jgunning Wrote:
========================================
> I've always viewed scanning as an archival pro-
> cess. You are migrating an analog image to the
> to the digital world. Archiving it, if you will. You
> already know the scanning process is very time
> consuming, so if possible, I try not to do it more
> than once. I always scan at the highest resolution
> and best possible quality. I usually even keep the
> original scans without color corrections, density,
> curves, or other enhancements because advances
> in software (and my editing skills) may allow a
> better image to be made from that original scan
> in the future. I do "spot" the original scanned
> image. (remove the dust spots, hairs, and other
> junk that wasn't actually part of the image -
> again, so I don't have to do it more than once)
That's a pretty close description of how I have been doing things for the past ten years or so, except that in addition to spotting I'll sometimes adjust the lighting and contrast - especially if the original is really dark - so that when I preview the archived .tif file I can clearly see if the image is right for the current intended use. Plus I copy the file to the appropriate archival sub-folder on an external drive - '35 mm scans' or '70 mm scans' (actually 6x7 cm), along with unretouched 'FZ50 originals' or 'FZ100 originals'.
> Of course, if you get better equipment or your
> scanning skills improve markedly, that would be
> an excellent reason to rescan some of the images
> you did in the past that might not be at their best.
That was the plan based on the beautiful scans of some of his older negs that JBWX began posting last year,* his favorable comments regarding the V600, and my own very positive experience with Epson's excellent printers. My Canoscan 9500 was nearly ten years old, so I bought the V600 planning to re-do just a few of my "more challenging" slides with it, and then to continue archiving a few more 35mm shots and subsequently at least the better ones of several hundred 6x7 cm shots of The American Freedom Train and the second life of ex-S.P. #2472.
**
> I take that highest quality image and make all the
> digital copies I need for any purpose. You can
> easily make downressed (downward resolution -
> larger to smaller number of pixels) copies of a
> digital image with no loss of quality. In some
> cases things like grain are minimized in the
> downressing. You can get a 360 DPI image to
> send to a printer or a 1024 pixel wide jpeg for
> this forum by doing the resizing in Photoshop or
> any other image editing program that will work.
In addition to the four sub-folders in my "Archive" folder mentioned above, I also have a "For_e-Mail" folder (subdivided by RR name),
a "For_Prints" folder (ditto), and a "For_Web" folder (ditto). Apparently great(?) minds do think alike!
> I normally wouldn't do it in the scanning software.
Which is the mistake I made when re-doing one 35mm slide and one 6x7 cm slide with the V600, and why I need to re-re-scan them before making the 'yet another new scanner?' decision ...
> You seem to be in the market for a scanner.
Maybe - see above.
> You mentioned you have an Epson V600 earlier
> in the thread. A good scanner, with one limitation.
> Epson is living in a fantasy world regarding the
> resolution their flatbed scanners can actually
> reach. If you check the filmscanner.info site,
> you will see how their test turned out. My V750
> suffers from the same problem. Since I use it to
> scan large format film, I do okay even with the
> resolution issue.
Thank you, Jim, for your very thoughtful reply!
I'm glad to know that the apparent decrease in sharpness of the V600 compared to the CanoScan is not just a matter of my eyes getting older. As noted in an earlier thread, the V600 does seem to do a somewhat better job of getting the details out of dark areas - of which steam locomotives have an abundance under the running boards - but if I'm going to go to all of the trouble to archive my slides before passing the few that may be of histöric interest along to a museum - I want to have the sharpest results that I can get at a reasonable cost.
As soon as I'm done reading Mr. Fulton's Scanning Tips site then its on to the FilmScanner Info Site that you mentioned above!
Thanks again for starting this thread!
- Russ
* Ahah!
NEGS!! THAT explains why JBWX's B&W shots scanned on his V600 look so much better than my 35mm and even 6x7 cm slides also scanned on a V600!!! Per the third paragraph on Wayne Fulton's ScanTips page at [
www.scantips.com] (emphasis mine)
:
"
... noise is
inverted to be in the
highlights of images from negatives, where it is much less visible,
and therefore cheaper equipment can work fairly well for negatives. There are some low-end $350-$500 film scanners that do a decent job
... "
** #2472 operated on the Southern Pacific from 1921 to 1956, IIRC
; her second life - pulling several excursions out of San Francisco (one as far as Los Angeles & return, see [
ngdiscussion.net] et seq.) - was from 1991 to 1996
; and her current third life - on the Niles Canyon Railway between Fremont and Sunol - began in 2008. For a couple of AFT shots scanned with the 9500 several years ago, see [
ngdiscussion.net].
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 06:31PM by Russo Loco.
