Basic questions

keaja · Sep 2, 2003

Hey everyone,
First, This seems like an awesome forum and I have a feeling I will be spending alot of time here reading up

Well I recently switched from digital cameras to SLR Fim because of the faster shutter speed. I needed a faster shutter speed is because I am into aviation pictures, and a student pilot. So when you are in the air, things are moving and you need some fast pictures.

I recently went down to San Diego, and took about 8 rolls of film of just aviation spotting pictures, I got some really cool ones. And some nice garden pictures at balboa park.
Now, I need a scanner to get all of these onto the computer.
I have been looking at alot of scanners, and it seems like the Epson 3200 is a great buy. A little pricey, but I just got a new job and I wouldnt mind spending some money

Heres what I dont understand, some of these reviews talk about how it scans slides or negatives and film.
1)when I get it developed as a 3x5, Is that considered a slide? =/

2)And I have all the negatives still, so those would just get scanned in there and they would come out as full picture photos on the computer?

3)When they talk about "film" are they talking about negatives or what, Because I dont have the slightest Idea. Like some of them will say, "if you are scanning film..." then I lose them.

If someone could explain what I would be scanning into the scanner exactly. From the reviews, they say you get the best quality from Film, but is that the negative, the slide or like the actual roll?

My camera is a Nikon 65, I just got it in july before I went to San Diego, I absolutley love it! I would love to get a new lense for it soon, it came with a 28mm/300mm. For long range lenses, maybe 300mm or higher, what would be a good brand to look at?

Thanks alot!
Jason Winn

Tyjax · Sep 2, 2003

Well, I am going to Reply before the really knowledgeable folk speak up that way I can look smart. Heh heh. So there Voodoocat, Motcon etc. et al. (j/k)

1)when I get it developed as a 3x5, Is that considered a slide? =/

No that is a print. Slides are usually start with the film selected. A special "slide" film is selcted that has high color saturation and contrast responses. This is neccesary for the slides used in incandesent (sp) projection. ie. slides. Slide film is used sometimes for the added color response. And regular film is frequently used for slides.

2)And I have all the negatives still, so those would just get scanned in there and they would come out as full picture photos on the computer?

Ah, unfortunately not quite. Film scanning requires some sort of backlighting or prejection. Scanning film in a flat bed scanner usually produces dismal to disapointing micrographs. Film scanning requires a special adapter for your flatbed or a dedicated scanner. For more info on which you should speak to Voodoocat who I think just purchased a nice one. I have never used one.

3)When they talk about "film" are they talking about negatives or what, Because I dont have the slightest Idea. Like some of them will say, "if you are scanning film..." then I lose them.

"Film scanning." Synonymous with "negative scanning" unless done by the lab at process time. And still virtually amounts to the same thing. Basically, film scanning is scanning the negatives that you get when film is processed and returned to you. Once, under the influence of a mild depression and a really nice Cohiba I tried just scanning the roll of film with the hope of a sort of osmosis transferal of pictures. The results were disapointing.

In general there are two ways to get images from film to digital. 1.Scan negatives. 2. Scan prints. Number one usually produces the nices results and highest resolution. Number two is usually most convenient and readily available with a cheapo scanner. If you are planning on scanning prints ask that the lab print glossy. Hmmm. Well I will leave some stuff for e_, Motcon, and Voodoocat to talk about. heh heh....

over and out hope this helped some. And oh yeah NIKON FOREVER!

keaja · Sep 2, 2003

Sweet thanks for that information!

On epson.com it says:

EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO Scanner
4" x 9" Transparency Adapter (Built Into Scanner Lid)
3 Film Holders: 35mm Slides, 35mm Film Strips and Medium Format
CD-ROM with EPSON Scan Scanning Software, Productivity Software, and Electronic Reference Guide
CD-ROM with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements 2.0
CD-ROM with LaserSoft® SilverFast® SE 6
USB 2.0/1.1 Cable
Scanner Setup Poster

It sas "35mm film strips" I take it that would be the special adapter for negatives correct? Do you think it would come with some kind of backlit thing for that?

Basically I need a good scanner for scanning negatives ,or should I just buy a scanner that only does negatives? Any recommended ones?

Tyjax · Sep 2, 2003

That looks very adequate unless you are doing something for publication. Another aspect to consider is if it comes with "Auto correction" software. This eliminates some dust and scratches. Some people swear by them. I personally would just do retouch by hand in PS

keaja · Sep 2, 2003

I also found this one:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wc...ductId=13035178&topCategory=1004&cat1=5741781

Lol so many choices! :shock:

Thanks for your help so far!!!

Synergy · Sep 3, 2003

Hi Keaja,

I’m no expert but i was a bit confoosed about your move to SLR because of the shutter speed of digitals not being fast enough, did you mean the maximum continuous shooting rate? My digital camera has max SS of 1/4000 sec but when you try and take a load of shots one after the other at max quality, it kind of gives up after about 4-5 shots because the computer inside can’t keep up!

On the subject of scanners I have the Epson Perfection 1660 which is similar to the 3200. Like all flat beds, it’s better at scanning glossy prints then scanning negatives. I found the results a little disappointing as the neg scans all seem a little blurry and as a result I always have to use an unsharp mask, how ever even with this hindrance the benefits make it worth it to me, because I take a lot of night time shots through my telescope, which never come out right at the developer if you ask for prints!

One other benefit is that you can scan the whole frame, where as usually your prints from the developer, seem to be about 85% of what’s on the negative. If you’re after the best for negative scanning buy a dedicated negative scanner but as a way of getting into it, the Epson 3200 would be a good cost effective start and of course if at a later date you want to get a dedicated scanner at least you’ll still be able to use your 3200 as a flatbed.

If you want I’ll scan in the same pic from the print and from the negative to show you the difference, that way you can make an educated decision.

Cheers

Synergy

keaja · Sep 3, 2003

Hey there,
Thanks for your reply!
Well being able to take one picture after another is very important to me, I usually take 4 pictures per plane, since they come over me so fast.
Basically I need the highest quality I Can get, because I wanna try and get some of my pictures accepted by www.airliners.net and it is very hard to get accepted by them.
You mentioned the blurryness from your negatives, is that because you are taking them from a telescope, or is that all of your pictures no matter how they are taken?
I would very appreciate it if you would post a picture from a print and a negative.
Thanks for your help so far guys!
Jason

Synergy · Sep 5, 2003

Hi Keaja,

The blurry ness I report is down to the scanner, although its possible that the 3200 may not suffer from this so much as it has a higher resolution, The examples I show below were taken with my Olympus OM-1 using Fuji Reala 100 , which btw is a 30 year old 100% manual camera with no motor drive! I love using it as you get back to the essence of photography! Anyway the examples below are from RIAT 2003 and I’ve put thumbnails of the pictures but also links to large version of the neg scans and also the print scans. The neg scans were scanned at 1600dpi (the highest mine goes to) and 600dpi for the flatbed scans. I’ve done very minimal touching up and have not applied any unsharp masks, so what you see is pretty much what you get off the scans.

Airliners.net is a well regarded source of aviation pics, but if you find them a bit unreceptive, jetphotos.net is well regarded, although like Airliners most posts are about how un reasonable the screeners are! :roll:

I hope this helps, let me know how you get on

Synergy

B1 Bomber

Negative…http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/neg/b1neg.jpg
FlatBed…..http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/flat/b1flat.jpg

Red Arrows

Negative…http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/neg/redneg.jpg
Flatbed…..http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/flat/redflat.jpg

F117 Stealth Fighter

Negative… http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/neg/f117neg.jpg
Flatbed…....http://212.19.67.7/pics/out/flat/f117flat.jpg

Cheers!

keaja · Sep 16, 2003

Hey Synergy,
Thanks so much for posting those pictures! It seems that the flatbed's quality is better compared to the negative. If thats the case, I can't seem to figure out why there are like dedicated negative scanners.
Maybe Dedicated negative scanners offer more quality then a combo scanner?

Im off to the camera store today

voodoocat · Sep 16, 2003

Keaja, my recommedation would be to skip the flatbed altogther if you plan on shooting 35mm. For less than that scanner, you can get a 2800 dpi dedicated slide/negative scanner. When I got mine, I started scanning a few negatives that I had. I found scans of the negatives were superior to the scans of prints.

That and I save big$$ by processing only.

Synergy · Sep 17, 2003

Hey Keaja , you're welcome! the pics do show that a flatbed scanner is best for scanning prints and this is what i was hoping to show you, but as voodocat pointed out, if you want to seriously scan negs then buy a neg scanner. In retrospect i would of saved up a bit a got a dedicatd negative scanner as i find myself using my Epson to scan negs more!

BTW did you notice in the B1 scans that the neg scan shows the B1's engines in the foreground but on the print, the've been cut off by the developer...another reason to concentrate on a neg scanner!

Cheers

Synergy

voodoocat · Sep 17, 2003

Another little side note...

I had some 4x6 prints from a pro lab that were fine. One photo in particular showed nothing but white in the sky. That was because it was sunset and I wanted detail in the foreground. Well I scanned the negative, and on the default setting, there was blue in the sky!

drlynn · Sep 21, 2003

I would have to agree with voodoo. Scanning negatives and slides is best done from a dedicated film scanner. The flatbed scanners, such as the Epson 3200, that have film and slide adapters do an acceptible job, if you have photoshop, etc to do some touchup. I was taught a trick for scanning from a flatbed though that has kept me from the expense of a dedicated film scanner :

Place the slide or negative UNDER the holder instead of inside the holder. Just lay the film down on the scanner bed and position the holder over it. This puts the surface of the photo closer to the surface of the scanner bed, and helps the clarity a lot! It takes a bit of practice, but if you're gonna use a flatbed, it's worth the effort. Still not as good as a dedicated scanner, but better than trying to do it the "normal" way.