 Piper Lehman |
Scanning Slides with CanoScan N650U Flatbed HELP! Okay, I've started shooting slide film and just got my first slides back from the lab. How do I scan them??? I don't think my scanner (CanoScan N650U flatbed) has this capability. Ouch. Now what? Do I go buy a new scanner with slide scan attachment? Or do I go back to the lab to get prints/contact sheets made? HELP!
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
I've talked more with you the last few days than I have to my children. Because a slide is so small, we have to scan at a high resolution to end up with a usable size. The best option is a film scanner. Nix the HP S-20; it can't handle dense slides. The next best option is the Nikon IV ED,$800. More expensive flatbeds have optional negative attachments, but NONE that I'm aware will do an acceptable job on 35-mm. You can find a service bureau (a business that caters to pros and graphics arts types) and have yhour best ones scanned. Some places can scan them to Photo CD, a Kodak process. You'll find that if you do much of this, that you'd be better off buying your own scanner.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Thanks, Doug. No need to make me feel guilty! Go spend time with your kids! I think my best option is to have contact/index sheets or prints made at the time of D&P from now on. Paying someone else to scan my slides is just plain 'scan rape', to coin a new term. It's not like I've got any award winning pix here I just have to get scanned. Trust me... Just started using slide film for the better quality end-product, and to avoid getting prints back that look like gray cards. It's not good to cry at the lab on more than one occasion. Thanks for all your kind help. Have a Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
|
||
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke  Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
Hi Piper, I am not familiar with your Canon flatbed but after a little research, I'd conclude that your scanner will not do slides. Some flatbeds have an optional transparency adapter that you can buy. These replace the lid of your scanner and provide a light source to shine through your slides. Note: with some scanners, you can "creatively" adapt it by placing a standard lightbox on top. That is essentially all a transparency adapter really is. However, you will likely need scanning software that includes a transparency function; I doubt your Canon includes this. If you like near a major city (where is Plano, anyway?), I would recommend finding a pro photo store that rents gear. If you can, rent a slide scanner one weekend and scan as much as you can. Whatever you do, don't go the contact sheet route. Your scans will be much better from the original film. This usually holds true - scanning film is better than scanning prints. By the way, you can read more reviews about your scanner at epinions.com. My fav: "Pros: Fast, Small, Great quality Pictures, Inexpensive, Win2k compatible, USB Cons: My cat likes to sleep on it." I know just how this person feels.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Thanks, Jim. Plano is in northeast Texas--20 miles from the heart of Dallas, though you won't know when you've left one town and entered the next. Technically, Plano is two towns north of Dallas, with Richardson separating the two. This is the dullest, most unaesthetically pleasing place on earth. I must plan a photo trip for inspiration. Thanks for the advice and for "dissing" my little scanner! :) Hey, it does the job as far as prints and the like. I just want to be able to get my stuff uploaded here for critique. Would scanning a slide print have any less quality than scanning print-film prints? This is how I've been doing it all along. piper
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Piper, My kids are grown and scattered, so I don't talk to them much anyway. If you shoot negative film, scanning from the print is the best you're gonna do, aside from using a film scanner. Prints from slides often come out too contrasty, and won't scan as well. It might be worth the money to have a few of your best slides (and negs, too) scanned. Is there anyone around with a Nikon, Canon, Minolta, or as a last resort, HP film scanner?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Pang |
[Original Quote from Doug N.] Prints from slides often come out too contrasty, and won't scan as well. [End Quote] Hmm, maybe this answers my question above. There is too much difference in exposure in the photo above and there is too much contrast between dark and light bits. Will have to see what happens when I get my next roll back. I was more careful exposing this roll. Every other slide I've scanned has come up really well. Good colour saturation and rich contrast (but I wouldn't say too contrasty)
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
What I thought I was referring to above was trying to scan a print that a commercial place made from a slide. They're often REAL contrasty to begin with. A properly exposed slide gives a great range of tones. National Geographic prints from Kodachrome and Velvia. Slides ARE often contrastier than negatives, but many of us think the added color saturation is worth it. Read what Reichmann says at luminous-landscape.com. Exposure has to be pretty dead-on when you shoot slides to scan. I try to expose with attention to shadow detail, but occasionally fail at this. I'd better bracket my exposures. When my exposure is off, the histogram in Photoshop tells the tale. Getting shadow detail that's barely there can be quite a challenge. Remember that the shadow area of a slide is dense, where the shadow area of a negative is thin.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vincent Lowe |
Hi Piper A really good value-for-money film scanner is the Pacific Image 1800U (I think it's made by Janoptik but sold under various brand names including Prime Film 1800U in the UK). I had one of these for one night about a year ago and did a quick comparison against my Nikon Coolscan II. I couldn't fault it on quality at a fraction of the price. I put the results on some 'private' web pages so that a friend could have a look and these pages are still there at www.vlec.freeserve.co.uk/scanner/index.html
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Piper, I have nearly all of my photographs scanned by a nearby professional lab onto a Kodak Photo CD at "consumer" resolution (2048 x 3072 pixels). This is much *different* from the "Picture CD" you can request from Kodak when you have color negative film processed, and is much higher resolution. Cost of the CD itself is about $10.00 plus about $1.00 per scan. You can continue to have photographs added to a CD until its filled (capacity is 100 images). The exact price varies little depending on the specific lab doing the Photo CD for you. An image can rarely be used directly from a Photo CD. You will need PhotoShop or other similar software to read the CD and Kodak's special file format for the scans. You also need to be able to adjust contrast, color balance, resize it to the desired resolution, and then carefully apply an unsharp mask. Nearly all of the photographs I use "on the web" are from a Photo CD scan, and the majority of them are from slides; many of them are Kodachrome 64. This is an alternative to buying an expensive film scanner, at least until you save up some money for a good one. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard G. Lucas |
did any of you try a nikon coolscan 4000, this peice of equipment will do just about every thing with a 35mm slide except take the photo.its a little pricey but well worth the money. Richard Lucas
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
