Doug,
It would be to your advantage to get the best scan possible. That might mean adjusting the highlights and shadows etc in the scanning software and then doing editing in PSE.
Doug,
PS…I would NOT have let the scanner apply sharpening, that is better done as the last step when editing in PSE.
thanks,
Does the cropping make any difference if done before the scan or in PSE?
Doug, cropping shouldn’t make any difference. You might want to leave as much image as possible in the scan, in case you open it in Elements and find it was a little cocked. Then you might have to rotate and crop to get it the way you want it, and it would be nice to have that extra border with which to work.
Chuck
I agree with Chuck, unless the entire document/image is a whole lot bigger than the part I want. When that’s the case, I still make sure I’m scanning a bigger area than what I’m really after.
I sent out an SOS to Bert ( Bigelow ). He’s become quite an authority on the Minolta Dimage series in the last year or so <G> .
🙂
I thought about doing that, too, but he’s entertaining his little grandson, who’s visiting from New York. I figure we’ll be low on his priority list, but maybe he’ll head for the computer to get some rest. 🙂
A grandson visit, huh? 🙂
More likely Bert’s taking every opportunity to nap !
Well, sometime next year, he’ll wake up and miss us ( I know he will !)
Rip Van Bigelow, indeed !
🙂
Doug,
One of the advantages of using the original software may be the ability to do Levels balancing and Lightness/Contrast adjustments in 16 bit mode, before bringing the image into Elements. Those adjustments, done in 16 bit mode , are far less destructive of data than if done in 8 bit mode. That’s about the only generalization I have to offer <G> .
🙂
Brent
I find the two features outlined on page 2 of my Scan Dual III manual very useful during scan, especially the tone curve. I don’t find those exact features available in my Elements 1.0.
Paul
You’re right Paul. Neither version of Elements has Curves. There are a couple of addons; one free and one not. If you are able to do that correction before the scan, and if you’re happy with the result, that’s the best place too do it anyway.
In general, how satisfied are people who own the Minolta scanner? I have a large number of slides (many of my own plus a bunch I inherited from my Dad and Grandfather) that I would like to have in digital form.
Bob Warren
Everything I’ve heard from Bert indicates he’s extremely happy with his. He’s got the Dimage II, which is the older version. From everything I’ve heard about it, it would certainly be my first choice if I was looking for one right now.
Bob and Doug,
I know that Bert is both quite happy with his Dimage II, and is quite happy with using Vuescan by Ed Hamrick , as the scan engine. Bert’s workflow is generally to scan directly to a file, bypassing editting until a later time. <
http://www.hamrick.com> has a functional demo version of the software .
🙂
Brent
Bob, I’m quite satisfied with my Dimage lll, however, when you have a large number of slides to scan, I would rather go for a scanner with digital ICE or another way of dust removal. Unless you don’t have anything else at all to do, of course. 😉
Leen
Leen,
Your right on about the digital ICE. It’s the lack of such a function that kept me from getting the Minolta. If I were in the market for a 35mm film scanner now, I would go for the Nikon IV ED. Of course it will cost more but I think the extra cost is justified if there are a large number of slides to be scanned . I can’t imagine the frustration of removing dust from the hundreds, or even thousands, of images!
Shan
Interesting comments from all – thanks.
I did download the VUescan software to try it in comparison to the Minolta software. I couldn’t see any difference in the output so am staying with the Minolta software. Any comments from anyone using the Vuescan (who thinks it’s better) would be appreciated. My biggest decision now is how to save the scans. We plan on archiving the scans of the slides to CD for use both as video (slideshow-Powerpoint) and to print to paper. Not quite sure what resolution to save (72dpi for video, 300 dpi for print). Makes a big difference in size. Planning on using TIFF for best quality.
Doug, in my opinion this solution is rather simple: scan at the highest resolution, save to CD and when you plan to start producing a slide show, reduce the size in Elements for just only the ones you need.
Leen
You could have two folders on the CD, each containing the images at the different resolutions. Do you have a DVD burner?? 😉
One plan doesn’t fit everybody, but here’s how I handled the "saving" part. I archived to CD one set of original scans at the maximum optical resolution of my scanner and saved them at maximum quality JPEG. That way I have one set I can go back to for whatever project I decide on. If your slides are like ours, you won’t be using each and every one (I have several thousand.) I go back to the original set and pull off copies of the pictures I want to work with and then convert those to a lossless format, like TIFF or PSD for editing, resizing, and printing. Isn’t your maximum optical res somewhere around 2800ppi? With "potential" like that, I would never do any downsizing except on a copy. It’s going to take you a long time to work through all of the slide scanning. Don’t get "cheap" now and throw away valuable pixels that you might want later! 🙂
Yes, the Dimage III can scan at 2800 max. If I am scanning a 35mm slide that is 1.22 X .95 size, then my total pixel size at 2800 will be 9,086,560. This will consume 27,259,680 of memory (9,086,560 x 3)for a total of about 26mb per picture. I have 100’s of slides to do, that would take a lot of space! Storing on a CDR would give me about 26 images per CD. Not sure I want that many CD’s to deal with!
You probably don’t need to save them – or even scan, for that matter – at the full 2800ppi. I’ve been doing the bulk of mine at 1200ppi. A few I’ve selected for scanning at a higher res if they looked like something I’d want to either enlarge a lot or heavily crop. 1200 will give you a good 4 X 4 print, which you couldn’t get from a slide image that was saved at only 300ppi – unless you meant you would be saving a 4 X 4 at 300ppi.
While you’re still in the planning stage, you might want to think about the size prints you’re most likely to want and then scan accordingly. It takes quite a while to scan at 2800, so maybe you’ll find a lesser res will do the job nicely, make the project go faster, and decrease the amount of storage space you’ll need. There’s no point in spending a lot of time on extremely high res scans unless you have a need for them.
Or, you could save to DVDs, which would provide – what? – about six times as much capacity per disk? I can’t remember exactly. I do know that DVD burners are coming waaaay down in price.
Whoops! I didn’t get Brent’s SOS, for some reason. And as for the rest of you and your comments about me needing a nap because my grandson is running me ragged….well, you’re right!
So…to business. I have a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II which is identical to yours, Doug, except that my interface is USB 1.1, and you have 2.0. So your scans will be a little faster than mine, due to the higher file transfer rate.
I use Vuescan, as Brent said. I like the "Batch" mode for scanning large numbers of slides/negs. I found the Minolta softare to be clunky and cumbersome. Vuescan is not particularly user-friendly, but once you learn how it works, it’s very powerful, and has many options. Cropping, color, scanning workflow, etc. Ed Hamrick, the designer of Vuescan is a good guy who will answer your questions and help you if you have any problems.
I would recommend that you ALWAYS scan at maximum resolution…2820 ppi. I can give you a lot more specific recommendations for settings in Vuescan, based on your requirements if you like. Let’s take it offline, and not tie up Adobe’s bandwidth if you want to do that. Email me at the address in my profile.
Bert
Doug,
I have a Minolta Scan Dual II like you. If I have a slide I want to enlarge quite a bit, I use the Minolta software and edit it there first in 16 bit mode, followed by more editing in PSE. If I’m scanning negatives to see if I’ve anything interesting or for general archiving, I use Hamrick’s software; I’ve found Vuescan to be considerably less labor-intensive than the Minolta product, then more editing in PSE.
The other step I found necessary, at least for my scanner, is to apply a noise filter as one of the first editing steps after archiving. I tried out all the noise filters on the market – there are several – and settled on one from Neat Image as the best value. It is a little slow but that does not matter to me, a hobbiest.
Final suggestion is to connect the USB directly into the computer as opposed to connecting through a hub. I found that connecting directly to my machine cut down considerably on the noise generated in the image.
Rick
Final suggestion is to connect the USB directly into the computer as opposed to connecting through a hub. I found that connecting directly to my machine cut down considerably on the noise generated in the image.
Wow, that’s weird. I would think the hub might slow down the transfer, but it’s all digital data…the hub should NOT affect that!
Bert
EDIT: I haven’t noticed any noise in my scanned images, and I’ve blown a lot of them way up to work on dust and scratches…many of the slides I’ve scanned are very old.
Bert,
Perhaps not – I don’t know that much of the process. Before I swapped from the hub, I was occasionally getting some scans with so much noise that I couldn’t even tell whether they were focused or not. This was particularly true with B&W photos. Many times the sky came out looking very funky; it seems particularly evident on days when there is a lot of static throughout the house. Don’t know what I’m doing wrong – I changed computers in October and still have the same problem. I moved the cable a number of times but the problem persists.
Rick
That is strange, Rick. Maybe someone else will chime in with an explanation. It’s certainly outside of my experience with USB, which I have found it to be very reliable.
As far as I know B&W negatives (not the chromogenic ones) are extremely difficult to scan. Probably because there is some silver left in the negative?
Leen
Bert,
I would like a little experience with that scanner/USB/noise problem. It has been a constant headache.
Leen,
You are absolutely right about the B&W being much more difficult to scan, and right that all I use are silver emulsions. I usually scan B&W so I do not have to spend a sheet of paper for a contact print. If the negative is decent, I print it in the chem darkroom; if it’s barely adequate, I may print it on the inkjet for family after putting it through the noise filter. I scan the B&W in RGB, but still, the noise filter is not as effective on B&W as color.
I may try the chromogenic film to see what it will do. Thanks for the suggestion.
Rick
