scans and scan

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jamesnorris, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. jamesnorris

    jamesnorris Guest

    Eight years ago I brought an Epson flat bed scanner and painstakingly
    scanned over 2000 colour PHOTOS. They were all saved to cd's as PSD files.
    Technology has moved on and I recently brought a Dimage Elite 5400 neg
    scanner. I did my best to get the neg scanner settings right then scanned
    all 2000 NEGATIVES. It took a along time. They were saved on a hard drive
    as JPEGS. The PSD cds are'nt kept in my house, except for one of them that
    I came across this evening. Out of curiosity I compared the PSD scans made
    with the Epson from the photos with the JPEGS made with the Dimage from the
    negatives. The Epson PSD's have scratches but the bad news is that much of
    the time the Dimage JPEGS made from the negatives seem more washed out and
    lacking in detail (although with no scratches!).
    Is this a typical result? I had planned on destroying the old cd's with the
    PSD files but now I am wondering if I should hang on to them. It's a hassle
    to retrieve from the place where they are so I wondered if you guys could
    comment on wether its usual for photo scanners to to better than expensive
    film scanners.

    Thanks
    jamesnorris, Jan 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jamesnorris wrote:
    > Eight years ago I brought an Epson flat bed scanner and painstakingly
    > scanned over 2000 colour PHOTOS. They were all saved to cd's as PSD files.
    > Technology has moved on and I recently brought a Dimage Elite 5400 neg
    > scanner. I did my best to get the neg scanner settings right then scanned
    > all 2000 NEGATIVES. It took a along time. They were saved on a hard drive
    > as JPEGS. The PSD cds are'nt kept in my house, except for one of them that
    > I came across this evening. Out of curiosity I compared the PSD scans made
    > with the Epson from the photos with the JPEGS made with the Dimage from the
    > negatives. The Epson PSD's have scratches but the bad news is that much of
    > the time the Dimage JPEGS made from the negatives seem more washed out and
    > lacking in detail (although with no scratches!).
    > Is this a typical result? I had planned on destroying the old cd's with the
    > PSD files but now I am wondering if I should hang on to them. It's a hassle
    > to retrieve from the place where they are so I wondered if you guys could
    > comment on wether its usual for photo scanners to to better than expensive
    > film scanners.


    No, a good negative scanner like that will do much better than a print
    scanner, at least if the prints are small commercial machine-made
    prints. (If they're 11x14 custom prints, scanning them might well
    produce better results, because of the extra value put into the printing
    process.)

    A big part of the scanning process is the skills of the operator. I
    can't of course know for sure, but I'm suspecting the film scanner is
    fine, and with a bit of practice and work you will be able to make much
    better scans with it. What you say about getting the settings right
    *and then* scanning all 2000 sounds wrong to me -- you have to get the
    settings right for each and every negative. Or else you have to find
    settings that get all the information from groups of negatives (similar
    conditions and exposures), and then edit to optimize appearance.

    (My experience isn't with a Dimage Elite 5400, I've had a Nikon LS-2000
    and a 5000 ED, but I've heard enough about the Dimage to be pretty
    confident there's nothing basically wrong with the design.)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jamesnorris

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:47:34 +0000, jamesnorris wrote:

    > Eight years ago I brought an Epson flat bed scanner and painstakingly
    > scanned over 2000 colour PHOTOS. They were all saved to cd's as PSD files.
    > Technology has moved on and I recently brought a Dimage Elite 5400 neg
    > scanner. I did my best to get the neg scanner settings right then scanned
    > all 2000 NEGATIVES. It took a along time. They were saved on a hard drive
    > as JPEGS. The PSD cds are'nt kept in my house, except for one of them that
    > I came across this evening. Out of curiosity I compared the PSD scans made
    > with the Epson from the photos with the JPEGS made with the Dimage from the
    > negatives. The Epson PSD's have scratches but the bad news is that much of
    > the time the Dimage JPEGS made from the negatives seem more washed out and
    > lacking in detail (although with no scratches!).
    > Is this a typical result? I had planned on destroying the old cd's with the
    > PSD files but now I am wondering if I should hang on to them. It's a hassle
    > to retrieve from the place where they are so I wondered if you guys could
    > comment on wether its usual for photo scanners to to better than expensive
    > film scanners.
    >
    > Thanks


    I don't quite understand why "it's a hassle to retrieve" and why you'd
    need to destroy them - how about making a copy??

    I've never used a dedicated scanner (too expensive for what I need), but
    I've recently begun scanning bunches of old negatives, and I've been quite
    pleasantly surprised at the quality I'm getting from an Epson perfection
    flatbed.
    ray, Jan 21, 2007
    #3
  4. jamesnorris

    Keith nuttle Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:47:34 +0000, jamesnorris wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Eight years ago I brought an Epson flat bed scanner and painstakingly
    >>scanned over 2000 colour PHOTOS. They were all saved to cd's as PSD files.
    >>Technology has moved on and I recently brought a Dimage Elite 5400 neg
    >>scanner. I did my best to get the neg scanner settings right then scanned
    >>all 2000 NEGATIVES. It took a along time. They were saved on a hard drive
    >>as JPEGS. The PSD cds are'nt kept in my house, except for one of them that
    >>I came across this evening. Out of curiosity I compared the PSD scans made
    >>with the Epson from the photos with the JPEGS made with the Dimage from the
    >>negatives. The Epson PSD's have scratches but the bad news is that much of
    >>the time the Dimage JPEGS made from the negatives seem more washed out and
    >>lacking in detail (although with no scratches!).
    >>Is this a typical result? I had planned on destroying the old cd's with the
    >>PSD files but now I am wondering if I should hang on to them. It's a hassle
    >>to retrieve from the place where they are so I wondered if you guys could
    >>comment on wether its usual for photo scanners to to better than expensive
    >>film scanners.
    >>
    >>Thanks

    >
    >
    > I don't quite understand why "it's a hassle to retrieve" and why you'd
    > need to destroy them - how about making a copy??
    >
    > I've never used a dedicated scanner (too expensive for what I need), but
    > I've recently begun scanning bunches of old negatives, and I've been quite
    > pleasantly surprised at the quality I'm getting from an Epson perfection
    > flatbed.
    >

    If you download Irfanview you can read the PSD files. You can copy them
    to where ever you wish to store or back them up. You can also use
    Irfanview to convert them to them to a modern format using the batch
    conversion process. There are about fifteen formats to which you can
    convert them.

    --
    Keith Nuttle
    3110 Marquette Court
    Indianapolis, IN 46268
    317-802-0699
    Keith nuttle, Jan 22, 2007
    #4
  5. jamesnorris

    jamesnorris Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:45b3f7ee$0$44189$...
    >
    > No, a good negative scanner like that will do much better than a print
    > scanner, at least if the prints are small commercial machine-made prints.
    > (If they're 11x14 custom prints, scanning them might well produce better
    > results, because of the extra value put into the printing process.)
    >
    > A big part of the scanning process is the skills of the operator. I can't
    > of course know for sure, but I'm suspecting the film scanner is fine, and
    > with a bit of practice and work you will be able to make much better scans
    > with it. What you say about getting the settings right *and then*
    > scanning all 2000 sounds wrong to me -- you have to get the settings right
    > for each and every negative. Or else you have to find settings that get
    > all the information from groups of negatives (similar conditions and
    > exposures), and then edit to optimize appearance.
    >
    > (My experience isn't with a Dimage Elite 5400, I've had a Nikon LS-2000
    > and a 5000 ED, but I've heard enough about the Dimage to be pretty
    > confident there's nothing basically wrong with the design.)


    The thought of having to scan was going to give me insomnia so last night I
    went to my ex's house and found my stash of scans. I looked at dozens of
    scans made wit th flatbed scanner and the neg scanner. The neg scanner gave
    much better results every time. Weired, because the scans that I had in my
    house suggested no difference in quality. I have a lousy memory, numbed
    even more by the year spent scanning, I suspect the duff scans were in my
    house because they were duff and I had meant to rescan them anyway!!! Can't
    think of many other explanations.
    jamesnorris, Jan 22, 2007
    #5
    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. Rafe B.

    Scan Comparison Site, Call for Sample Scans

    Rafe B., Dec 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    67
    Views:
    1,390
    stacey
    Dec 23, 2003
  2. john chapman

    Drab Scans of Slides with Nikon LS-4000 w/Nikon Scan 3.1

    john chapman, Feb 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    848
    HRosita
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. jack lift
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,888
    Waterperson77
    Dec 9, 2003
  4. NewScanner
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    969
    NewScanner
    Jan 16, 2007
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    848
    Richard Karash
    Aug 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page