Scanning old 8x10's

How much of an advantage can a professional shop provide in scanning
old 8x10's over my doing it with a vanilla HP scanner?

If there's a significant advantage, how can I find a such a
professional shop? What costs would I be facing?

Any advice from experience would be appreciated.

 

The chances are unless they are drum scanning you won't see much difference
and even then with old prints not enough to warrant the cost. If you were
doing slides or negatives then it would be worth it.

I would scan them at at least 300 dpi and save them in an uncompressed
format. Then work on restoring copies of those files. HP scanners are pretty
good hardware wise they are just a little sucky in the software area (lack
of controls) but Photoshop should give you everything you need.

Robert

 

Perfect! Thanks - I'm happy to see that it coincides with my original
thoughts.

I see you're also saying film scanning should be done with specialized
gear. To expand a little, would the generally available film scanners
(in the hands of a non-professional) meet with success similar to
prints-on-flatbeds?

Are film scanners worth their cost?

 

There's this amazing thing called a phone book....

See above, grasp that concept, call and ask...

 

I have experience of exactly this situation and I agree with everything
Robert said. I love my old SCSI ScanJet 3C for its sharp focus and colour
accuracy - but the software is weak. I use Photoshop for processing the
scanned images where necessary. And Robert's spot-on about uncompressed file
formats too - avoid the dreaded JPG at all costs if possible!

regards

Corny

 

What's in the phone book that helps you ID the boneheads &
moneygrabbers?

 

The phone number for the Better Business Bureau.

 

You've got it th4e wrong way round. There aren't *any* flatbed
scanners that can produce the quality of scans that even the cheapest
film scanner can.

I hope that answers your question.

 

Sure does, thanks.

I didn't word my question well; I just don't know if they're easy to
use or require fancy cal procedures. I guess the nut of it is that
even low-end film scanners make good scans...

Any advice on how to learn more about these things (besides the hard
way)?

 

Another person named Wayne has an excellent web site on scanning:
www.scantips.com
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! Oh my! Someone here has never
had the opportunity to attempt to deal with the BBB.

Trust me: You'll get more useful information from simply listening to
the attitude someone presents over the phone, than from anything the BBB
can offer. Don't take that to mean I recommend basing a decision on that,
either.


- Al.

 

The worth of many film scanners exceeds their cost by a significant
margin. Prices are great right now.

Now, however, for some fine details. A flatbed scanner is much easier
to use, less prone to difficulties with dust and such, and allows you a
direct reference for color-correction. A flatbed doesn't allow you much
leeway in printing a digital file much larger than the original scan -
you've got a specific threshold of detail. For quick work or non-demanding
digital files, they can work just fine.

A film scanner produces a wider dynamic range (lights to darks,
various hues of the colors), almost always brings out the greatest amount
of detail that the film captured itself, and moreover can be used carefully
with multiple scans to bring out a range of color or exposure that can then
be brought down to 24-bit usefully. There is no subjective color-correction
by the lab, no unintentional cropping, no exposure adjustments done by
someone who didn't know what they were doing or what you were after.

But this does mean that you do it yourself. For instance, when
scanning negatives, all films have a different base, that orange cast. Some
scanners or software can cope with this easily, but many cannot (and they
change routinely anyway, especially Kodak films). Getting the color you
want from a film scanner may take some experience.

Degraded negatives and dust can be a problem, despite the software
and hardware solutions. Being meticulous about clean conditions and proper
film storage is paramount.

In short, film scanners will give you the greatest detail and the
most controllable results, but not automatically. If you're ready to put a
little effort into it, the results should blow away flatbed work.

- Al.

 

Actually over the last couple years I've dealt with the local BBB
office on numerous (read dozen or more) times and I received
nothing but quality service and good advice

No thanks.

 

I can only give you limited experience with the Nikon Coolscan IV. I
picked up one used and it is terrific. I've probably used it on a
couple of hundred color negs and slides. Different film brands and
batches and it has always given me very good results. I take the
output and do my touch-up work in PS.

 

Are film scanners worth their cost? I would have to say yes. If you have the
negatives you will be able to get more detail and have a bit more control
over the scanning. Photographic prints don't have the much data in them.
Negatives on the other hand do. How much you can pull out is up to the
quality of the scanner.

If I were going to buy a dedicated film scanner I would get one with the
latest version of digital ice so that dust and other annoying film related
problems are automatically corrected when it is scanned. $1000 should get
you a very nice film scanner.

As for flatbeds with film scanning tops like the Epson ones I have had
pretty good luck with them in this department. But, you don't get the
quality or clarity that you would from an actual film scanner. However, it
is 10 times better than scanning from a Photographic print.

Robert

 

A couple of economic issues to consider.

For new images, I'd recommend a digital camera. The quality now is
excellent - more than adequate for 8x10 enlargement and larger, zero film
cost, and there is no scanning time.

For existing snapshots, most people will be happy with a flatbed, which also
serves as a long term appliance for scanning documents, drawings, etc.

If, as I do, you have hundreds or thousands of existing negatives and
slides, the following economic factors are worth thinking about.

First, the cost of the scanner versus the cost of sending the negs out for
high quality scans - PhotoCD or otherwise. This cost runs in the
neighborhood of 50 cents per image and should be balanced against the price
of a scanner, minus what you could get for it on eBay by selling it
afterward. I bought my film scanner some years ago based on just this
equation.

The second (often neglected) economic issue is the time it takes you to
clean, scan, and "spot" your negatives and slides. For me, even when I'm
just cranking through rolls of film, we're talking a minute or two per
image, or about 45 minutes to an hour for a roll of film, just to get the
images to disk.

If you spend $1000 for a high end scanner, and have 2000 images to scan, you
are breaking even on dollar cost. But do figure in the many hours - two
minutes per image, say - of de-dusting and scanning time that you will need
to invest. Believe me this gets old fast, and you may wish you'd simply
sent your collection of legacy negs to be scanned.

There are also those who value the superior quality of film, and feel that
scanning is simply part of the process of getting the best possible digital
image. Fine - I love high quality photographs, and hope they keep up their
hard work. As one who is happy with 3 megapixel tack-sharp 8x10's, this is
not really a factor for me.

--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

 

Yes. The important factor is the DMax more than anything.

Using them is obviously good ;-) But you'll find lots of advice on the
Net. Just Google for it. One site to give you a start is:

www.scantips.com