Railfan Technology > Learning to scan, Before and After

Back in early 2013 I scanned over 100 rolls of 35mm black & white negatives taken by Emil Albrecht. At the time the only scanner I had that would do negatives was a Plustek dedicated 35mm slide and negative scanner. I did the best I could, but have always felt that the scans suffered greatly from the scratches and lack of dynamic range of the scanner.

I now have an Epson V850 flatbed, which comes with a slide holder, and negative holders that include anti-newton ring glass. There are many thoughts and opinions about scanning negatives and slides on a flatbed scanner, usually concerning problems with focus of the image. I have to say that the focus of the Epson is amazing, for both slides and negatives. After having the light (or light controls) go bad on a third Plustek scanner, I think I am done with a dedicated slide scanner.

The first photo is from the Epson, scanned at 16-bit grayscale, at 3200 ppi resolution. To minimize the terrible scratches on these rolled 35mm negatives, I used an old darkroom trick of a very (very, very) light smearing of mineral oil to fill the scratches, or at least the worst of them. The mineral oil was wiped off with a lint-free Pec-Pad.

The second photo was scanned in 2013, and is from the Plustek, scanned at 8-bit, at 2400 ppi resolution.

After almost a week of trial and error, including wet scanning, it turns out that the using the 35mm film holder on the Epson V850 is the best and most effective solution. Now it's time to get to work on the newly recieved images.

Don Strack



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/19 10:07 by donstrack.

---

---

I've been using an Epson V700 for years now and have always been totally happy with it.  I used to have a Minolta slide scanner which also did a good job, but I like using the Epson.   I also have negatives from 35mm all the way up to 5x7 and it handles them with ease.

Quie a difference between both scanners.

Stanley Jackowski
Valrico, FL

Like you I just got a Epson V850 that replaced a Canon 9000F and the difference is amazingI am very happy with it.
Wes

Wes Chiles
Topeka, KS

To my eyes, the Epson scan is softer. But yes, wet scanning has distinct advantages.

In another example of the difference in scanners. Here is the same negative, first as scanned by the Plustek film scanner, and second by the Epson V850.

1) Plustek - note how to get the train in the shadow, it blows out the hills across the canyon.

2) Epson - with a better balance of light vs. shadow. Note also the better focus.

Don Strack



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/19 08:49 by donstrack.

---

---

Heh. The 16 bits vs 8 bits comparison: 16 bits does the trick, and that's why some of us shoot RAW rather than jpeg.

John.

What software are you using for both?  Makes a big difference with the settings. I could easily bring the highlight area in on the Plustek.
RWJ

donstrack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In another example of the difference in scanners.
> Here is the same negative, first as scanned by the
> Plustek film scanner, and second by the Epson
> V850.
>
> 1) Plustek - note how to get the train in the
> shadow, it blows out the hills across the canyon.
>
> 2) Epson - with a better balance of light vs.
> shadow. Note also the better focus.
>
> Don Strack

What software are you using for both?  Makes a big difference with the settings. I could easily bring the highlight area in on the Plustek.
RWJ

donstrack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In another example of the difference in scanners.
> Here is the same negative, first as scanned by the
> Plustek film scanner, and second by the Epson
> V850.
>
> 1) Plustek - note how to get the train in the
> shadow, it blows out the hills across the canyon.
>
> 2) Epson - with a better balance of light vs.
> shadow. Note also the better focus.
>
> Don Strack