consider a Nikon camera to this day.) There is a long, long learning curve to VueScan, and even once you know it, it will surprise you, and not in a good way. But, once you get it dialed, you can get scans from it that rival drum scans. Your biggest problem is going to be that usb to firewire connection and that tube Mac, so good luck with that.
> 
> My only tips? Get cotton gloves, a can of air, a nice brush, a rocket blower, and some Edwal cleaner, if you can still find it. (Amazing stuff; it was taken off the shelves in California.) Profile the scanner if you can and lock in the color settings in VueScan and use the profile to color-correct the scans in Photoshop post scan, otherwise you spend a lot of time tweaking each scan in a UI that isn't really suited for it. Scan at the highest machine resolution (which I think is 4000 dpi for that scanner) and 16 bit. You're making archival scans. Trust me, you don't want to do this twice. Set up VueScan to focus on preview and on final scan. Try some multi-sampling and multi-pass; after you've grown old waiting, you'll probably decide that one pass is good enough. Have two stations so you can prep the next slide while the machine is scanning. You can also work on and assess scans while waiting for the next scan. I don't know about the 4000, but the 9000 was slow boating, especially on 120. I created my folder structure for the archive on my desktop while I was working on the project and eventually just ingested the whole folder structure into LR. VueScan has a pretty good auto naming facility, but it isn't the most intuitive in the world. Actually you'll wind up saying that a lot. VueScan--great program, wretched UI. I skipped ICE and GEM. ICE will slow the process and soften the scan a little, and I'm so fast in Photoshop that I can do a better job in about the time a scan takes. Also, ICE doesn't work on a regular B&W and that was the bulk of my task.
> 
> When done, sell the scanner for more than you paid for it. Unless you're a film freak...



Thanks for the advise. I'll try VueScan soon.

getting the hardware to talk may be my first challenge (Firewire to thunderbolt connection).

I had (may still have a calibration slide). I've been clean up for a while so not sure what I kept and what I tossed. I am a pack rat and then have cleaned binges.


----------



## dcm (Aug 1, 2016)

LDS said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > I've scanned slides dating from 1950s to 1990s on an Epson v750 flatbed using VueScan
> ...



I'm happy with the results. I'm not looking for archival quality and wanted to do it efficiently so I could scan all of the family slides, not just a handful. The conditions of the slides varied greatly since some had been handled many times and had fingerprints, dust, hair, etc. on them. I only used a blower to eliminate the loose stuff and relied on the infrared scan correction to provide some cleanup. I can always go back if anyone wants a higher quality version. No requests so far. 

Here's one of my dad in his B36 pressure suit circa 1955 shot with his Argus C3 and bulb flash. Often the image quality is less important than the narration. In this case the rest of the story was the barracks. They had run out of money during construction so they only put drywall on one side of each wall throughout the building. Check out the C3 manual if you want to see how far cameras have progressed - http://www.cameramanuals.org/argus/argus_c-3.pdf.

BTW: I setup my 1DX+100L, light table, etc. to see how well that method would work. With pristine slides it might be okay, but that was not the case for me. It would have been a futile effort to try to clean that many slides up in Photoshop.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 1, 2016)

kaihp said:


> I went to the forum thread that pwp linked to and saw the Canon 9000F flatbed scanner mentioned. I have one of those, and want to warn against it: just don't waste your time (and money) on it for scanning slides/negatives.
> 
> The fundamental problem with the 9000 (and likely others too; do your own research) is that the scanner is focused on the glass, but the negative/slide holder has a finite thickness which means that the negatives/slides are 0.5mm displaced from the scanners focus plane. The resulting IQ is pathetic and even when scanning at the highest resolution (3600dpi or so), the IQ is significantly worse than in the scans I had made (~1200dpi) when I developed the film originally in 2001.
> 
> Other flatbed scanners may or may not have this problem, but if I ever start scanning the old family photos, I'll be using my 5D3 and a macro lens for the capture process.



Nonsense... I have both the Epson V850 and Canon 9000II both work quite well. One cost 160$ the other almost 900$ One from each (both low res)... Which one is from the Epson and Canon? The only major differences I can tell you is that the 850 will scan large format, the 9000 only up to medium format and the 850 will wet scan with less mess than the 9000. Besides that not much but cost.

The biggest hurdle to scanning is knowing how to scan to get the best results... 

Same camera... Mamiya RZ67 Pro II









Here is a Noritsu from Richard Photo Labs... a six figure scanner BTW


----------



## LDS (Aug 1, 2016)

Pookie said:


> The biggest hurdle to scanning is knowing how to scan to get the best results...



Can you tell us more? Thanks


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 1, 2016)

kaihp said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Since, in addition to mounting the film or slides into one of the provided film guides and removing a cover from the underside of the scanner's lid, one must select film scanning from the ScanGear menu, I presumed that this action triggered an internal adjustment in the focus plane.
> ...



Interesting. The next time I need to scan film, I'll have to experiment with placing it directly on the scanner glass without using the film guide, and then compare the results to scans using the guide. It might require getting a piece of glass ≤ the thickness of the removable cover, to lay over the film to keep it flat against the scanner glass (and extra care to not scratch the scanner glass!). I'm not sure what the approach would have to be with slides, short of removing them from their cardboard or plastic mounts.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 1, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



It's very likely you will get newtonian rings on your scans... this is why all scanner, once set up for backlighting negatives do not focus on the glass. They actually focus above it. All flatbed scanners avoid this at all costs as this artifact looks miserable and is impossible to correct. 

If you are very concerned about this then you can either wet mount your slides using a wet mount kit for the Epson which can be configured for this applications or buy a slide/negative holder at an additional cost. I have found neither give much of an improvement over standard holders though.

Many of the problems associated with poor IQ have to do with the source material. Looking at a slide through a loupe looks great but a scanner sees deeper and will show lack of focus in the original. It will show grain at it's finest. It will show you lint you can't see, dirt you can't see. Fingerprints from poor negative handling... etc, etc, etc... 

In addition to these variables you will add more to the problem by using canned software from the manufacture. If you use any of the sharpening or NR supplied your scan will often looked cooked. The best bet is to turn off all "enhancements", scan to TIFF and process in your standard workflow software used in digital photography. I have Vuescan and it's great but Canon's funky software turned off and exported to PS or whatever does the same or better.

Much of the scanner complaints come from people who expect a scanner to produce stunning scans from the start. It doesn't happen. It's kind of like complaining a f/1.2 lens is soft when shooting at 1.2... it's all about technique and if you don't put the time into learning how getting great images it's easier to blame the lens or the scanner. Look at Richard Photo Lab's or the Find Lab's website or better yet call them. Ask them why they have a scanner department and a "processing"department. Even a Frontier or Noritsu needs help. It's why developed/scanned film costs 20-30$ a roll. It's why they save profiles for professional photographers shooting film. Once a workflow and "look" is achieved they stick with it for that client.

If you have a 9000, it will work fine 99% of the time. Sure there are problems, sure sometimes if it's client critical you send you negs to a lab for drum scanning but for under 200$ it's a great scanner. The only reason I don't use it 100% of the time for homedev film is often I shoot large format too or bleached Polaroids so I had to get the 850.

Here is a link for a totally adjustable ANR glass neg holder... if you want to adjust focus heights and pay 80$ more it might be worth it. I've found that mine collects dust and I just use the OEM ones or even make my own.

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/canon8xxx.html


----------



## Pookie (Aug 1, 2016)

AUGS said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Really great info and experience here!
> ...



UniColor 1L C41 kit is 19$ here in California. Tetenal 2.5L C41 kit 50$... I process all my E6, C41 and BW. Cost comes to about 2.50$ roll. Pluses - I don't have to wait weeks or pay 20-30$ a roll. Negatives - you can screw up your own shots ( I like the challenge personally). I shoot mainly medium format with a Polaroid 600SE, Mamiya 7II, Hassy 503cw or a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II.


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 1, 2016)

Pookie said:


> Here is a link for a totally adjustable ANR glass neg holder... if you want to adjust focus heights and pay 80$ more it might be worth it. I've found that mine collects dust and I just use the OEM ones or even make my own.
> 
> http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/canon8xxx.html



Informative link; thanks for sharing. I found the following statements particularly interesting:

◦ Allows you to raise the film suspension height further off the glass and thus can decrease likelihood of Newton Rings. Testing indicated Canon® scanners have a wider depth of field compared to Epson® scanners, thus the film height was often able to be raised slightly without a noticeable affect on sharpness.

◦ Enables you to adjust for sharper scans from your scanner if your scanner's true optimum suspension height varies from the standard suspension height of the Canon® film holder. It is like adding a focus adjustment function to your scanner.

This makes me wonder if perhaps kaihp's 9000F scanner's "true optimum suspension height" might be out of spec, while that of my 8800F is within spec.

For the small quantity of slides and negs I scan, and the level of satisfaction I have had with the results so far, I won't be investing in the adjustable holder.


----------



## dcm (Aug 1, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link for a totally adjustable ANR glass neg holder... if you want to adjust focus heights and pay 80$ more it might be worth it. I've found that mine collects dust and I just use the OEM ones or even make my own.
> ...



The Epsons also have feet on the slide/negative trays that allow some height adjustment.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 2, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link for a totally adjustable ANR glass neg holder... if you want to adjust focus heights and pay 80$ more it might be worth it. I've found that mine collects dust and I just use the OEM ones or even make my own.
> ...



I've actually started to step away from digital in my personal work. Absolutely love my RZ67 and Hassy for most of my portraiture so negative scanning is becoming more critical. Even so I find the OEM negative holders to work perfectly. 

Surprisingly many of my clients have started requesting film work which has made it all the easier to make the move. I still shoot tons on digital though, especially this year with solid wedding booked until the 2017. I've had to employ second crews to cover the workload recently so now I have a bit of time to relax and focus on some "fun" shoots. August will be a good month as I get to shoot with Nina again


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 2, 2016)

Personally, I wouldn't use a scanner to digitise slides or negatives.
Scanners are too slow and the results aren't very good either. 

My father who is a FIAPS & a FAPS (Fellow of the International Art Photography Society) had about 8,000 slides to digitise, so he made a holder for each size of slides he had to digitise (35mm, mf etc ), put a good macro lens on the camera, held it up to the window and just took a photo of each slide.
Rather than taking months of work, it only took him a few days and the results are outstanding. Better than you could get from a scanner.

You can buy commercially made holders, and once you get it set up with the right lens, each slide will only take a few seconds to digitise, and your camera has a much better sensor with better detail and colour than a scanner.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2016)

Here's something that has taxed me regards a scanner.
Most scanning programmes enable things like dust/scratch removal and to apply profiles, curves and other effects.
Is there any difference between applying these during the scan vs scanning straight and doing it afterwards? I am thinking more about applying dust removal but the others may have benefit as well.


----------



## LDS (Aug 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Most scanning programmes enable things like dust/scratch removal and to apply profiles, curves and other effects.
> Is there any difference between applying these during the scan vs scanning straight and doing it afterwards?



That depends on how many slides you have to scan, and in how much time. Automated tasks may cause errors which could be avoid manually, but they take less time.

AFAIK dust/scratch removal doesn't work for B/W film, and is some scanners/software may cause errors with Kodachrome films (because of the IR technology used). Whenever it works, it could save a lot of time when the film would require a lot of small fixes - but it has to be the scanner hardware to support it, software only may work less reliably, I never used it my Epson scanner for this reason.

Profiles require a scanner/software combination which can take advantage of IT8 targets to calibrate. which can be expensive. Just like screen and printer calibration, I guess it is needed to get the best results.

Other processing depends on the scanner software quality, bit for best results is probably better to scan "raw" to obtain as much data as possible from the film, and then process in Photoshop or the like. With my "low end" scanner, I usually obtained better result this way.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2016)

Thanks LDS.



LDS said:


> Whenever it works, it could save a lot of time when the film would require a lot of small fixes - but it has to be the scanner hardware to support it, software only may work less reliably, I never used it my Epson scanner for this reason.



I am not sure how the software works. When it is scanning I guess it is identifying dust particles or scratches by detecting a discrepancy in transmission (?) of light through the slide substrate. But I was wondering if you could apply the programme to a scan of a slide and 'remove' dust or scratches after the fact. If so, then you could photograph a dirty/scratched slide and run VueScan over it.

If it measuring the slide with a combination of visible light for the scan and IR to detect dust/scratches I guess it is not possible to apply it afterwards.


----------



## LDS (Aug 2, 2016)

I'm looking for a film scanner to replace my not-so-good Epson (a Perfection 2400), to scan 35mm films, old ones (both slides and negatives) and new ones I'm planning to shoot.

Nikon scanners are beyond my wallet size. I've been reading some reviews, and it looks Reflecta RPS 10M or ProScan 10T doesn't look so bad, and have an accessible price. Anyone with experience with them?

Also, I see VueScan and SilverFast are the most used software for pro scanning. It looks SilverFast is chosen by many scanner vendors, and looks more oriented to imaging - is VueScan a better solution anyway, and if so, why?


----------



## LDS (Aug 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I am not sure how the software works. When it is scanning I guess it is identifying dust particles or scratches by detecting a discrepancy in transmission (?) of light through the slide substrate. But I was wondering if you could apply the programme to a scan of a slide and 'remove' dust or scratches after the fact. If so, then you could photograph a dirty/scratched slide and run VueScan over it.
> If it measuring the slide with a combination of visible light for the scan and IR to detect dust/scratches I guess it is not possible to apply it afterwards.



AFAIK the scanner with "hardware" dust/scratch removal uses the different data they get from visible and IR light to determine what is dust and what is not. It doesn't work with B/W film because the silver particles doesn't behave like the dyes in colour film (IIRC silver is removed from colour film during the bleach/fix phase).

This should work better than analysing the image pixels and trying to detect what is a scratch/dust, because it is based on different physical properties, but the software needs the data from the scanner which are not saved within the final image. Thereby, without the data IMHO the software can only try to detect scratch/dust by analysing pixels and their surroundings - which may work less reliably.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2016)

LDS said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure how the software works. When it is scanning I guess it is identifying dust particles or scratches by detecting a discrepancy in transmission (?) of light through the slide substrate. But I was wondering if you could apply the programme to a scan of a slide and 'remove' dust or scratches after the fact. If so, then you could photograph a dirty/scratched slide and run VueScan over it.
> ...



That makes sense. Thank you again. 

I may move to a two-stage process. Photograph them first off and any with dust/scratch problem I then scan them.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 3, 2016)

Pookie said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > I went to the forum thread that pwp linked to and saw the Canon 9000F flatbed scanner mentioned. I have one of those, and want to warn against it: just don't waste your time (and money) on it for scanning slides/negatives.
> ...



Pookie,

All I'm doing is reporting my experience (as limited as it is). I tried both the Canon and the SilverScan software, both times stepping away (very) disappointedly. I'm sure that if I spent the proverbial 10.000 hours on learning how to scan slides and negatives optimally I'd get a much better result, but with the initial results being so appalling as they were for me ... well, then I won't be encouraged to do so.

You sound like you have a lot of experience in scanning. How much of a learning curve was it to get to an acceptable/reasonable level for you?

If it's OK with you, I'd like to get back to this topic and post an example in 1-2 weeks time, as my schedule is getting pretty crazy just now.


----------



## dcm (Aug 20, 2016)

Had a chance to compare scanning versus photographing slides recently to get higher resolution images. Here's 6 samples using:

Plustek 7600i at 7200dpi (9624x6504)
Epson V750 at 6400dpi (8560x5795)
Canon EOS 6D/100L Macro (5472x3648)
Canon EOS 1DX2/100L Macro (5472x3648)
Canon EOS M3/28 Macro
Canon EOS M/28 Macro

I used this setup with the 100L. I had to add a 67-52 step down with 35mm of extensions to the Polaroid slide copier to reach MFD on the 100L. I removed the long tube to reach MFD with the 28mm on the Ms. I used a Huion LED Light Pad as the light source and shot at f8 to minimize vignetting.




q60k3target-5 by dvmtthws, on Flickr

I used a standard Kodak Kodachrome target for comparison. I captured raw images from all 6 and converted to JPGs in LR with no processing. Can you tell which is which without following the links to the full size originals?




q60k3target-1 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




q60k3target-2 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




q60k3target-3 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




q60k3target-4 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




q60k3target-6 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




q60k3target-7 by dvmtthws, on Flickr

For scanning slides, the Plustek is slower overall than the Epson since it requires manual intervention between each slide and it doesn't handle anything but 35mm. For low volume this is a workable solution. There are newer options that can handle a variety of 35mm or smaller formats but I don't have any experience with them. 

For photographing slides a FF with 100L is a good approach and the M's with the 28 also looks good. A crop DSLR the EF-S 60 Macro might be a viable alternative to achieve the same effect, I just don't have one to test.


----------



## LDS (Aug 21, 2016)

dcm said:


> Had a chance to compare scanning versus photographing slides recently to get higher resolution images.



The issue is these targets are mostly designed for colour calibration - they don't tell much about the resolving capabilities of the scanner (but maybe in the face picture, still designed to assess skin tones, not resolution). And in fact the images show the different colour rendition of the technology used - and in some images is evident the bluish cast Kodachrome may show in some scanners.

You would need something alike the 1951 USAF resolution test chart to measure resolving power - as far as I know, most scanners are evaluated using something alike.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 21, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



The problem with that comment is your telling others that that equipment is garbage and not to waste their time. You make a completely false comment about the way slides are scanned like it is a "fact". Only to backtrack and explain that in reality you haven't actually spent much time trying to figure it out with the qualifier "as limited as [experience] is".

My point is, they work fine. I use them often and it doesn't take much time to figure it out. I won't even get into the "I'll just shoot with a 100L and get good enough copies...". If you scan often and know how to use the equipment you'll find you can get much much more resolution than any camera will and huge 1.5 GB files that make pictures of slide look like an absolutely ridiculous compromise.


----------



## dcm (Aug 25, 2016)

LDS said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Had a chance to compare scanning versus photographing slides recently to get higher resolution images.
> ...



Agreed, but it depends on what you are looking for. I didn't have the USAF 1951 slide handy at the time, but I managed to test again with a LaserSoft 35mm version of the test chart. I've seen suggestions that it doesn't have the quality of the glass test slides, but it was good enough for this comparison. I took the best of the images using live view and different AF settings for each device. Here's a crop of the central areas for each camera - you'll need to visit the original to view the 1:1 images. 




epson 6400 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




plustek 7200 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




M by dvmtthws, on Flickr




M3 by dvmtthws, on Flickr




M5 by dvmtthws, on Flickr (added 2017-08-16)




6D by dvmtthws, on Flickr




1DX2 by dvmtthws, on Flickr

These jpgs were created by LR from the original raw files. Only adjustments were a -1.1 exposure on the Plustek since it serverely overexposed the slide. I took a look at the original DNG and CR2 files in ACR and used a chart LaserSoft provides showing the actual usable resolution of the device in dpi based on the smallest group and element you can clearly discern. Here's what I observed (YMMV) along with the usable/actual ratio for comparison:

Epson 6400 - group 5 / element 4 - 2299 dpi - 36%
Epson 3200 - group 5 / element 3 - 2048 dpi - 64%
Epson 1600 - group 4 / element 6 - 1448 dpi - 91%
Plustek 7200 - group 6 / element 2 - 3649 dpi - 51%
Plustek 3600 - group 5 / element 6 - 2896 dpi - 72%
Plustek 2400 - group 5 / element 1 - 1626 dpi - 67%
Plustek 1800 - group 4 / element 6 - 1448 dpi - 80%
M 5904*- group 6 / element 1 - 3251 dpi - 55%
M3 6834* - group 6 / element 3 - 4096 dpi - 60%
M5 6834* - group 6 / element 3 - 4096 dpi - 60% (added 2017-08-16)
M6m2 7928* - group 6 / element 3 - 4096 dpi - 52% (added 2020-06-29)
6D 3860* - group 5 / element 6 - 2896 dpi - 75%
1DX2 3860* - group 5 / element 6 - 2896 dpi - 75%

* approximate dpi of the sensor

If you look at the other scans for the Epson and Plustek in the album you will note that there is little difference at lower resolutions. The Epson 1600 resolves as well as the Plustek 1800. You quickly get diminishing returns as as the file size grows much faster than the usable resolution. 

The cameras were all tested at 1:1 so the APS-C cameras cropped the slide. Still, I'm impressed with the 28mm Macro on the M's. Didn't expect much difference between the 6D and 1DX2 since they have the same sensor resolution and were using the same lens.

Not sure there is a clear winner when everything (ease of use, efficiency, etc.) is considered or if this helps anyone considering whether to scan or make photo copies, but it's food for thought.

EDIT: Added dpi estimate for cameras and a usable/actual ratio for comparison
EDIT: Added M5 results (same as M3).
EDIT: Added M6m2 results.


----------



## LDS (Aug 26, 2016)

dcm said:


> Agreed, but it depends on what you are looking for. I didn't have the USAF 1951 slide handy at the time, but I managed to test again with a LaserSoft 35mm version of the test chart. I've seen suggestions that it doesn't have the quality of the glass test slides, but it was good enough for this comparison. I took the best of the images using live view and different AF settings for each device. Here's a crop of the central areas for each camera - you'll need to visit the original to view the 1:1 images.



Very nice work, thank you.


----------



## dcm (Aug 27, 2016)

LDS said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, but it depends on what you are looking for. I didn't have the USAF 1951 slide handy at the time, but I managed to test again with a LaserSoft 35mm version of the test chart. I've seen suggestions that it doesn't have the quality of the glass test slides, but it was good enough for this comparison. I took the best of the images using live view and different AF settings for each device. Here's a crop of the central areas for each camera - you'll need to visit the original to view the 1:1 images.
> ...



Thanks. I'm no Roger and I lack his equipment but I think the home office test gives a reasonable estimation of what you will see when making digital copies of slides.

Unfortunately I don't have access to a 5Ds or 5DsR. Based on pixel density I'd expect the 5Ds to perform similar to the M3 and the 5DsR a bit better, but hard to tell how much. It would be nice to test the hypothesis.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 16, 2017)

> Not sure there is a clear winner when everything (ease of use, efficiency, etc.) is considered or if this helps anyone considering whether to scan or make photo copies, but it's food for thought.




I have been doing a lot of scanning this year. I own a V850, Canon 9000 II, and a Pacific Image Primefilm XA. I scan slides, negatives in 4x5, 120, and 35mm. In addition to Kinetronics brushes, air cans, linen gloves... basically all the accesories needed for proper scans. I will often get Frontier drum scans for client work in 120 or 4x5.

I just started using a Canon 5D IV and a 100mmL... I'd honestly say there is little difference in the results but for two major exceptions. 

Obviously the Frontier scanner (or Noritsu) is the best for large scans suitable for the highest reproductions and you pay for this service.

In regards to in-home work though you can get decent results with a camera and a sharp lens the problem though is *where you want to spend your time if quality is critical*...( even with a home scan). A camera will make a perfectly good scan but if you have ANY corrections needed to the source (scratches, dust, hair, etc) you will spend an extraordinarily long time cleaning the image. The scanner on the other hand will auto correct these in color images (not BW) through IR scanning and masking. With BW scanning software can do a great job automating this process although not as good a IR. I use VueScan as a third party program. 

You could spend a minute or two setting up your slide and snapping the picture... then spend 5-20 minutes correcting the defects in LR or PS. I often find the scratch and dust detection woefully inadequate and often have to resort to healing brushes. Or you could spend 4-6 minutes scanning both visible and IR... this happens while you wait hand free.

It's really all dependent on your output needs... if you don't care and are just documenting then a Rube Goldberg setup will work perfectly fine... if you want very clean files, scanners are the way to go. 

Epson... full scan using VueScan ( 3.5 minute scan ) minimal hands on PP




Canon 5D IV with 100mm L... ( quite a bit of work to get it clean, about 10 minutes total)


----------

