Mark F wrote:
Thank you for your kind offer Desmolicious but one of my friends has already volunteered to scan a few of my slides on his Nikon 4000 scanner. He's happy with his scans so if mine are still slightly fuzzy that will indicate I had an auto focus issue that I wasn't aware of. While I projected those slides I did not print them and did not notice a focus issue. I'm really hoping it's the scanner.
No problem! Offer is still open if you want to see the difference in quality from a slide scanned with a film scanner vs digital camera scan.
I've never tried scanners due to the cost but I've had excellent results duplicating slides & negatives with a D700 & more recently with a D800. I use an inexpensive JJC kit and have digitized many negs and slides.
NIKON D7000.0 mm f/0.0 lens35mmf/11.01/10s200 ISO0.0 EV
I'm getting the impression that many (most) of you scan wtih your cameras and not with a specialized scanner. Assuming a properly calibrated scanner designed for slides, is that really better?
Mark F wrote:
I'm getting the impression that many (most) of you scan wtih your cameras and not with a specialized scanner. Assuming a properly calibrated scanner designed for slides, is that really better?
In the late 1990's and early 2000's the was a selection of really great scanners from all of the major manufactures. As digital photography became dominant and the demand for scanners waned, they were dropped from the product line. Those scanners are still available and can be used with third party software but often adapters are needed to connect to a computer or a legacy system dedicated to it. A few companies continued to make dedicated scanners. Plustek, being the affordable choice or Imacon Flextight X5 at the upper end. Flatbeds like the Epson V850 work well with medium format and larger but not always so great with 135.
Using a DSLR or mirrorless camera and a good macro lens has a number of advantages. By using a decent macro lens and a reliable light source, it makes capturing the image of a negative or slide many times faster than a dedicated scanner. A cottage industry has evolved to provide both hardware and software the make the process faster and more seamless. The drawback is dust and scratches aren't automatically corrected.
I moved from using a Plustek to camera scanning in 2019. Over the years, the equipment has evolved as I learn more about the process. There are members in the film forum that use dedicated or flatbed scanners but most use a camera.
Here is a Kodachrome taken in 1989 using a M6 with a 50 Summicron V5. It was scanned using a Sony A7C II fitted with a FE90 2.8 Macro:
Mark F wrote:
I'm getting the impression that many (most) of you scan wtih your cameras and not with a specialized scanner. Assuming a properly calibrated scanner designed for slides, is that really better?
I’ll likely be selling my Coolscan 9000ED, 5000, a couple of Plusteks and an Epson, not because they are inferior to copying negatives, but because they are slower when trying to digitize decades of film. Scanners, potentially have a major advantage with regards to reducing the need for dust touchup work in post. So, for day to day scanning, they might still hold an advantage. I do think that many try to use old scanners without any maintenance. I suspect that this isn’t the best approach.
Film images acquired by means of CCD scanners do require a certain sharpening in post. To what degree depends on the scanner and image intent. See Epsons vs Tango or Aztek https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
fjablo wrote:
Tested it earlier and appears to be caused by the sharpening settings. Seems film scans can take higher sharpening than what I'm used to from digital. With files from the Zf, I found that I needed to slightly bump the amount + apply the output sharpening you mentioned, to achieve a result that is as crisp as what you've shown above.
You've also manually turned off color noise reduction, right? I think the default setting in LR is 25, but it's a bit hidden in the new UI.
Desmolicious wrote:
I've never even noticed the color noise reduction! My noise reduction 'tab' was minimized. Opening it up Luminance 0 (and so Detail and Contrast under it are greyed out), Color 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50.
Those must all be default settings as I've never touched them.
I wonder though if the default chroma NR really has any effect on the 'analog' noise (film grain) captured by the digital camera 'scan?'
I feel like LR's chroma NR targets the much finer noise inherent in the digital capture and wouldn't 'see' the coarser chroma noise/grain from the film. At least not at the default setting.
Regarding OP's problem. As suggested in only a post or two, evaluating the sharpness of the film grain in the scans would establish whether there is a scanner problem. Mushy grain, then at least a scanner problem. Sharp grain, then it's lack of image content sharpness.
Definitely check the scanner's mirror. Back when I worked at a newspaper, we had an older version Nikon scanner (older than the 4000 model) and I was initially baffled why my scans had 'blooming' in high contrast transitions. A peek into the scanner and sure enough, the mirror was fogged by a film of something. A cotton swab pretty much resolved it. If it's the case for OP, then by all means, check the tutorials for proper cleaning.
rscheffler wrote:
I wonder though if the default chroma NR really has any effect on the 'analog' noise (film grain) captured by the digital camera 'scan?'
I feel like LR's chroma NR targets the much finer noise inherent in the digital capture and wouldn't 'see' the coarser chroma noise/grain from the film. At least not at the default setting.
It definitely has an effect. When you turn off the color noise reduction you see more of the colored film grain dots on the image. It doesn’t affect sharpness as much as it does on digital though.
It is worth pointing out that an 8x enlargement is not a large magnification. For 35mm it’s roughly an 8x10. So it is quite possible that your pictures are just not critically sharp, so a high resolution scan is indeed just showing failures in precise focus, shutter shock, camera shake or even lens performance. I would say this is quite common, many slides may also look impressive when projected, but when scanned they may reveal a lack of critical sharpness.
My apologies for disappearing but it looks like it is my scanner after all. After my last post I had the idea to rescan a few of my old slides that were scanned when I bought the scanner in 2009. Those early scans were acceptably sharp. My thought was to compare the two scans and see if anything had changed. Unfortunately, the scanner would no longer recognize the slide. After communicating with Tech Support at VueScan (very helpful), it was determined to be the scanner. I then communicated with the recommended repair service and was told it was likely to be the motherboard and the repair cost for the general cleaning and motherboard replacement would be about $750 before tax. Ugh! At the moment not sure what I will do.
Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestions.
Mark
Mark F wrote:
My apologies for disappearing but it looks like it is my scanner after all. After my last post I had the idea to rescan a few of my old slides that were scanned when I bought the scanner in 2009. Those early scans were acceptably sharp. My thought was to compare the two scans and see if anything had changed. Unfortunately, the scanner would no longer recognize the slide. After communicating with Tech Support at VueScan (very helpful), it was determined to be the scanner. I then communicated with the recommended repair service and was told it was likely to be the motherboard and the repair cost for the general cleaning and motherboard replacement would be about $750 before tax. Ugh! At the moment not sure what I will do.
Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestions.
Mark...Show more →
Mark:
Would you please post the name and contact information regarding the repair service? If you can sell it for more than the repair, it sounds like a good way to go.. not with the intent to sell it, but intending to use a refurbished scanner. I can imagine, in the future, needing to repair my Coolscans. Thanks you .. and good that you resolved this.
Mark F wrote:
My apologies for disappearing but it looks like it is my scanner after all. After my last post I had the idea to rescan a few of my old slides that were scanned when I bought the scanner in 2009. Those early scans were acceptably sharp. My thought was to compare the two scans and see if anything had changed. Unfortunately, the scanner would no longer recognize the slide. After communicating with Tech Support at VueScan (very helpful), it was determined to be the scanner. I then communicated with the recommended repair service and was told it was likely to be the motherboard and the repair cost for the general cleaning and motherboard replacement would be about $750 before tax. Ugh! At the moment not sure what I will do.
Again, thanks to all for your help and suggestions.
Mark...Show more →
I would seriously recommend to switch to scanning w a digital camera. I assume you have one - you would need a 1:1 macro lens (I highly recommend an AF one), a film holder and a light source.
Tech support at VueScan recommended two repair services for my Nikon scanner:
Alex Ketzner of AB Studios ([email protected]) and Gleb Shtengel at (http://shtengel.com/gleb/Scanners.htm). I emailed Alex Ketzner explaining the symptoms and he answered promptly with a detailed reply. I have not contacted Mr Shtengel.
I currently use OM (formerly called Olympus) cameras and lenses but do not own a macro lens. I have the 12-40mm and 40-150mm lenses, both f2.8. I stopped doing macro work years ago when I sold my Canon equipment.
You can get a nice Nikon D750 w 60mm AF macro lens for less than the price of that repair.
I used to use that, and the results were great. Plus you can also use it as a camera!
