 Donna R. Moratelli |
Muddying the Waters About Muddy Scanning Hello, I am interested in purchasing a digital camera in addition to what I have. I have a Canon Elan 7e with Canon AF lenses. I would like to uses these lenses interchangably with both bodies. I don't even know if that is possible. I am looking to buy a pro-type camera with excellent picture quality at a comparable price. I have never used a digital camera before but, I am becoming EXTREMELY frustrated with scanning pictures constantly and ending up with what appears to be poor picture quality no matter what I do. Sharp is never sharp enough. My digital images always look 'SOFT' and flat. And soft is worse than just about anything so if anyone can help me forget about scanning for a while, I would really appreciate it. THANK YOU! Donnarae
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
Well, you have a few options. Canon just released the D60 which is a high resolution digital SLR. I hear that it just listed on B&H for $1999. It replaces the D30 which you should start seeing coming down in price consequently. There is also the EOS 1D which is designed for photojournalists. It is the fastest digital SLR on the market. Check out B&H for info and prices.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
You might also consider a film scanner. You can get one cheaper than a digital camera and the scans are much sharper than scanning a print on a flatbed. And as far as sheer resolution goes, a scanned piece of film is still far superior than an image captured on a digital camera. Just another thought to muddy the waters for you. ;-)))
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi Jeff, I can scan film on my scanner but I haven't tried it yet. I have an Epson perfection 2450 which does that too. I don't want to stop scanning all together if I can get great results. I will try scanning the film as soon as I learn how. I just didn't realize that the quality would be much different because I have had a ton of my pictures made into photo CD's and I don't like them either. The same lab always scans my film for these. The CDs are required at a couple of the newspapers that I work for. To me though, they have a noisy quality to them. Maybe it is the machine that they use or possibly I am too critical of my work .Thanks for the facts and I will take your advice. One more question, What do you think of the cheaper model digital cameras such as the Nikon CoolPix 990 and 995. I have seen so many beautiful SHARP images that have been made from the 990's. That may be a smarter first digital camera for me because they probably will appear soft to me too and possibly I won't even like going digital but I am extremely curious. Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Donna, I agree with Jeff about a dedicated film scanner being able to capture more detail. I've also had a large number of PhotoCD scans of mostly chromes done by a pro lab. Are you "post processing" the images prior to use? From your gallery images, it looks as if you must be doing something with them (other than resizing). The PhotoCD scans I have require some work prior to web use. Among the most important is tweaking their color balancing and adjusting their contrast at highest possible resolution. Then an "unsharp mask" is carefully used twice: just before resizing and just after resizing them. I set unsharp mask parameters for each image by looking at contrast edges of a "preview" at about 2:1 or 3:1 size on the screen to optimize it and prevent the unwanted side effects sharpening can cause. If you haven't spent some time experimenting with fine tuning an unsharp mask, you might try some experimenting with each of its settings, one at a time, on several images. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi John, I do post process most of the the time, but not to the extent that you have described. My steps getting to the final result are different and possibly wrong, I suppose. I will try one today the way that you have described and if it still looks 'SOFT', then I will have to stop obsessing or figure out something else out to do! Thanks for your time! Donna
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nikki Schwerdfeger |
Donna: I too have the Epson 2450 which we discussed last November. Scanning your negatives isn't as easy as it sounds... at least not for me. I have lots of problems with picking up lint and finger prints. In fact, I just posted a question about that and had about come to the conclusion that I too need a digital camera. One thing I've discovered over and over is how much effect the lab, or lab employee, can have on the final prints. I had Wal-mart develop and make a set of quick prints as we live at the end of the earth and have few options. When I did finally get to my quality lab, the difference was tremendous, but even that lab, with another employee, gave different quality results on a third round of reprints. I assume that CD scanning would be the same. When you find the perfect solution to doing our own stuff and meeting our own criteria, PLEASE let me know. It takes me weeks from taking a picture to final 8 x 10 as I have to make so many trips so far away. One day, I'd like to actually get something posted at BetterPhoto, but not until I'm satisfied.
|
|
|
|
||
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke  Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
First to Nikki: don't wait until it's perfect. We're dying to see your images :) Donna, I want to reiterate that using your scanner to scan negatives and slides will be A LOT worse than using what the others have described as a dedicated film scanner. If you want to scan film, look at dedicated film scanners such as the Nikon Super Coolscans (you will see that they are much more compact than your flatbed scanner). My thoughts on going digital: I love my D30 and have loved bypassing the lab-scanner cycle. I do continue to shoot film so that I have physical versions that I can sell. However, if Jeff K.'s price estimate for the D60 is accurate, I am a bit bummed. That means that it has cost me about $1000 to own my D30 for less than a year. That kind of "price abuse" is common is digital cameras (but, then again, it happens with scanners too). The other thing is you have to be very delicate with a digital SLR. If you are careful and can get a good price, I say go for it - you will love it and you will never look back.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi Nikki, Sorry to here about your scanner. I feel so sad because I know how badly you needed and wanted the 2450. I hope that the rains finally came to your area and the horrible drought finally broke. I pray that some of the helpless animals and livestock were spared their lives and new growth has begun again. Hi Jim, Thank you for your valuable input too!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nikki Schwerdfeger |
Donna: I didn't mean to give a bad impression of the Epson 2450. In fact, I'm pretty impressed with the details it picks up, which may be some of my problem. It does a great job of scanning to e-mail and copying business documents, a major need. I guess what I am disappointed in is the fact that it can't instantly replace the long distant photo lab and the time or cost associated, but then it's obvious that I can't have everything perfect. I find myself getting so into photography anymore that I want instant, professional results but forget that it takes years of hard work to get to that level and even professionals have their problems. I can't justify the cost of a dedicated film scanner for now so will have to get better with what I have. What I am discovering, however, is that what is "perfect" to me, isn't always considered perfect to others. My 17 year old son and I don't agree on lots of my shots, but I don't like some of the things he does. That's why I insisted he enroll in Photography at school. For a small town we have an excellent teacher and great equipment, both darkroom and digital. I must say I am a little jealous when he is learning Photoshop and I'm still struggling with Photoshop Elements... I hate reading manuals. Taking time to teach Mom isn't as important as girls, his pick up, girls, baseball, and did I mention girls. :) What I really want is to join Jim's 12 week course, but for the short run, I am home schooling a 3rd grader and could not fit one more thing in. (I will be there one day, Jim!!!!). I love this site and wish I could talk my son into spending more time reviewing the comments and photos. Having the opportunity to see the work of others and hear their problems/solutions is a great learning experience. I hope everyone else is learning as much as I am. Thanks, too, for the concern for our draught and well being. We are on the Ks/Co stateline and things are bad; no rain, no snow and yet,less than 100 miles to the East, it is Eden. Even the trees along the Arkansas River are dying and some of them are 80 years old or older. The small wildlife is having lots of troubles, from the birds to the cotton tails, and my yard stays full of animals looking for a drink. Everything is so brown and "crisp", taking pictures of the landscape isn't even fun. Please let me know what you decide about digital. I'm sure I will one day be there.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Part of the "post processing" I do working with digital scans is cleaning up lint. Is there some form of "speck removal" tool in your imaging software? Should be something along the lines of a small resizable circle that shifts color content of pixels inside it toward the color content of pixels found around its edges. It's controllable if adjusted so that it tightly encompasses the "speck" and requires about a half-dozen hits with it to completely replace a "speck" with what's around it. Normally specks aren't much of a problem for me; just a little clean-up. There have been some "basket cases" among the few large print scans I've done of 8x10's made from medium format film. I blow up the image to about 2:1 or 3:1 on the screen and methodically work through it top to bottom, left to right. Haven't found any method that works very well other than using "brute force and ignorance." Fingerprints are a different problem. These can be very difficult. If I know a few will be scanned, they are handled very carefully by the edges at least until they are scanned. Sometimes a fingerprint can be at least partially removed by using a *dry* microfiber lens cleaning *cloth* very, very gently and to keep from abrading the print finish. It's important to do this as soon as possible before the fingerprint embeds itself into the print emulsion. If it doesn't start to come off after a little work on it, I won't continue as it *will* eventually damage the print surface. Practice this on a "trash" print first! I also suffer the tyranny of distance from professional full-service labs. I use three spread around the country for various types of work. One isn't that far; overnight by USPS Priority. The other two take two to three days by Priority Mail or UPS Ground. Learned to live with the lead time required if I wanted high quality work done, especially for very large prints. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
Thanks, Nikki, for your positive comments about the site. This is a good discussion. It seems to me that many people never come to understand that scanning is indeed an art. It is very hard to do well and can be extremely time-consuming. Remembering that this is usually someone's full-time job at a photo lab may help us realize the complexity to it and skill that needs to be acquired. The nice thing is that it is incredibly empowering. Like so many other modern inventions and developments, home scanning allows us to do it all ourselves. That's wonderful, especially for someone like you, Nikki, out in the sticks. Donna, do you already know about the Unsharp Mask filter?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi Jim, Yes, I use the Unsharp Mask most of the time now. I found out about that on this site. The numbers that I use are 149 for amount, 1.5 radius and .5-.8 threshold. Sometimes I will cut that down to 80-100 percent on the amount and boost the the threshold up and sharpen the edges after it is sized if it is still needed, but most of the time, I find that to be too much sharpening. All of the important details get lost along shiny white frayed edges that should have been razor sharp lines. If anyone has the magic numbers it would be a beautiful thing because too much is as bad a too little.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Donna, I don't use Photoshop but something very similar. I always set the radius at "1" and leave it there. Then I generate a preview with "0" for threshold, 100% for amount, and blow it up to about 2:1 or sometimes 3:1 and look for a region that should have smooth continuous tone. Sky, skin, or a region clothing without significant folds, shadow or texture (e.g. broadcloth shirt). Usually the artifacting can be seen and I start bumping up the threshold until that just starts to disappear. Then I look at sharp contrast edges and some other regions to see the total effect. Occasionally it can blur low contrast details; doesn't happen very often. If that does occur, I reduce the threshold and start backing down some on the amount. When I'm satisfied with it I "accept" the preview. YMMV with how I've been doing it, and numbers might have to be pushed around a little, but it may be fruitful to see how the general method compares with how you have been doing it. BTW, my software allows setting the "preview" to be continuously updated as adjustments are made. Don't know if Photoshop has that feature. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi again John, I will try your 'general method'. PS Elements is a great program in that you can see what is being done as it is done and you can go back at any point and start over. The preview is the picture that you are working on at the time. It is far superior to any other program that I have used or owned so far, but they are all similar in many ways. It has been a long road learning digital imaging and there is so, so much to be learned. It wouldn't have been possible at all for me without tips like this from the all of the great members of betterphoto like yourself whom are so urgent to help those in need with any kind of photographic question or problem. Thanks John and everyone.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nikki Schwerdfeger |
John, Jim and Donna: Appreciate the responses. I haven't had time to respond and even now must run. Donna, do you ever use the SilverFast program that came with the Epson 2450 scanner? I'm not sure I understand the difference between it and the regular Epson import process. I remember reading in a photo magazine that it was one of the better features of the Epson line, but can't remember why it was such a great thing. Can anyone else explain it for me? PS. Looking through my photos to upload. Most are 8 x 10's How will they upload, or do I need to find the 4 x 6 and go from there?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna R. Moratelli |
Hi Nikki, I used it [Silverfast] but only when it was in an emergency. I found that the regular scanning mode CAN'T scan everything. Monochromatic (colored) photos with texture can't be picked up with the normal mode at all. They turn into a detailess blobs of color and shade. The lines are soft and lack all detail. You will know when you have a picture like that. It is very,very obvious. It looks interesting if that's the effect that you are looking for but I didn't like it at all )it looks like artwork from a child to me). If you send me your email again at my site I will send instructions on Silverfast after I go through the motions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vincent Lowe |
Consider using a scanning utility called Vuescan, which amongst other things allows multi-pass scanning. This virtually eliminates CCD noise (noise generated within the Charge Coupled Device - the light sensitive thingy that captures the image). You can download a trial version from https://www.hamrick.com fully working but puts a grid across the image (it's not a lot to register though - well worth it). Also, for everything you need to know about scanning I can recommend http://www.scantips.com/
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
