Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Hi End scanning service

Reply
Thread Tools

Hi End scanning service

 
 
Sam Carleton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
prints. I see two options:

1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)
2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.

>From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
cost effective to outsource it.

So, can anyone recommend a high end pro lab that can give me amazing
scans from my E6 film?

Sam

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006

"Sam Carleton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
> to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
> prints. I see two options:


There's a third option. Shoot 6x7 and scan on either an Epson V750 or get
professional scans.

And a fourth option: Shoot with a Canon 5D.

And a fifth option: Shoot with any 8MP or higher dSLR, mount the camera
vertically on the tripod, and shoot three frames and stitch.

> 1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
> need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)


For slide films, Nikon Scan is fine. I find negative films harder to scan.

I scan E6 (Fujichrome Provia 100F mostly) on a Nikon 8000, and I don't like
how the scans look for 24x36mm of film enlarged to 12x18. That's a 13x
enlargement, and in my experience, slide films look really really wonderful
at 7x and really really iffy at 13x.

I'm assuming that your 12x18s will be hung on a wall and people will be able
to walk up to them. If you can keep people 3 feet or more away, 35mm will be
fine.

> 2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.
>
>>From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

> the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
> would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
> number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
> cost effective to outsource it.


Scanning isn't rocket science, and, IMHO, is worth putting in the time to
learn. You'll learn a lot about photography. Since you've got the 5000, I
strongly recommend doing it.

On the other hand, if you have a deadline, just getting scans done
professionally is the better part of valor. The other thing about getting
pro scans done is that it gives you a benchmark to shoot for. So it's worth
the money for a few of your sharper frames.

One word of advice: a 4000 ppi scan is an extremely high magnification view
of your film. Get a cheap 60x or 100x microscope to check sharpness. An 8x
loupe simply isn't adequate. You don't want to pay pro scan prices for scans
of soft images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>,
Sam Carleton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
>need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)


In my experience it is not the scanning that is hard, but the post processing.
Well exposed slide film (I use mainly Provia and Astia) scans very well
on an LS-4000, and I expect that the LS-5000 will not be any worse.

But when you have the scan, you also have to know how to change the color
balance, contrast, how to sharpen, etc. And you probably want to know about
noise reduction as well.

If you ever want to do digital photography, you have to get those skills
as well.

For scanning slides, NikonScan plus Photoshop should be good enough.

>2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.


If you don't know anything about digital printing, it might be
a good idea to try outsource the complete process from slide to print.

>>From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

>the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
>would prefer to spend behind the camera.


Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.

But post processing in general requires the ability to see how the image
you got differs from what you want, and knowing how to correct is.
And that requires quite a bit of training.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:55:43 +0100, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Philip Homburg)
wrote:


>Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
>should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.



Jeez, there's both you and Dave L. saying that.

Personally, I find slides harder because of their
much greater density.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006

"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>
>>Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
>>should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.

>
> Jeez, there's both you and Dave L. saying that.
>
> Personally, I find slides harder because of their
> much greater density.


With a slide, you know what you are looking for, so you can correct for it.
With negatives, you never know if it was a bad batch of film or developing,
or you were having an off day with scanning. I've had some Reala go
hideously orange on me.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/41640617/original

I don't think the foliage was that orange that day. It might have been, but
I sure don't remember it that way.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:04:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>With a slide, you know what you are looking for, so you can correct for it.
>With negatives, you never know if it was a bad batch of film or developing,
>or you were having an off day with scanning. I've had some Reala go
>hideously orange on me.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/41640617/original
>
>I don't think the foliage was that orange that day. It might have been, but
>I sure don't remember it that way.



I dunno. That image looks fine to me, and apparently
you have one other reviewer who likes it as well.

I checked this image with the Info tool to see if the
neutrals are really neutral. I assume that most of the
rooftops should be at or near neutral.

Some are closer than others but there's no systematic
color cast that I can discern.

Overall the color balance is very nice (to my eyes)
although you have blown out the highlights a bit --
which you can see in one of the clouds. (And in
the histogram.)

I don't know what time of year this shot was taken
but clearly the sun is fairly low, which would add
warmth in any case.

AIUA, most chromes have a deliberate bias
toward blue, because they are (or were) meant
to be projected with incandescent bulbs.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Raphael Bustin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Personally, I find slides harder because of their
>much greater density.


In my experience, well exposed Provia and Astia scan very well on
Nikon scanners.

With well exposed, I mean that everything you need is within the 5 stops
where slide film has a more or less constant gamma.

I switch to print film for anything that has more contrast than those
5 stops.

Of course, all to often there will be details in high lights or
shadows that you want to save.

But if OP is going to make slides with the intention of making high quality
prints, then he simply has to make sure that the contrast does not
exceed what the slide can handle, or he should switch to print film.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sam Carleton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006

Philip Homburg wrote:

> But when you have the scan, you also have to know how to change the color
> balance, contrast, how to sharpen, etc. And you probably want to know about
> noise reduction as well.
>
> If you ever want to do digital photography, you have to get those skills
> as well.
>
> For scanning slides, NikonScan plus Photoshop should be good enough.
>
> >2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.

>
> If you don't know anything about digital printing, it might be
> a good idea to try outsource the complete process from slide to print.


I have been digital capture now for about two years, shooting the Nikon
D2H. There are two reasons for returning to film:

1: The Nikkon 35-18 f/3.5~4.5 is a LOT cheaper then the 12-24/4. It
looks like I can pick up a used one for about $200~$300 on eBay,
compared to a new 12-24/4 for about $1000.
2: I simply LOVE shooting film, there is nothing like looking at chrome
on a light table!
3: I do beleive that with a good scan and correct PP I can get better
detail out of Velvia then I can my 4.1MP Nikon D2H. Mind you, I am
targetting 13x19 and maybe larger prints.

Sam

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sam Carleton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Sam Carleton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
> > to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
> > prints. I see two options:

>
> There's a third option. Shoot 6x7 and scan on either an Epson V750 or get
> professional scans.
>
> And a fourth option: Shoot with a Canon 5D.
>
> And a fifth option: Shoot with any 8MP or higher dSLR, mount the camera
> vertically on the tripod, and shoot three frames and stitch.


Well, the later part of the 5th option won't work, for what I am
shooting is NOT landscape, I have to capture it in one click, cannot
stitch...

The main reason I am NOT using my current dSLR (Nikon D2H) is not
because of the lack of MP, but because of lack of funds for the correct
lens for the project. I did consider shooting 6x7, but when I looked
at the cost of the equipment, it would cost me more then the Nikon lens
I need. Like I said in my other posting, I am in need of an ultra wide
zoom for this project. And then there is the Canon 5D, great camera, I
would love to have it, but it minus well be the Leica M8 (which I would
opt for before the 5D).

> Scanning isn't rocket science, and, IMHO, is worth putting in the time to
> learn. You'll learn a lot about photography. Since you've got the 5000, I
> strongly recommend doing it.


You know what, I have been playing/learning about photography for years
and years now. I am 35 and have been behind a camera camera sinse I
was 14. This project is what I plain to use to launch me into a
professional career as a photographer, so my goal is to invest my money
and time in the best possible way. I don't think learning to scan film
is the best use of either my time or money right now. I also think
that I could use the $$$ for the 12-24 in film scanning and prints.

Maybe my best bet is to find a lab that can simply print my chrome
dirrectly and skip the whole digital phase of things all together.

Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2006
Sam Carleton wrote:

> I have been digital capture now for about two years, shooting the
> Nikon D2H. There are two reasons for returning to film:
>
> 1: The Nikkon 35-18 f/3.5~4.5 is a LOT cheaper then the 12-24/4. It
> looks like I can pick up a used one for about $200~$300 on eBay,
> compared to a new 12-24/4 for about $1000.


Smart money goes on the Tokina 12-24 ($475 NEW) since the Nikon 12-24 is an
utter dog. The Tokina blows the Nikon away in every respect except AF
speed, which isn't a concern at WA.







Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cisco IP NGN Enables End-to-End Digital Video and IPTV Service Delivery for 'Video 2.0 studiescircle@yahoo.com Cisco 0 12-12-2006 03:11 PM
Measure delay end-to-end Dave Cisco 1 07-20-2004 12:51 PM
is there a difference between CIR and CIR+end to end clear channel connection? ike lozada Cisco 0 05-27-2004 02:34 AM
Architecture question: should I use a web service as back end to my web front end? Karen Sundquist ASP .Net Web Services 1 12-01-2003 06:28 AM



Advertisments