- #CANOSCAN 9950F SCANNER SETTINGS HIGH QUALITY ARCHIVE#
- #CANOSCAN 9950F SCANNER SETTINGS HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL#
Are you going to archive them as I did? Then accept that it will be slow. However, these large files meant that every action with them was slow: transferring them from the scanner via USB 1.2 took like 40 seconds per image, loading and saving them in an editor to rotate and crop them was slow, importing them into Arcsoft to produce the slideshow was slow, and so on.ĭecide what you intend to do with the digital images first. I spent a lot more time than I had to because I scanned them all at 20MB raw image size (the jpegs averaged roughly 6MB each when I was done.) My intent was to keep good-quality archival copies of the slides. I recently scanned all of my in-laws 35mm slides (over 3000 slides) and burned DVDs for them for holiday presents, and I learned a lot of lessons in the exercise. * CanoScan models don't work on Linux the Epson v750 may with Vuescan (needs libUSB and USB group access). If you're sending to a minilab or posting online, convert to 8bit and save as JPEG (98% qual for minilabs, 75% ish for posting.If printing on your own printer, save this file as print-ready, 16 bit profiled tiff.If you're sending to a minilab you don't have a profile for or posting online, convert to sRGB. If you have a profile for your printer or lab, convert to that.Apply unsharp mask (you can sharpen a LOT on large B&W).Resample down to the desired size for minilabs and many inkjets, 360ppi for Epson inkjets, ignore ppi and dpi for screen display).Now, for each desired print or display size: Save this to your archive as a 16 bit tiff.Adjust the "Levels" to set your desired black and white points.Load your images in Cinepaint or Photoshop CS or Elements 4 or later.Scan at 16 bit depth greyscale, 2 samples, no sharpening, no dust correction.Scan at your scanner's max physical resolution for 6圆, and 1/2 max for 4x5.True, a flatbed doesn't have the same DMax, but your negatives aren't fully opaque anyways.
True, a drum scanner is sharper, but so many times the price, and you can get similar results by over-scanning and downsampling. It does just fine for prints up to from 6圆. I use a CanoScan 9950f for 4x5 and 6圆 (inches and cm, respectively the photography world is funny like that). With medium format film (4x5) you can go to massive size prints even with a canon 9950f to be honest. If you are only going to use this for the web and/or computer monitors (and not into tinkering with photoshop etc) I would get the 9950f as it is the most straightforward and cheapest. I dont think you can go wrong with any of these.
#CANOSCAN 9950F SCANNER SETTINGS HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL#
The epsons are the ones i think the high end (modern) medium/large format people who aren't doing $100 per slide professional lab scans are using. The main feature of these is they have some version of dust removal (which does not work on black and white btw), they all have color restoration if your negatives are pretty old and all the other good stuff. the nikon 5000 is better at 4000 dpi however with old slides /negatives it will not really make that much of a difference. I have the 9950f and the nikon 5000 (the 35mm version of the 9000). 4800 dpi scanner with an adjustable large/medium format negative tray (and 35mm as well of course) (about $300 or so) also somewhat expensive ($800,$500 or so). The general consensus is this is the best home scanner for negatives. this is a dedicated 35/medium/large format film scanner that does up to 6"x9. (1) Nikon 9000, its very expensive ($1700 or so) but will give you a 4000 dpi / 16 bit scan.
its not "ancient" but actually exists even today (w/ modern films) There are 4 you should consider and it all depends on the money you have. The difference in quality between a good Imacon scan and a drum scan would probably not be worth the cost in this instance. If these were original Ansel Adams negatives, I'll take all that back.but if they're grandad's snapshots, 11000 lpi is just a waste of bits.Īctually, for the price that a service bureau would charge, this guy could probably go out and buy a used Imacon Flextight and then sell it at the conclusion of the project. That much resolution just isn't needed for older photos taken by amateur photographers, and which were meant to be printed out 1:1 onto fiber-based photo paper. Unless these are really nice, professionally taken 4x5s, a drum scanner is just going to be spending most of its resolution investigating the finer points of the film grain. For the price that most service bureaus are going to charge to scan 'a few hundred' 4x5 negatives, he can afford a pretty nice flatbed scanner and transparency adapter that will almost certainly give this guy the results he needs.