Improving scanned negative quality

[CalicoSkies]

A few years ago, I bought an Epson Perfection V600 and scanned a bunch of my old 35mm negatives. Overall I think they look decent, but I'm wondering if there's a good way to reduce the grain while keeping the image sharp? Or is there not much I could (or should) do to improve them? I have attached a couple examples.

I've also heard of people getting fairly good results using a DSLR camera to "scan" negatives. I have a DSLR (Nikon D7200) along with a couple of prime lenses (a 35mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.4), and I've thought about trying that method (I'd likely use a PC monitor with a white background as a light source). Would that produce better results than the Canon V600?

 

[Derrel]

The acutance that the grain creates is what makes the images appear "sharp". Clean, crisp grain makes for sharp film images. Softening the grain will lead to softer looking images. Hey!!! I am now living just across the hill from you!

Yes, I've read some very favorable articles about using a d-slr, a macro lens, and a good light source, and a flat film stage to convert film images into digitiized images; the two workers whose efforts were discussed in a fairly recent web article made the case that with NEW, high-quality sensors, this approach now has actual benefits over scanning images using older technologies. Better results than common ghome scanners? Yes, based on their methods and gear. One thing was that dust and scratches seemed to be less of a problem with the d-slr and copy setup than with film scanning. I personally thought that the 24-MP d-slr "scans" were better than the scanners they had at their disposal. And of course, the d-slr method is very rapid.

I am pretty sure you'd have the best results with a good flat-field macro lens, like say the 60mm AF-D or AF-G Micro-Nikkor, or even the cheap,old 55mm Micro-Nikkor models and a short extension tube to get you down to a 1:1 image reproiduction on a 35mm slide or negative.

I would not expect the 35mm or the 50/1.4 to be ideal candidates, but still, I think the 50mm and a 20mm extension tube might be okay to very good on a DX-format Nikon camera, but it will not focus close enough unless you have an extension tube between the lens and the body.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I scan my 4x5 negatives with a DSLR but its not all that great. If I had a macro lens, that might change things. I'd rather have a flat bed or negative scanner for it but mine will not take that large of a negative.

The V600 is a great scanner, what software are you using?

 

[CalicoSkies]

The acutance that the grain creates is what makes the images appear "sharp". Clean, crisp grain makes for sharp film images. Softening the grain will lead to softer looking images. Hey!!! I am now living just across the hill from you!

Yes, I've read some very favorable articles about using a d-slr, a macro lens, and a good light source, and a flat film stage to convert film images into digitiized images; the two workers whose efforts were discussed in a fairly recent web article made the case that with NEW, high-quality sensors, this approach now has actual benefits over scanning images using older technologies. Better results than common ghome scanners? Yes, based on their methods and gear. One thing was that dust and scratches seemed to be less of a problem with the d-slr and copy setup than with film scanning. I personally thought that the 24-MP d-slr "scans" were better than the scanners they had at their disposal. And of course, the d-slr method is very rapid.

I am pretty sure you'd have the best results with a good flat-field macro lens, like say the 60mm AF-D or AF-G Micro-Nikkor, or even the cheap,old 55mm Micro-Nikkor models and a short extension tube to get you down to a 1:1 image reproiduction on a 35mm slide or negative.

I would not expect the 35mm or the 50/1.4 to be ideal candidates, but still, I think the 50mm and a 20mm extension tube might be okay to very good on a DX-format Nikon camera, but it will not focus close enough unless you have an extension tube between the lens and the body.

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I'm not sure how much better my results would be with my DSLR. I don't want to make the images look softer, so I suppose I'll leave them as they are.

The V600 is a great scanner, what software are you using?

I used the Epson software that came with it. Their software has the options to enable ICE, etc. (I think I was also using the "unsharp filter"). It was also able to automatically separate the photos when I was scanning multiple negatives at a time. I'm not sure if my favorite photo editor (IrfanView) does those things, but Epson's included software seemed to work well for my scans.

 

[Ysarex]

The acutance that the grain creates is what makes the images appear "sharp". Clean, crisp grain makes for sharp film images. Softening the grain will lead to softer looking images. Hey!!! I am now living just across the hill from you!

Yes, I've read some very favorable articles about using a d-slr, a macro lens, and a good light source, and a flat film stage to convert film images into digitiized images; the two workers whose efforts were discussed in a fairly recent web article made the case that with NEW, high-quality sensors, this approach now has actual benefits over scanning images using older technologies. Better results than common ghome scanners? Yes, based on their methods and gear. One thing was that dust and scratches seemed to be less of a problem with the d-slr and copy setup than with film scanning. I personally thought that the 24-MP d-slr "scans" were better than the scanners they had at their disposal. And of course, the d-slr method is very rapid.

I am pretty sure you'd have the best results with a good flat-field macro lens, like say the 60mm AF-D or AF-G Micro-Nikkor, or even the cheap,old 55mm Micro-Nikkor models and a short extension tube to get you down to a 1:1 image reproiduction on a 35mm slide or negative.

I would not expect the 35mm or the 50/1.4 to be ideal candidates, but still, I think the 50mm and a 20mm extension tube might be okay to very good on a DX-format Nikon camera, but it will not focus close enough unless you have an extension tube between the lens and the body.

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I'm not sure how much better my results would be with my DSLR. I don't want to make the images look softer, so I suppose I'll leave them as they are.

The V600 is a great scanner, what software are you using?

I used the Epson software that came with it. Their software has the options to enable ICE, etc. (I think I was also using the "unsharp filter"). It was also able to automatically separate the photos when I was scanning multiple negatives at a time. I'm not sure if my favorite photo editor (IrfanView) does those things, but Epson's included software seemed to work well for my scans.

Are you following Epson's instructions for the scanner? Specifically to place the film on the scanner emulsion facing up. If so then you're scanning the image through the film base. That will degrade the image. Scan the emulsion directly by placing the film on the scanner emulsion facing down. Your scan will come out reversed and so just move it to any editing program and flip it. I use Epson V series scanners at work (college labs) and that's the first thing I teach students to do -- scan your image directly and not through a piece of acetate.

Joe

 

[SoulfulRecover]

The acutance that the grain creates is what makes the images appear "sharp". Clean, crisp grain makes for sharp film images. Softening the grain will lead to softer looking images. Hey!!! I am now living just across the hill from you!

Yes, I've read some very favorable articles about using a d-slr, a macro lens, and a good light source, and a flat film stage to convert film images into digitiized images; the two workers whose efforts were discussed in a fairly recent web article made the case that with NEW, high-quality sensors, this approach now has actual benefits over scanning images using older technologies. Better results than common ghome scanners? Yes, based on their methods and gear. One thing was that dust and scratches seemed to be less of a problem with the d-slr and copy setup than with film scanning. I personally thought that the 24-MP d-slr "scans" were better than the scanners they had at their disposal. And of course, the d-slr method is very rapid.

I am pretty sure you'd have the best results with a good flat-field macro lens, like say the 60mm AF-D or AF-G Micro-Nikkor, or even the cheap,old 55mm Micro-Nikkor models and a short extension tube to get you down to a 1:1 image reproiduction on a 35mm slide or negative.

I would not expect the 35mm or the 50/1.4 to be ideal candidates, but still, I think the 50mm and a 20mm extension tube might be okay to very good on a DX-format Nikon camera, but it will not focus close enough unless you have an extension tube between the lens and the body.

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I'm not sure how much better my results would be with my DSLR. I don't want to make the images look softer, so I suppose I'll leave them as they are.

The V600 is a great scanner, what software are you using?

I used the Epson software that came with it. Their software has the options to enable ICE, etc. (I think I was also using the "unsharp filter"). It was also able to automatically separate the photos when I was scanning multiple negatives at a time. I'm not sure if my favorite photo editor (IrfanView) does those things, but Epson's included software seemed to work well for my scans.

Are you following Epson's instructions for the scanner? Specifically to place the film on the scanner emulsion facing up. If so then you're scanning the image through the film base. That will degrade the image. Scan the emulsion directly by placing the film on the scanner emulsion facing down. Your scan will come out reversed and so just move it to any editing program and flip it. I use Epson V series scanners at work (college labs) and that's the first thing I teach students to do -- scan your image directly and not through a piece of acetate.

Joe

This is interesting. Have you tried this with the Canoscan systems? My Canoscan kinda sucks most of the time but it was only $40 off of craigslist. For the longest time it wouldn't even read B&W negatives then out of nowhere, it started working haha

 

[Ysarex]

The acutance that the grain creates is what makes the images appear "sharp". Clean, crisp grain makes for sharp film images. Softening the grain will lead to softer looking images. Hey!!! I am now living just across the hill from you!

Yes, I've read some very favorable articles about using a d-slr, a macro lens, and a good light source, and a flat film stage to convert film images into digitiized images; the two workers whose efforts were discussed in a fairly recent web article made the case that with NEW, high-quality sensors, this approach now has actual benefits over scanning images using older technologies. Better results than common ghome scanners? Yes, based on their methods and gear. One thing was that dust and scratches seemed to be less of a problem with the d-slr and copy setup than with film scanning. I personally thought that the 24-MP d-slr "scans" were better than the scanners they had at their disposal. And of course, the d-slr method is very rapid.

I am pretty sure you'd have the best results with a good flat-field macro lens, like say the 60mm AF-D or AF-G Micro-Nikkor, or even the cheap,old 55mm Micro-Nikkor models and a short extension tube to get you down to a 1:1 image reproiduction on a 35mm slide or negative.

I would not expect the 35mm or the 50/1.4 to be ideal candidates, but still, I think the 50mm and a 20mm extension tube might be okay to very good on a DX-format Nikon camera, but it will not focus close enough unless you have an extension tube between the lens and the body.

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I'm not sure how much better my results would be with my DSLR. I don't want to make the images look softer, so I suppose I'll leave them as they are.

The V600 is a great scanner, what software are you using?

I used the Epson software that came with it. Their software has the options to enable ICE, etc. (I think I was also using the "unsharp filter"). It was also able to automatically separate the photos when I was scanning multiple negatives at a time. I'm not sure if my favorite photo editor (IrfanView) does those things, but Epson's included software seemed to work well for my scans.

Are you following Epson's instructions for the scanner? Specifically to place the film on the scanner emulsion facing up. If so then you're scanning the image through the film base. That will degrade the image. Scan the emulsion directly by placing the film on the scanner emulsion facing down. Your scan will come out reversed and so just move it to any editing program and flip it. I use Epson V series scanners at work (college labs) and that's the first thing I teach students to do -- scan your image directly and not through a piece of acetate.

Joe

This is interesting. Have you tried this with the Canoscan systems? My Canoscan kinda sucks most of the time but it was only $40 off of craigslist. For the longest time it wouldn't even read B&W negatives then out of nowhere, it started working haha

No I haven't. One of the other campuses where I teach less frequently has/had a couple of those -- I'm thinking 8800? I fooled with one but it's been a couple years. When I first encountered the Epson V series scanners and read the instructions I had a WTF moment. Flash back to the darkroom and loading a neg carrier upside down I realized Epson was telling users to scan through the film base. Well that's just stupid. It's minor but you get some definition loss through that piece of acetate. They're just going cheap for convenience -- flip the film and then flip the scan.

Joe

 

[table1349]

Give this a try: https://petapixel.com/2017/02/14/wet-mount-scanning-get-highest-quality-film-scans-home/

 

[webestang64]

I use "Vuescan" ( VueScan Scanner Software for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux ) with my V700 which helps with smaller than 4x5 negs.

I love the scanner I use at work for 35mm or 120..
http://www.noritsu.com/pdf/Flyer_HS-1800-Scanner-Flyer.pdf

 

[gsgary]

The V600 can do better than that, this is with the V500 and Vuescan

 

[denada]

^that's a great looking scan.

a few minutes in photoshop (or infranview, i assume) can make a world of difference in a v600 with the epson software scan, OP. even if it's nothing more than tightening up the levels and adding unsharp masks as you reduce the image size for digital display, which would significantly benefit both photos you posted.