Outsource slide scanning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    I've been scanning slides with a Nikon Coolscan IV and I am always
    disappointed with the way the scans look on my monitor. I've been through
    the calibration drill and I don't believe that calibration is the major
    factor. I also believe that the image is different because slides have a
    light source behind them and my monitor is not as bright as the source.
    Having said that, my new idea (lightbulb on) is to send out my slides to be
    scanned professionally to get a greater dynamic range. Anybody out there
    have some experiance with this? Is it outrageously expensive? Where do you
    send your stuff?


    Steve
    Steve, Aug 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been scanning slides with a Nikon Coolscan IV and I am always
    > disappointed with the way the scans look on my monitor. I've been through
    > the calibration drill and I don't believe that calibration is the major
    > factor. I also believe that the image is different because slides have a
    > light source behind them and my monitor is not as bright as the source.
    > Having said that, my new idea (lightbulb on) is to send out my slides to be
    > scanned professionally to get a greater dynamic range. Anybody out there
    > have some experiance with this? Is it outrageously expensive? Where do you
    > send your stuff?
    >
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >

    Read the recent post form the fellow advertising slide scanning @ .90 each. If
    like me you have many thousands and are not made of money learn to enjoy the
    quality of the scans you are making.I also doubt that the quality on a monitor
    is going to be much different with an outsourced scan.
    Just my two cents worth.
    Ed
    WinkenBlinken& Nod, Aug 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. When you look at slides normally, either you use a light panel or a
    projector of some kind.

    In the case of a light panel, they often have fluorescent tubes which don't
    produce a full spectrum of light, so even though the manufacturer says that
    they have a "daylight balanced source of illumination" (just copying of the
    Jessops blurb about mine, they make the slides look purple. When you look
    at them on the light panel, the scene look nice an warm, but on the computer
    they look pretty flat. The best way to compare them is to hold the slide in
    front of a white section of the screen and compare what you see that way
    with the scanned image.

    Regarding the quality, I usually find that monochrome areas of the scanned
    image show pixelation where the luminosity varies but the hue stays the
    same. I get this even scanning with an empty slide, i.e. without film, and
    regardless of scanner calibration, and random in all directions (so it isn't
    streaking caused by the scanner elements' sensitivities).

    - Aaron.

    The light source may be completely differ
    "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been scanning slides with a Nikon Coolscan IV and I am always
    > disappointed with the way the scans look on my monitor. I've been through
    > the calibration drill and I don't believe that calibration is the major
    > factor. I also believe that the image is different because slides have a
    > light source behind them and my monitor is not as bright as the source.
    > Having said that, my new idea (lightbulb on) is to send out my slides to

    be
    > scanned professionally to get a greater dynamic range. Anybody out there
    > have some experiance with this? Is it outrageously expensive? Where do you
    > send your stuff?
    >
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >
    Aaron Queenan, Aug 6, 2003
    #3
  4. In article <bgr41q$b3s$>, Aaron Queenan wrote:
    ....
    > at them on the light panel, the scene look nice an warm, but on the computer
    > they look pretty flat. The best way to compare them is to hold the slide in
    > front of a white section of the screen and compare what you see that way
    > with the scanned image.


    I have a cheap HP scanner. While under the covers the software has fully
    adjustable scaning parameters, the "dummy" interface has 2, accurate and
    "good looking" (enhanced color).

    The same thing happens with television. Find a newscast or other program
    where the person's face will be on the screen for a long time with a
    person who's skin color is close to yours. Now adjust the color
    saturation (and if you're in the U.S./Canada) the tint, until it looks
    "just right". Hold up your hand next to their face.

    Looks good on a screen isn't accurate.



    > Regarding the quality, I usually find that monochrome areas of the scanned
    > image show pixelation where the luminosity varies but the hue stays the
    > same. I get this even scanning with an empty slide, i.e. without film, and
    > regardless of scanner calibration, and random in all directions (so it isn't
    > streaking caused by the scanner elements' sensitivities).


    It's probabably caused by software trying to calculate screen pixels from
    image pixels. Try using a 1:1 view setting.

    Geoff.
    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
    Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: (Not for email)
    Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 6, 2003
    #4
  5. > > Regarding the quality, I usually find that monochrome areas of the
    scanned
    > > image show pixelation where the luminosity varies but the hue stays the
    > > same. I get this even scanning with an empty slide, i.e. without film,

    and
    > > regardless of scanner calibration, and random in all directions (so it

    isn't
    > > streaking caused by the scanner elements' sensitivities).

    >
    > It's probabably caused by software trying to calculate screen pixels from
    > image pixels. Try using a 1:1 view setting.


    Alas, that's with 1:1 scaling and all colour calibration turned off. I
    think they call it luminosity noise.

    Surely a patch of white shouldn't have values varying between 249 and 254 in
    adjacent scanned pixels. It sort of makes any questions about DMax seem
    pointless. :-(

    - Aaron.
    Aaron Queenan, Aug 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Steve

    HRosita Guest

    Hi Steve,

    I think it is the scanner. I have had the same problem where the slides scanned
    on the Nikon IV looked flat, dingy, and lifeless. I finally got tired of
    spending so much time on each slide, sold the Nikon scanner and bought a
    Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner. Difference of night and day.
    The scans look much better and have a "glow" seen on the monitor that was not
    there before.

    Bu the way, the less expensive Minolta Scan Elite and Elite II are also much
    better than the Nikon scanners.

    I think the price of outsourcing your slides for scanning is going to be
    prohibitive unless you only need to scan 10 or less.

    Rosita
    HRosita, Aug 6, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zeus
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    982
    Ken Briscoe
    Aug 2, 2004
  2. Brian
    Replies:
    94
    Views:
    1,774
    Patrick Dickey--MSN Beta Tester
    Sep 29, 2004
  3. Rowdy Yates

    OT: Chicken Ticka Outsource

    Rowdy Yates, Nov 2, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,108
    Rowdy Yates
    Nov 3, 2004
  4. Charlie Self

    Re: Outsource slide scanning

    Charlie Self, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    Charlie Self
    Aug 7, 2003
  5. LAshooter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
    LAshooter
    Jun 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page