Posts RSS Comments RSS 117 Posts and 60 Comments till now

High End Scanners are Disappearing

I have just tried to see  if I could buy a Kodak ISQmart 1. Kodak/Creo scanners are really high end, about the best one can get. Well, it is almost impossible to buy one in large parts of Western Europe.

I live in Luxembourg. The nearest dealer that Kodak put me in contact with is located in England! Really easy to arrange for a demo!

According to the dealer, Kodak does not make the scanners anymore. The Creo factory in Israel is stopped and only the IQSmart3 is still presented as a current model. Some stock remains. I was offered an ex-demo IQSmart1 at a decent price, it would have been tempting.

But the problems just pile up. After you get over the extremely scarce distribution network and the idea to spend so much on an outdated line of scanners, there is the system requirements. The software requires a MacPro. The Mac OS X version has to be the one provided on DVD with the machine, with no update whatsoever. This means I'd have to dedicate a MacPro as a scanning station! The only other Mac models supported are ancient G3 and G4 machines. A Windows version exists, but with reduced functionalities.

When you add the shipping and installation costs (900€), the deal gets more and more crazy.

So I declined the offer.

The only remaining alternative is the Nikon CoolScan LS 9000. Much less expensive, but not exactly the deal of the year either. The model will be discontinued starting this month. The software is already not updated anymore for quite a time and support can not be expected to last long. Kodak, at least, promises support and repairs for at least 6 years.

So, ok, my Epson V750 and Plustek 7500i will have to do. But seeing all the really good scanners disappearing from the market makes one wonder what will happen when the Epson stops working.

Raw Scanning

Beach Shower.jpg

Last year, Colin Jago talked on his blog of an interesting software for negative scanners: Colorneg.

I downloaded the trial version and gave it a go. It did indeed produce fine results but at that stage I was reluctant to add yet another software. Moreover, at the time, I was not really using film all that much.

Since then I have started again to use my Leica and so the question of B&W film scanning and processing became current for me too.

For digital processing, depending on my inconsistency among other things, I currently use Aperture, Photoshop CS3, Bibble Pro, QuadtoneRIP and some nice PhotoShop plugins.  Still reluctant to add yet another software piece, I tried different things. Clearly, VueScan is best at driving my Epson scanner. Its B&W output is adequate but not exactly great and the control it offers does not suit me. Besides, I like the idea of scanning to RAW. I find the curves to apply to VueScan RAW files quite steep and I produced unwanted effects that way.

I then noticed the DNG option in VueScan. It produces a DNG raw file, just ready for Adobe Camera Raw. That software was designed precisely to do what I need: correctly map a gamma 1 file to the more useful gamma 2.2 or 1.8 or whatever is in QTR Lab space. It works beautifully. The trick to invert the picture in ACR is to use the point curve, select the Linear setting and invert its slope. The controls in ACR allow to produce a very good starting point for further finishing in PhotoShop.

Epson V750 True Resolution

Among comments I got in different forums after the previous article, some pointed out I could have got even better results had I used a higher resolution. Others said 3200dpi was way above the Epson true resolution.

Well, I must admit I had chosen the 3200dpi resolution because I knew 6400dpi was ridiculous and 3200dpi gave still a manageable file size from a 35mm negative.

So I made some more tests.

I started at 6400dpi and that produces a huge file that shows big square pixels when sharpened. It looks like a the 3200dpi file at 200% on screen. Useless.

4800dpi has the same problem.

2400dpi, when enlarged to 3200dpi shows no detectable difference at 100% Needless to say, it would show absolutely none on print. So, 3200dpi was indeed too much.

1800dpi, when enlarged to 3200dpi shows a loss.

It appears the optimum is 2400dpi with this scanner. Still respectable considering the price and its multi-format capabilities.

Epson V750: Good enough for 35mm?

The Epson line of flatbeds has been much maligned over the years for having inadequate resolution for film scanning.

It has been gradually accepted they got good enough for medium format but it is still common to read that for 35mm film, one really needs a dedicated film scanner.

I am in the process of going through old negatives for an old series I never really finished. I also put a roll of film in my M6 just for the fun of it. So I am again interested in small format scanning. And what I have is an Epson V750 from my medium format times.

It turns out that scanner is plenty enough for small format scans, provided:

- the intended output size is no more than 16×24″ (roughly 40×65 cm)

- the film is either very flat or held very flat

- the film holder height has been carefully tuned

My old negs have been in files for yers and are naturally very flat. I have tuned my film holder height and I don’t think 35mm is really appropriate for larger ouput than 16×24″. In my opinion, that’s considerably large anyway.

To illustrate my point, I chose what I call a good negative. It was made on tripod with my Leica M6 and Elmarit 90mm on Fuji Acros 100 exposed at IE64 and developed in Ilfotec HC (same as HC-110). The Elmarit 90 is an extremely good lens and any softness we might notice certainly will not come from there.

The software I use is VueScan and I scan the negative in “Image” mode, meaning VueScan jsut tries to show the scanned object. I scan at 3200dpi. I VueScan Color tab, I choose None for the color balance, meaning VueScan does not apply any clipping and anly minimal curve treatment to the file. The result is a low contrast file that I open in PhotoShop CS. I get this as a starting point:

Initial file from scan

I do some cropping to keep just a fine black border, invert the file to get a positive and apply this Levels adjustment:

Levels adjustment

I also apply this curve :

Curve adjustment

And I get a good starting point:

Adjusted tonality

Tonalities with B&W negatives are not a problem for the scanner. Negative films have a DMax around 3 at the maximum, and for B&W that will only happen in case of severe over-development. Any film scanner on the market can easily scan through this, provided the light source is diffused. Otherwise, the Calier effect can produce blocked highlights. So it is not surprising I can get good tonality from this scanner. Well, it might not be good, but it is certainly not the scanner’s fault.

What is criticized is resolution. Let’s see what we have here. I took two details: one from the forground herbs and one from the background hotel wall:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 before sharpening

Detail2:
Detail 2 before sharpening

OK, this looks soft. However, if your screen has 100dpi resolution, like most LCD, you’re looking at a 32x enlarging factor! Let’s apply some sharpening. I applied PhotoShop simple Unsharp Mask Sharpening filter with a radius of 0.7 pixel and an amount of 323%. These value are very much dependent on the picture. Some will take less, other even more. Sometimes two successive milder sharpening are better. Let’s see what our details have become:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 after sharpening

Detail 2:
Detail 2 after sharpening

Now, remember, we are looking at a 32x enlargement. At 16x, we’d have a 16×24″ print with all the sharpness such a print needs and, in my opinion, very close to the maximum practical usage of a small format negative.

I have owned dedicated film scanners and they are indeed even sharper than this. however, with B&W silver negatives, it is a mixed blessing. The increased sharpness tends to produce exaggerated grain. With the negative I used in this example it woould probably not matter that much, but try it with some Tri-X and the dedicated scanner does not look so attractive anymore.

As Colin points out, the new Microtek M1/F1 could very well give us further progress by including autofocus. Autofocus is really what the Epson lacks. The holder height tuning thing is a bit ridiculous.

Another thing I’d like to try sometimes is to develop for much higher contrast. A film like TMax 100 could very well be suited for that experiment. The idea is that the heavy levels adjustment to get the contrast back should also amplify grain. If the neg was of higher contrast, this effect could be reduced and maybe I could get scans with even less grain.

But to answer the question in the title, definitely yes!