derFloh
Hello everyone,
I’ve bought a second-hand CanoScan 9000F II and I’m quite disappointed with the first few scans. The images are rather out of focus. With a 400, you can’t even make out a single grain, and with a CMS 20, there’s a complete lack of detail...
As the negative holders weren’t included, I bought an anti-reflective sheet and am therefore scanning directly onto the scanner glass (film > smooth side down, sheet on top > rougher side up). I’m using VueScan as my software.
Am I doing something wrong? Or is this normal for this price range? Back in the day, I used to get much higher levels of sharpness with a cheap slide duplicator (using a Canon EOS). Unfortunately, that setup no longer works with the A7RII :(
(I’m happy to post some more images this evening...)
Best regards
Florian
TR
Hello, I suspect the negatives aren’t in focus. You’ll probably need the masks, or you’ll have to apply the negatives to the glass using the wet mounting method (from below) and position the glass slightly higher.
€
Furthermore, scanned negatives (or their digital versions) almost always need to be artificially sharpened by the software. That’s perfectly normal.
derFloh
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply. The focus issue might be the problem, but I’d already tried using the negative holder (from the duplicator). It’s about 1mm high, and the scans were completely out of focus with that. I’d also read reviews online saying that scanning directly onto the glass gives better results. Now I’m not sure whether it’s worth spending the 20 euros on the holder.
Well, I’ll do some more scans tonight for comparison and post them here online.
Best regards,
Florian
odot
While we’re on the subject, what’s the best height-adjustable negative holder? Would I still need to provide the glass plates myself, or would they be included?
jonny
I own the scanner in question (as well as a few others, including the Imacon Flextight). Here is what I have to say on the matter.
?
A basic flatbed scanner with plastic optics, such as the Canoscan 9000F, is fundamentally unsuitable for scanning 35mm negatives to a high standard. For medium format, the quality is just about adequate for digital contact sheets or small prints.
?
The expectation that one can photograph on high-resolution film using meticulously calculated and manufactured optics and then digitise the results losslessly with a plastic toy scanner is naive. Neither different software, nor the use of film strip holders, nor wet scanning will change this. I’d get hold of the film strip holders (they’re available as spare parts), but the rest (software, wet scanning) would be a waste of money and time here. Sorry if I’m putting it so bluntly. Unfortunately, the weakest link in the transfer chain (almost always the scanner) fundamentally limits the maximum overall quality that can be achieved.
?
If you want reasonably acceptable quality, you’ll have no choice but to buy a better/proper film scanner. The Reflecta Proscan 7200 delivers quite good results for the money with acceptable scan times, though I don’t know if the device is still available. Naturally, you’ll get the best quality for the least money (and the most fun) with an analogue print in your own darkroom.
derFloh
Hi Elizabeth,
Thanks for your honest opinion :) Yes, it’s easy to get swayed by online reviews when you can’t try things out for yourself.
But never mind, I won’t be investing any more time or money in that (it’s a shame about what I’ve spent so far).
Maybe I’ll get an enlarger at some point... :)
Best wishes,
Florian
highscore
Hi
You’ll probably pay (significantly) less for a decent enlarger than for a decent scanner.
For example, our landlord’s complete kit costs €300.
You can sometimes find them much cheaper online.
derFloh
Hi Highscore,
Yeah, that could well be the case. But as I haven’t really looked into it much yet, I’ve got a question: is a kit like that actually any good, or is it just another ‘half-baked’ solution? Is the quality of the image decent, or is it better to go straight for a better one? Or would it even be better to look for a second-hand enlarger on eBay?
€
I’d be grateful for a few tips here :)
€
Best regards
highscore
Hi Floh
I reckon if you buy from our landlord, you’re already on the safe side – and, more importantly, you’ll get something that actually works.
You often find complete kits online (enlargers with lenses, trays and timers, plus lots of other useful bits)
These are often from people who have passed away or are giving up their hobby. (often good quality equipment)
What I’d personally recommend as well are split-grade filters.
I wouldn’t advise anyone these days to go back to working with or starting out with fixed grades. But that’s a matter of taste!
Highscore
derFloh
OK, thanks for the tip!
I’ll have a read up on it and get to grips with the whole thing.
Best regards,
Florian
jonny
I’m a big fan of Meopta enlargers. The Meopta Opemus 6 (or 7?), that is, the latest model, is a good, sturdy enlarger that should usually be available at a reasonable price (around 50 euros at most) and can enlarge negatives up to 6x6. Vintage equipment should always be complete, as it is difficult/expensive to buy individual parts such as condenser lenses, mixing boxes, image stages etc. separately. However, a few accessories for the Opemus are still available to buy new from FOTOIMPEX. If necessary, you can easily buy a good enlarger lens separately (if not included); allow another 50 euros for this. Otherwise, you don’t need much equipment: three trays, paper tongs and a DuKa light. You’ll have the measuring scales from the negative processing kit. Ideally, of course, you’d have a complete small DuKa set, as is often offered.
TR
Other than that, you don’t need much in the way of equipment: three bowls, paper clips and a DuKa lamp
?
I see a typical problem here with over-enthusiastic forum members: you act as though the chap could simply plonk his enlarger on his desk and get started as easily as operating a scanner. That’s not the case, of course. First, a darkroom needs to be set up, then expensive paper has to be bought. And producing a high-quality print takes several hours and involves waste material. Not to mention, of course, the many days spent getting to grips with the process. Furthermore, only greyscale prints are possible with this method.
?
A good scanner is the Epson 4990. This costs around 150 euros second-hand and offers image quality quite close to that of the new 800 series. If you adjust the mask height on this model and perhaps manage to get hold of a suitable anti-Newton’s ring filter, you’ll be able to produce good-quality photographs far more cheaply (and time is money too), at least initially on the monitor.
?
Telling a novice in this field: ‘Just buy an enlarger and a few trays and everything will be dead simple’ – I don’t consider that particularly wise from an educational point of view.
Klaus_H
I see a typical problem here with over-enthusiastic forum members: you’re acting as though this chap could simply plonk his enlarger on his desk and get started as easily as operating a scanner...
...Telling a newcomer to this field: ‘Just buy an enlarger and a few trays and it’ll all be a piece of cake’ – I don’t think that’s particularly wise from an educational point of view.
…
…
I see another typical problem here....
Scanning negatives without significant loss of image information is a skill that needs to be learnt. The necessary equipment, including legal software, isn’t exactly cheap either.
…
Regards,
…
Klaus
Urnes
But that’s exactly what he can do, if he enjoys it. That’s how the first Leitz enlarger ended up in my kitchen 30 years ago. By the way, to start with, it’s enough just to print pictures you can hang on the wall; it doesn’t always have to be fine art. And if you perform proper exposure on a negative, you can certainly work straight from the camera, without all the faff of a darkroom.
Elisabeth has already explained that flatbed scanners and darkrooms are more or less mutually exclusive. That said, for the money you could certainly get a second-hand Minolta Dimage Dualscan or something similar.
Best regards, Sven
highscore
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">Hi T.R.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">?
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">I disagree with you there.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">?
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">Yes,
?
<P style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">all you need to do is set up a simple, functional enlarger, place a few basins next to it and hang a red light bulb from the ceiling.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span>In a darkened room, bathroom, storage cupboard or even just a wardrobe.</span>
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">And I consider it a false<span> statement that one uses up vast quantities of expensive paper without achieving halfway decent results.</span>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">For me, that’s the learning curve.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">After doing some research online, any reasonably intelligent person should be able to produce some decent photos using just a few dozen sheets of paper.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">These prices are probably steep.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">?
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">However, the scanners mentioned here can hardly compete with a decent manual print because the resolution is too low, many shadow details are lost and the highlights are blown out.
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">Scanners that can do this better are all in the four-figure price range.
?
<P style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">?
?
<P style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">Personally, I always consider digital processing of the negative to be the second-best way to achieve a beautiful print.
?
<P style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">?
?
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;">When I want to print photos, I always use a digital camera straight away, otherwise I lose too much detail.
