Scanner for negative scanning

Schwedenstahl · 2006-11-30T12:34:13+00:00

Keine Angst, mein Urteil bezog sich nur auf KB. Da erhalte ich Bilder vom Format 1200x1800, und das dürfte für nicht viel mehr als Postkartengröße reichen. A...

Schwedenstahl

Hello, I’ve got a question: for the sake of efficiency, I’d like to scan my negatives so I can get a quicker overview, as I often don’t have time to start on the positives straight away after the associative processing. I think it would also be quite useful for pre-selection. Can anyone give me a tip on the best and most cost-effective way to do this? I don’t intend to spend too much time thinking about image editing; I’d rather invest that time in good analogue work. Thanks in advance! Regards, Marwan Associative processor = negative processor – I don’t know how that got in there.

AntiLynd

Hi Marwan, How about an Agfa Arcus 1200, for example? It gets a lot of good reviews; apparently it’s quite nippy, and unlike many others, it supposedly really does reach 1200 dpi. Oh, and it can scan without glass too. And if I’m not mistaken, the illuminated area is large enough to lay a whole set of negatives on top of it, to use as a contact sheet substitute. Best of all, you can pick one up for a song on eBay; I snapped one up a few days ago for 33 euros. Once it arrives, I can finally see for myself what it’s like and won’t have to spread any more urban legends... :ph34r: Best regards Nils.

cfb_de

Hi Nils, I can confirm that. I have the unit in a Microtek case (it’s different, but the scanning mechanism inside is apparently the same) and I’m also very happy with it. But what’s the point if there’s no SCSI card that fits in the computer, or if you have to buy one at great expense? Mine cost €14.50 :-) and came with the KB/6x9/13x18 negative frames included. On top of that, there’s the glass frame I mentioned earlier; the drawer is thick enough to accommodate a cover glass as well. Best regards, Franz

AntiLynd

Of course, it was not least your enthusiasm over on the forum that helped me make my decision to buy (which took me about a year) :ph34r: The SCSI card is already here, ready to be installed. Speaking of ‘cover glass’... on apug (or was it photo.net?) someone said they’d stopped using glassless holders and were now only scanning using the sandwich technique. Apparently, the improved flatness gives better quality than the double glass setup, so the results are ultimately better than with glassless scanning. Have you done a 1:1 comparison? I’d be interested to know, as that would essentially be a bit of a damning indictment of the whole twin-plate concept... Best regards Nils

cfb_de

Hi Nils, Well, you’ve certainly taken your time. I’ve only had mine since August :-) I haven’t done a comparison test and won’t get round to it before the end of January either. It’s just been taken down now; I’m busy with the photo calendars for Christmas, still have work to do, and want to organise an exhibition on the side as well. It’s going to be a stressful two weeks before the holidays. Best regards, Franz

Guido

Hi there! I’ve had one of these Arcus 1200s lying around for a while now and I’m quite happy with it. The frames that come with it make scanning a breeze. The only thing is, sometimes the software complains that it can’t calibrate properly. Then I just repeat the whole process and it works fine with a successful calibration :ph34r: . There are loads of cheap UW SCSI cards on eBay. I got mine for under 10 Deutschmarks. If you go for a common model from, say, Adaptec, these are usually recognised without any problems by current operating systems. Of course, the computer needs to have a free PCI slot for this ;) . You might also need to get an adapter for the connector between the controller card and the scanner (just search for ‘SCSI adapter’ on Reichelt, for example). However, I can’t say whether the included Agfa scanner software is compatible with Windows Vista; this could be a real drawback for Windows users. Cheers Guido

AntiLynd

Hi there, Yeah, the scanner software is going to be the next thing I’ll have to grapple with when my scanner arrives tomorrow... Fotolook seems to be included (you can download it from Agfa), but is it any good? Actually, I’m wondering: what exactly does scanner software do? Is it just about automating things, i.e. saving me work, or can it really do something that I couldn’t do in GIMP, Photoshop, etc.? Isn’t the data coming out of the scanner the same, regardless of whether I use scanner software or not? You mentioned calibration... would I be unable to do that if I didn’t use any intermediary software? Questions upon questions... :ph34r: Best regards Nils.

Wolfgg

Hi Nils! I’m not familiar with the Agfa device myself, but generally speaking: a scanner without scanning software is about as useful as a PC without an operating system. Scanners are usually ‘dumb’ devices, meaning they don’t have built-in software that allows them to scan independently. Instead, scanner software needs to be running on the PC to control the scanning process – telling the scanner to do things like ‘preheat the lamp’, ‘calibrate’, ‘scan the document in black and white at x DPI’ – and to receive the data sent back by the scanner. The data is then converted into the desired format (e.g. TIFF or JPG) and saved to the hard drive. Now it is time for the image editing programme, which is then used to edit the image file on the hard drive. This is the usual procedure. Thanks to the "blessings" of Windows, there are also image editing programmes that allow you to launch the scanning software directly and import the image data straight from the scanning software without having to go via the hard drive. Regards, Wolfgang

Guido

Hi there! I haven’t yet found a reason to replace Fotolook. I’ve seen much worse software from other manufacturers. There is the alternative VueScan (also available for Linux and macOS), but that would cost money as well. Otherwise, Fotolook provides the TWAIN interface, which the image editing software then accesses for scanning – i.e. Fotolook also starts up when scanning from, say, Photoshop. So with the Arcus, if you’re not using something like VueScan, there’s no getting round Fotolook. One of the advantages of Fotolook is that it already recognises the frame masks for film scanning. The scanner calibrates itself automatically via the scanner software according to the settings. Cheers Guido

max

Hi, Am I right in thinking that the Arcus 1200 actually achieves its 1200 dpi on an A4 sheet in transmitted light? That would be just the thing for my 8x10 slides and negatives. The low resolution wouldn’t matter at all then :ph34r: Regards Martin

cfb_de

Hi Martin, The hardware in the Microtek case can do that. It costs fourteen fifty. Best regards, Franz

max

Hi Martin, The hardware in the Microtek case can do that. At a quarter past two. Best regards, Franz

Hi Franz, Do you have the model number for that Microtek? Regards Martin

cfb_de

Hi Martin, "Scanmaker 4". Best regards Franz

Schwedenstahl

Yes, thank you very much for the detailed replies. I’ve managed to get hold of an Agfa Arcus II at a good price – can anyone tell me which SCSI card I need, and is there anything in particular I should look out for? Are those frames also available for this device? Best regards, Marwan

AntiLynd

So, my SCSI card is the Adaptec 2930CU. I got a pack of four on eBay for 10 euros. Hardly anyone uses that sort of thing anymore. Many kids these days don’t even know what SCSI is ;-) My new Arcus worked straight away without any problems. Under XP, the card didn’t even need a driver. As for the scanner itself (Arcus 1200): I’m pretty impressed. That’s partly because I’ve finally got a scanner at all, of course, but even setting that aside, the results (yes, even 35mm colour negative scans) are certainly impressive. Provided the output medium is the screen. It’s not good enough for printing, of course, but that’s what the lab is for... Best regards Nils.

max

>>It’s obviously not good enough for printing<< Really? That’s a shame, that’s exactly what I wanted to use it for;-( Though not for 35mm, but for formats larger than 4x5". What’s your problem, Nils? Resolution or density? Regards Martin

AntiLynd

Don’t worry, my comment was only about KB. There, I get images in 1200x1800 format, and that’s probably only good for little more than postcard size. But I don’t see a problem with that... As for the density: I haven’t done any tests yet where I’ve really put it to the test, but it says it has a Dmax of 3.2, which should be enough for most slides. Slides aren’t really my thing anyway, and I actually have the opposite problem: some (!) scans come across as rather flat. I’ve got one here, for example, an Efke 100, cloudy sky, and in A49 format too; for some images, I have to ‘twist’ the curve so much in Photoshop to get the sharpness right that, in the end, the tonal values end up beyond good and evil... you know the sort, those histograms with gaps in them... But such cases are the exception rather than the rule. Best regards Nils.