Scanning old 8×10’s

The chances are unless they are drum scanning you won’t see much difference and even then with old prints not enough to warrant the cost. If you were doing slides or negatives then it would be worth it.

I would scan them at at least 300 dpi and save them in an uncompressed format. Then work on restoring copies of those files. HP scanners are pretty good hardware wise they are just a little sucky in the software area (lack of controls) but Photoshop should give you everything you need.

Robert
"Wayne R." wrote in message

How much of an advantage can a professional shop provide in scanning old 8×10’s over my doing it with a vanilla HP scanner?

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop? What costs would I be facing?

Any advice from experience would be appreciated.

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:37:14 -0800, "nospam"
wrote:

The chances are unless they are drum scanning you won’t see much difference and even then with old prints not enough to warrant the cost. If you were doing slides or negatives then it would be worth it.

I would scan them at at least 300 dpi and save them in an uncompressed format. Then work on restoring copies of those files. HP scanners are pretty good hardware wise they are just a little sucky in the software area (lack of controls) but Photoshop should give you everything you need.
Robert

"Wayne R." wrote in message

How much of an advantage can a professional shop provide in scanning old 8×10’s over my doing it with a vanilla HP scanner?

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop? What costs would I be facing?

Any advice from experience would be appreciated.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:59:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop?

There’s this amazing thing called a phone book….

What costs would I be facing?

See above, grasp that concept, call and ask…

I have experience of exactly this situation and I agree with everything Robert said. I love my old SCSI ScanJet 3C for its sharp focus and colour accuracy – but the software is weak. I use Photoshop for processing the scanned images where necessary. And Robert’s spot-on about uncompressed file formats too – avoid the dreaded JPG at all costs if possible!

regards

Corny

"nospam" wrote in message

The chances are unless they are drum scanning you won’t see much

difference

and even then with old prints not enough to warrant the cost. If you were doing slides or negatives then it would be worth it.

I would scan them at at least 300 dpi and save them in an uncompressed format. Then work on restoring copies of those files. HP scanners are

pretty

good hardware wise they are just a little sucky in the software area (lack of controls) but Photoshop should give you everything you need.
Robert
"Wayne R." wrote in message

How much of an advantage can a professional shop provide in scanning old 8×10’s over my doing it with a vanilla HP scanner?

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop? What costs would I be facing?

Any advice from experience would be appreciated.

What’s in the phone book that helps you ID the boneheads & moneygrabbers?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:04:52 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:59:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop?

There’s this amazing thing called a phone book….

What costs would I be facing?

See above, grasp that concept, call and ask…

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:43:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

What’s in the phone book that helps you ID the boneheads & moneygrabbers?

The phone number for the Better Business Bureau.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:04:52 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:59:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop?

There’s this amazing thing called a phone book….

What costs would I be facing?

See above, grasp that concept, call and ask…

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:03:06 -0500, Wayne R.
wrote:

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

You’ve got it th4e wrong way round. There aren’t *any* flatbed scanners that can produce the quality of scans that even the cheapest film scanner can.

I hope that answers your question. 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Sure does, thanks.

I didn’t word my question well; I just don’t know if they’re easy to use or require fancy cal procedures. I guess the nut of it is that even low-end film scanners make good scans…

Any advice on how to learn more about these things (besides the hard way)?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:19:01 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:03:06 -0500, Wayne R.
wrote:

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

You’ve got it th4e wrong way round. There aren’t *any* flatbed scanners that can produce the quality of scans that even the cheapest film scanner can.

I hope that answers your question. 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Wayne R. wrote:

Sure does, thanks.

I didn’t word my question well; I just don’t know if they’re easy to use or require fancy cal procedures. I guess the nut of it is that even low-end film scanners make good scans…

Any advice on how to learn more about these things (besides the hard way)?

Another person named Wayne has an excellent web site on scanning: www.scantips.com
—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

Voivod wrote in server:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:43:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

What’s in the phone book that helps you ID the boneheads & moneygrabbers?

The phone number for the Better Business Bureau.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! Oh my! Someone here has never had the opportunity to attempt to deal with the BBB.

Trust me: You’ll get more useful information from simply listening to the attitude someone presents over the phone, than from anything the BBB can offer. Don’t take that to mean I recommend basing a decision on that, either.

– Al.

—
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

Wayne R. wrote in
news::

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

The worth of many film scanners exceeds their cost by a significant margin. Prices are great right now.

Now, however, for some fine details. A flatbed scanner is much easier to use, less prone to difficulties with dust and such, and allows you a direct reference for color-correction. A flatbed doesn’t allow you much leeway in printing a digital file much larger than the original scan – you’ve got a specific threshold of detail. For quick work or non-demanding digital files, they can work just fine.

A film scanner produces a wider dynamic range (lights to darks, various hues of the colors), almost always brings out the greatest amount of detail that the film captured itself, and moreover can be used carefully with multiple scans to bring out a range of color or exposure that can then be brought down to 24-bit usefully. There is no subjective color-correction by the lab, no unintentional cropping, no exposure adjustments done by someone who didn’t know what they were doing or what you were after.

But this does mean that you do it yourself. For instance, when scanning negatives, all films have a different base, that orange cast. Some scanners or software can cope with this easily, but many cannot (and they change routinely anyway, especially Kodak films). Getting the color you want from a film scanner may take some experience.

Degraded negatives and dust can be a problem, despite the software and hardware solutions. Being meticulous about clean conditions and proper film storage is paramount.

In short, film scanners will give you the greatest detail and the most controllable results, but not automatically. If you’re ready to put a little effort into it, the results should blow away flatbed work.

– Al.

—
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:46:40 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
scribbled:

Voivod wrote in server:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:43:59 -0500, Wayne R.
scribbled:

What’s in the phone book that helps you ID the boneheads & moneygrabbers?

The phone number for the Better Business Bureau.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! Oh my! Someone here has never had the opportunity to attempt to deal with the BBB.

Actually over the last couple years I’ve dealt with the local BBB office on numerous (read dozen or more) times and I received nothing but quality service and good advice

Trust me

No thanks.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:03:06 -0500, Wayne R.
wrote (with possible editing):

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

I can only give you limited experience with the Nikon Coolscan IV. I picked up one used and it is terrific. I’ve probably used it on a couple of hundred color negs and slides. Different film brands and batches and it has always given me very good results. I take the output and do my touch-up work in PS.

—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

Are film scanners worth their cost? I would have to say yes. If you have the negatives you will be able to get more detail and have a bit more control over the scanning. Photographic prints don’t have the much data in them. Negatives on the other hand do. How much you can pull out is up to the quality of the scanner.

If I were going to buy a dedicated film scanner I would get one with the latest version of digital ice so that dust and other annoying film related problems are automatically corrected when it is scanned. $1000 should get you a very nice film scanner.

As for flatbeds with film scanning tops like the Epson ones I have had pretty good luck with them in this department. But, you don’t get the quality or clarity that you would from an actual film scanner. However, it is 10 times better than scanning from a Photographic print.

Robert

"Wayne R." wrote in message

Perfect! Thanks – I’m happy to see that it coincides with my original thoughts.

I see you’re also saying film scanning should be done with specialized gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners (in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:37:14 -0800, "nospam"
wrote:

The chances are unless they are drum scanning you won’t see much

difference

and even then with old prints not enough to warrant the cost. If you were doing slides or negatives then it would be worth it.

I would scan them at at least 300 dpi and save them in an uncompressed format. Then work on restoring copies of those files. HP scanners are

pretty

good hardware wise they are just a little sucky in the software area

(lack

of controls) but Photoshop should give you everything you need.
Robert

"Wayne R." wrote in message

How much of an advantage can a professional shop provide in scanning old 8×10’s over my doing it with a vanilla HP scanner?

If there’s a significant advantage, how can I find a such a professional shop? What costs would I be facing?

Any advice from experience would be appreciated.

"Wayne R." wrote in message

Are film scanners worth their cost?

A couple of economic issues to consider.

For new images, I’d recommend a digital camera. The quality now is excellent – more than adequate for 8×10 enlargement and larger, zero film cost, and there is no scanning time.

For existing snapshots, most people will be happy with a flatbed, which also serves as a long term appliance for scanning documents, drawings, etc.

If, as I do, you have hundreds or thousands of existing negatives and slides, the following economic factors are worth thinking about.

First, the cost of the scanner versus the cost of sending the negs out for high quality scans – PhotoCD or otherwise. This cost runs in the neighborhood of 50 cents per image and should be balanced against the price of a scanner, minus what you could get for it on eBay by selling it afterward. I bought my film scanner some years ago based on just this equation.

The second (often neglected) economic issue is the time it takes you to clean, scan, and "spot" your negatives and slides. For me, even when I’m just cranking through rolls of film, we’re talking a minute or two per image, or about 45 minutes to an hour for a roll of film, just to get the images to disk.

If you spend $1000 for a high end scanner, and have 2000 images to scan, you are breaking even on dollar cost. But do figure in the many hours – two minutes per image, say – of de-dusting and scanning time that you will need to invest. Believe me this gets old fast, and you may wish you’d simply sent your collection of legacy negs to be scanned.

There are also those who value the superior quality of film, and feel that scanning is simply part of the process of getting the best possible digital image. Fine – I love high quality photographs, and hope they keep up their hard work. As one who is happy with 3 megapixel tack-sharp 8×10’s, this is not really a factor for me.

—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:12:10 -0500, Wayne R.
wrote:

Sure does, thanks.

I didn’t word my question well; I just don’t know if they’re easy to use or require fancy cal procedures. I guess the nut of it is that even low-end film scanners make good scans…

Yes. The important factor is the DMax more than anything.

Any advice on how to learn more about these things (besides the hard way)?

Using them is obviously good 😉 But you’ll find lots of advice on the Net. Just Google for it. One site to give you a start is:

www.scantips.com

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui