# Flatbed Scanner Questions



## Replytoken

I feel like I am on a fool's errand, but sometimes you just have to take the journey, or at least make an honest effort.  A large number of family photos of all shapes, sizes and conditions have recently made their way into my possession.  As family members have asked about "copies" of the images, I am thinking about scanning and posting them so everybody can at least have access to the images in digital form.  I am well aware of many the pitfalls, challenges and limitations when scanning photos, so I know that I need to temper my expectations when it comes to digital output.  My budget is somewhat limited, so I am examining the price/quality curve to see if any equipment changes/acquisitions would make any sense.  I presently have two 600dpi flatbed scanners in addition to Ed Hamrick's VueScan software.  And while I have tempered my expectations, I have not really been happy with the output from either scanner - an old CanoScan N670U and a relatively new Brother MFC-7840w multifunction unit.  I am considering purchasing either an Epson V600 or a Canon 9000F, but am not sure how much, if any, quality gain I will realize with either one of them.  Assuming I continue to use VueScan or the provided software with either of these units, does anybody know if they are leaps and bounds better than the two units currently at my disposable?  Any advice (or sympathy) would be greatly appreciated. Thankfully, nobody is in a hurry for the images.

--Ken


----------



## Effeegee

Ken

Speaking from a wholly biased position I favour a copy stand with cross polarised lighting.  Batch similar sizes for tethered shooting in RAW with LR to get ahead with both the task and the metadata with potentially superior quality.  

I have a newish Canon scanner LIDE700F (32bit driver only) and a 10year old Epson Perfection 2450 which I use regularly for the odd copy with a fudged driver for the Epson (none for this model in W7 64bit).  I tried Vuescan but never came to terms with it or gigantic TIFF files - a Vuescan RAW file is not like the RAW file from a camera.  

When it comes to quantity and more recently copying slides and B&W negs I reach for the copy stand and appropriate lighting.  No d.o.f problems, no specular reflections editable RAW files, head start with metadata and all the power of non-destructive editing in LR and export to suit final purpose. The results are as good as scanning if not better and the process is much much quicker.  

Of course this assumes you lay your hands on the rig and lens(es).....


----------



## Replytoken

Effeegee said:


> Speaking from a wholly biased position I favour a copy stand with cross polarised lighting.  Batch similar sizes for tethered shooting in RAW with LR to get ahead with both the task and the metadata with potentially superior quality.



Thanks for the reply.  I was going to mention using a copy stand, but was not sure what kind of results I could achieve.  I have a D300 and the 105VR, which is a bit long for copy stand work, but I am sure that I could get my hands on a 60 micro.  I'll need to consider this option as well.

--Ken


----------



## Mark Sirota

I've actually found myself preferring longer lenses for copy stand work, provided you have a stand that is tall and stable enough. The main benefit for me has come when photographing stuff that's no longer completely flat; the longer camera-to-subject distance reduces the visibility of the wrinkles and curves.

Lighting, of course, also has a major part to play in hiding those sorts of imperfections, but I see no real downside to getting the camera as far from the work as possible when shooting flat (or nearly flat) pieces.


----------



## Effeegee

To reiterate the lens focal length is not critical and longer has advantages in even lighting, flatter less distorted field of view, better working space and so forth.  I use an old 135mm Pentax manual lens (with bellows) for slide copying on an APS-C ratio.  A compact 50mm macro lens is the other lens for larger prints.


----------



## GBM

I have been studying this a while... and I wound up with the Canoscan 9000f and Silverfast SE PLUS Archive Suite...and HDR 8.... 
The Silverfast is profiled to a specific scanner model.... and with the Canoscan infrared ability it will not only identify dust and scratches by measuring their location and determining that they are on the surface of the slides ( in my case) ... but can also do this with reflective scanning.... like pictures and such..... Then I am going to use my Lightroom 4 for developing and sorting.   The Silverfast also has this developing capability and a great reputation... and I have found their technical help after purchase is fantastic.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I'd completely agree with the Silverfast recommendation.  Excellent software!


----------



## GBM

Victoria Bampton said:


> I'd completely agree with the Silverfast recommendation.  Excellent software!



    I really appreciate you giving me that ' thumbs up' ... because it took a lot of internal mental wrangling on my part to decide to spend $310 on a software program which can only be used on one computer and with ONE model scanner.  But everywhere I looked... including face to face questioning of my local camera shop lab people agreed it was the current standard everything is judged against.... which fits since the Kodachrome 2 slide film held that same position with regards to several criteria for many decades. If you pick up an old National Geographic and check the credits.... it is amazing how many had these three items in common... Nikon F,Kodachrome2, Wide angle lens.....
  Also, it is nice to find that tech support is fast , competent and nice to deal with.... that has helped me feel good about my decision to commit that much money to scanning software.


----------



## KKH

GBM said:


> I really appreciate you giving me that ' thumbs up' ... because it took a lot of internal mental wrangling on my part to decide to spend $310 on a software program which can only be used on one computer and with ONE model scanner.  But everywhere I looked... including face to face questioning of my local camera shop lab people agreed it was the current standard everything is judged against.... which fits since the Kodachrome 2 slide film held that same position with regards to several criteria for many decades. If you pick up an old National Geographic and check the credits.... it is amazing how many had these three items in common... Nikon F,Kodachrome2, Wide angle lens.....
> Also, it is nice to find that tech support is fast , competent and nice to deal with.... that has helped me feel good about my decision to commit that much money to scanning software.



How do you like Silverfast?  Is it easy to use?  Is the documentation very good?  After reading this thread today I started looking at it (Silverfast) and am considering buying the SE Plus 8 version to go with my Epson V500 scanner.  In looking around for some books to help me learn more about getting the most from my scanner I found some people commenting that the Silverfast program was non-intuitive and it's documentation was not much help.  What's your experience been?

Thanks in advance,
Kristin


----------



## Replytoken

KKH said:


> How do you like Silverfast?  Is it easy to use?  Is the documentation very good?  After reading this thread today I started looking at it (Silverfast) and am considering buying the SE Plus 8 version to go with my Epson V500 scanner.  In looking around for some books to help me learn more about getting the most from my scanner I found some people commenting that the Silverfast program was non-intuitive and it's documentation was not much help.  What's your experience been?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Kristin



Have you considered VueScan as well, Kristin?

--Ken


----------



## KKH

Replytoken said:


> Have you considered VueScan as well, Kristin?
> 
> --Ken



Ken,

I did look at Vuescan and was unimpressed.  I'm digitizing from 35mm negatives and don't remember what type of film.  I went through every option for brand and model of film and none came close to looking good.  I didn't look at it beyond that.  I'm sure part of my problem is that I don't know how to use it.  That's why I was asking if Silverfast is east to use, or at least easy to learn.  As long as there are clear directions I'm fine.  If I have to figure it out on my own I'm sunk.

Kristin


----------



## Replytoken

KKH said:


> Ken,
> 
> I did look at Vuescan and was unimpressed.  I'm digitizing from 35mm negatives and don't remember what type of film.  I went through every option for brand and model of film and none came close to looking good.  I didn't look at it beyond that.  I'm sure part of my problem is that I don't know how to use it.  That's why I was asking if Silverfast is east to use, or at least easy to learn.  As long as there are clear directions I'm fine.  If I have to figure it out on my own I'm sunk.
> 
> Kristin



As I have not used Silverfast, I cannot comment on it, but it has been around for quite some time and it has quite a following.  Two things to keep in mind.  There is a book out called The VueScan Bible that seems to be quite well written.  You may want to have a look at it.  Second, scanning color negatives is as much an art as it is a science. Many years ago, I worked in a photo lab printing color enlargements, and while there were a number of dedicated channels for the common emulsions, there were just too many generations of the common emulsions, and too many one off films to have a channel for everything.  Needless to say, each enlargement was a semi-custom print because of the need for color corrections.  So, keeping your expectations within reason might reduce some of your frustration.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Greg posted in another thread about a Silverfast book he highly recommended.  http://www.lightroomqueen.com/commu...fast-8-Lightroom-4-Workflow-PDF-download-book

Personally I didn't think Silverfast was that complicated, and I tend to tweak in LR after the scan anyway.


----------



## KKH

Replytoken said:


> As I have not used Silverfast, I cannot comment on it, but it has been around for quite some time and it has quite a following.  Two things to keep in mind.  There is a book out called The VueScan Bible that seems to be quite well written.  You may want to have a look at it.  Second, scanning color negatives is as much an art as it is a science. Many years ago, I worked in a photo lab printing color enlargements, and while there were a number of dedicated channels for the common emulsions, there were just too many generations of the common emulsions, and too many one off films to have a channel for everything.  Needless to say, each enlargement was a semi-custom print because of the need for color corrections.  So, keeping your expectations within reason might reduce some of your frustration.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> --Ken



Thanks for the input, Ken.  I think a better way to describe my experience with Vuescan is that I got better results with the Epson software with a lot less effort.  I put a fair bit of time into Vuescan and never got anything remotely resembling a decent result.  If none of the film options worked I didn't see any reason to continue, as I remember choosing a film option as being step 1.  I could be wrong.  It could be I just needed more info on how to use the program.  I looked at the description and user reviews for The Vuescan Bible and will probably buy it even if I don't use Vuescan simply because it apparently has basic information on how to scan negatives,  something I've been looking for and not been able to find in electronic format.  If you've got any suggestions for  primers on scanning photos and negatives" information I'm all ears.  It has to be in electronic format, though. Paper books are not an option.

Thanks,
Kristin


----------



## GBM

I have reread my two posts about Silverfast and they still describe my feelings accurately.  My scanning project slowed to a crawl because I got interested in updating my old Nikon F to digital ... I now have a Canon T3i ... and a nice ($22) four hundred page instruction manual by Mr. David Busch. 
  So, in this last year... USPTO rules, Sketchup8, Silverfast,Lightroom, T3i digital settings.... I am feeling some 0's and 1's rules overload....

Kristin, Why are paper books not an option ?   For some things that is the only way that information is available....you can underline, highlight, and show them off on the coffee table !!!

The really needed Silverfast manual is PDF...


----------



## KKH

GBM said:


> I have reread my two posts about Silverfast and they still describe my feelings accurately.  My scanning project slowed to a crawl because I got interested in updating my old Nikon F to digital ... I now have a Canon T3i ... and a nice ($22) four hundred page instruction manual by Mr. David Busch.
> So, in this last year... USPTO rules, Sketchup8, Silverfast,Lightroom, T3i digital settings.... I am feeling some 0's and 1's rules overload....
> 
> Kristin, Why are paper books not an option ?   For some things that is the only way that information is available....you can underline, highlight, and show them off on the coffee table !!!
> 
> The really needed Silverfast manual is PDF...



I feel your overload and congratz on the new T3i.  How are you liking it so far?

No books because I'm very chemically sensitive and paper absorbs everything.  New books come with papermill fumes and new ink fumes, plus whatever they pick up from the warehouse.  Old books potentially come with the fumes from everything they've ever been in the same room with.  Presumably, I can buy a book, stick it somewhere to off-gas, and after some unknown amount of time be able to have it near me.  I've never done that because, 1.  I'm not that patient, and 2.  I don't have a place to put where it can off-gas and not contaminate my air space.  There's also the issue of information becoming out of date before I ever get to read it.   I just deal with the fact that a lot of information is only available on paper.  Fortunately for me, that's becoming less and less true.  With digital content and my iPad (and Kindle for PC) I can underline, highlight, bookmark, *and* search.  I LOVE the search function!  Can't do that with paper.    It doesn't look as good on the coffee table but I never have anyone in my house anyway, so it's not like anyone would see it.  When I was learning Lightroom I put Kelby's LR3 book on the second monitor and LR on the main.  For me, that was better than having a paper book open in my lap or on the desk.  

Kristin


----------



## GBM

I really like the T3i except for the lens caps. They are too skinny and the small push area seems to have the friction area angled so I keep dropping them. Actually it is more like card players 'spew' out a deck.. they shoot from my fingers...
   I have Canon MiniDV cameras which will do 60 minutes of taping at a time.. so I was surprised to find the T3i limited to 12 minutes per clip of video. 
   I got the kit lens 18-55 and the 55-250 from B and H photo ( got my LR4/Kelby instructions) from them also)
   They have adapter rings for my old Nikkor primes ( they did not have AF new so I am not losing that.. but gaining the use of some fine glass) of 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4,55mm 3.5 macro ,and 500mm reflex F5. So now for a flash ( 580ex ll and two pocket wizards p3) and I am loaded with equipment in search of how to use it....


----------



## Replytoken

Well, I managed to put this off for almost eight years, but a recent death in the family has pushed this issue front and center again.  Ironically, I do not believe that a lot has changed in those eight years.  I still have my two scanners, the V600 is still being produced, and both Silverfast and VueScan are the main stand-alone software packages.

I have mulled the V600, and possibly the V800, during the past year, but realized that right now I just need to scan printed images, not film or transparencies (and I am not interested in a copy stand set-up at the moment).  This leads me to wonder if the V600 is overkill for the task.  I cannot recall the recommended resolution settings for printed materials if one wants a quality scan (if I do not want to enlarge a printed version of the image), but I believe that the V600 exceeds that recommendation by some margin.  So, unless the V600's IQ or software is superior to something like their V39 model (which has also been suggested as a reasonable alternative for just printed materials and photos), is there any advantage to acquiring the V600 for this job?  And, would either machine, or any other recommendation (including the two scanners I still have that were mentioned in my OP) benefit in IQ or workflow from third party software like Silverfast?  I have tried to do a bit of research again on the subject, but my brain is focused on family matters at the moment, and the scanner and/or software are more of a means to an end (sharing a large number of family photos) than a fun project.  And, I would prefer to do it right, and do it once if possible.  Any advice or wisdom would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

--Ken


----------



## Conrad Chavez

If the bulk of what you're scanning are "snapshot" prints made by a consumer photo lab like a neighborhood store, I'd guess that many of them aren't going to be perfectly printed or properly color balanced. Many probably have blown highlights and blocked shadows. If that's the case, it probably isn't important to have a pro flatbed.

If the concern is about getting great results straight from the scanner, I often find it time-consuming to get that using most scanning software. Instead I scan everything relatively "loose" (lightly clipped black and white points, "good enough" color balance) using VueScan, to TIFF DNG, let VueScan dump them into a folder, and have Lightroom Classic pick them all up using Auto Import & Watch Folder. Then I bulk edit color and contrast more precisely in Lightroom Classic, since it's much more efficient for that than any scanning software. (I actually bulk scan negatives, but I would do the same with prints. With negatives I spend more time setting up the scans properly since negatives contain so much more good information.)

I used to have a Canon N670U, but I donated it a few years ago. In terms of image quality I think it would have been OK (not great) for snapshot scanning, but my biggest problem with it was that, compared to flatbeds released just a few years later, the N670U was slooooowwww. It took forever for it to run the scan head across a print. I currently have an Epson all-in-one, a few years old, that takes just a few seconds to scan a print. That might be a consideration: Even though you might not technically need a better scanner, if a new scanner is a lot faster it could pay for itself through the time you save.



Replytoken said:


> I cannot recall the recommended resolution settings for printed materials if one wants a quality scan (if I do not want to enlarge a printed version of the image)


It depends on the goal of the archive. If the goal is to be able to print the same size as the original in the future, just set the software to scan actual size at 300 ppi. (Or possibly less if most are snapshots that are not perfectly sharp because of cheap pocket camera lenses or grainy film.) At that setting a 6 x 4 inch print would be 1800 x 1200 pixels. But notice that number is far below the pixel dimensions of many displays today, so if the family would like any photo to  be able to fill a future high resolution display, you might adjust the scan resolution. For example, if you would like to archive these so that they fill a 4K television (3840 x 2160 pixels), then make sure the scans reach those pixel dimensions.

Just make sure you understand all the future uses the family anticipates for this archive, and adjust the settings to suit that.


----------



## Replytoken

Hi Conrad,

Thank you for the helpful suggestions.  A large number of these photos are B/W prints from the 50's and 60's although some are color prints from later.  Regarding quality and post processing, I guess that I am trying to find a sweet spot between time and quality, and not having done much scanning, feel like I am flying in a bit of a fog.  I had originally hoped to work all of the quality issues out and then put them into an online gallery where people could download high quality files (most likely in jpeg format) so they could have copies of their own.  I don't want to scan images twice, once for immediate use and again for archiving, but I do not want to be bogged down trying to get a scan of a paper print "perfect", since I suspect that there is only so much that can be done relative to a raw file from a modern digital camera (excepting the need for intensive restoration work).

I did spend  some time looking at Silverfast and its compatibility with scanners, and it is fairly limited in the models that it supports.  So, if I do want to use it, it eliminates a lot of possible scanners.  Again, I do not know how much it offers in both time saved and in IQ, so I am now feeling much more constrained in my hardware choices as the Canon and Brother are slow.  I am hoping to spend a bit more time on this tomorrow if possible.  I know there is no perfect solution, unless perhaps I want to just spend for a V850 and Silverfast, but I suspect that there is a sweet spot with respect to time, IQ and budget.  Now if I can only find it.

--Ken


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Calibrating the scanner can help with scanning fidelity. I offer the link below for some (light) reading! And can recommend Wolf Faust for the supply of targets.

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/it8cal/it8_page_1.htm
http://www.colorreference.de/targets/index.html
Kind regard, keep safe : Anthony


----------



## Replytoken

Calibration is important, but I do want to nail down a set-up first.  I found my VueScan license last night and installed the latest version on my computer.  I remembered what a love/hate affair the UI is on the program, but it is nice to have a no cost option available.  I also dug up the Canon scanner to try with VueScan since I do not have the Canon software for the scanner.  Scan quality was quite slow and subpar compared to the Brother (which is also quite slow, but giving me adequate scans for the time being).  Well, at least there is one less option in the mix now.  I suspect the Brother could hold me for a few images at lower resolutions for immediate use, but I would like to get a more permanent work flow soon if possible.

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton

FWIW, I started out trying to scan everything and quickly got bored because scanning is SO SLOW. I ended up with the camera on a tripod, photos magnetically taped to a board, and got through thousands in a reasonable length of time. They're not perfect, but they're perfectly good enough for enjoying as a family, and we still have the originals if I ever needed a high quality scan. I took more time with more important photos, but for the average snapshot, it was the best balance of time and quality at the time.


----------



## Replytoken

Victoria Bampton said:


> FWIW, I started out trying to scan everything and quickly got bored because scanning is SO SLOW. I ended up with the camera on a tripod, photos magnetically taped to a board, and got through thousands in a reasonable length of time. They're not perfect, but they're perfectly good enough for enjoying as a family, and we still have the originals if I ever needed a high quality scan. I took more time with more important photos, but for the average snapshot, it was the best balance of time and quality at the time.


I had given this approach serious consideration, especially once I learned about magnetic holders.  It is very tempting, but for two items that I would like to better address.  The first is space.  A copy stand with lights is larger than a scanner and i do not know if I have a place right now where I could leave it set up.  The second is lighting.  I have a large number of glossy or semi-glossy B/W prints, and I suspect getting them well lit without reflections could possibly drive me nuts if I cannot set it once per session and then leave it, hopefully without things getting bumped.

There is a part of me that concurs with Victoria's approach of good enough since I will still have all of the originals, and I suspect that anything put up on a blog will get compressed (as opposed to a hosted photo account), so a two stage approach may be better.  If that is the case, then I am leaning toward one of three Epson scanners - V39, V370 or V600.

The one thing I am still trying to better come to terms with if I want a more convenient, but still decent scan, is 300 vs 600 PPI.  @Conrad Chavez mentioned that most newer display are high resolution.  If that is the case and 600 is actually a better scan than 300, then 600 is the choice.  But, if 300 is really the limit of a print, is 600 on a high resolution monitor any better than a 300 at 200%?

--Ken


----------



## Paul_DS256

FWIW, I'm on the same mission to scan my own, as well as family slides, negatives and pictures. 

At the moment, I'm going to start with my Epson V500 with some slides. I'm just going to use the Epson Scanning Software and as starting point, using Film to Digital – Scanning Essentials 101 . From a reply to a post here, I also purchased Digitizing Your Pictures with Your Camera and Lightroom.  I'm not planning on using my camera but found the reading of why to use a camera interesting. It does have some good points for organizing your collection. I have not got into the use in LR.

I have glanced at VueScan and SilverFast but have not found a compelling reason to use them until the Epson does not deliver.

A friend is lending me his V700 so I can do 12 instead of 4 at a time slide scanning. I understand the slowest aspect of it but am only scanning those images I feel I will do something with. The rest I'll just index as groups.


----------



## Replytoken

Paul_DS256 said:


> FWIW, I'm on the same mission to scan my own, as well as family slides, negatives and pictures.
> 
> At the moment, I'm going to start with my Epson V500 with some slides. I'm just going to use the Epson Scanning Software and as starting point, using Film to Digital – Scanning Essentials 101 . From a reply to a post here, I also purchased Digitizing Your Pictures with Your Camera and Lightroom.  I'm not planning on using my camera but found the reading of why to use a camera interesting. It does have some good points for organizing your collection. I have not got into the use in LR.
> 
> I have glanced at VueScan and SilverFast but have not found a compelling reason to use them until the Epson does not deliver.
> 
> A friend is lending me his V700 so I can do 12 instead of 4 at a time slide scanning. I understand the slowest aspect of it but am only scanning those images I feel I will do something with. The rest I'll just index as groups.


I will be curious to hear your experiences and what choices you make.  As I am not sure which images will have value to others, culling is not going to be an easy task.  That was why I am leaning towards some middle ground.  Just wish I was retired and had some time to devote to this.  Was a few years away from it, and with my retirement savings hit my market declines, I am probably a few additional years away.  I am grateful I still have a job, but I have a number of health issues that tend to rob me of free time these days, so I am trying to reassess this project so it does not go untouched.

--Ken


----------



## sty2586

My two cents to the task of slide copying.
Did you think about this version:
http://babryce.com/slidedigitizer.html
I did it similar but following another guy's experiences and had quite good results in very short time. The very detailed  instuctions are there:
https://fotovideotec.de/dias_digitalisieren/
but they are German language, maybe Google translator can help.

Happy Easter from Vienna/Austria
Franz


----------



## Paul_DS256

Replytoken said:


> I will be curious to hear your experiences and what choices you make. As I am not sure which images will have value to others, culling is not going to be an easy task.


Well, I'm starting with my own images so it's easy to cull. However, with respect to the family treasury, I hear you about the challenge of culling. It will be awhile before I get there. Still in the early stages.


Replytoken said:


> Just wish I was retired and had some time to devote to this


I retired about a year ago and didn't have time to tackle this while I'm was working either. Circumstances now give me more time at home to start.


Replytoken said:


> I have a number of health issues that tend to rob me of free time these days, so I am trying to reassess this project so it does not go untouched


Sorry to hear that Ken. I have no serious health issues other than finding I'm slowing down. I'm trying to document everything so that if I don't finished, and someone else in the family feels so inclined, they have a starting point.


----------



## Paul_DS256

sty2586 said:


> My two cents to the task of slide copying.


Now these are a bit of brilliant Franz!Thanks for sharing.

That approach would work well for slides but not negatives or prints. Still, someone could likely set up a cottage business by building one of these then advertising slide copying services.


----------



## markstothard

Ken,

Here is my workflow,


Followed by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7tptNQneo8

Lightroom Plug-in - Negative Lab Pro

Hope this helps?

Regards

Mark


----------



## Klaas

Two years ago I started scanning slides, negatives and prints and I faced the same problems as discussed here. I bought a slide scanner, a used Nikon Coolscan V ED.  A flatbed scanner was already available. And now - what scan software for both scanners? I tested Silverfast and Nikon Scan for the Nikon Coolscan and Vuescan for both scanners. And finally - how to organize the thousends of files?

The old Nikon Scan software works fine, even with Win 10. But handling was a bit outdated. And what software for the flatbed and for organizing?

Silverfast is a not only a scan software but also it is for editing the scanned pictures. And this editing I found a bit too complicated. May be that it can deliver perfect results but it needs a lot of time to get familiar with it, I assume. With SF I wood have needed two versions for two different scanners.  And what software for the flatbed and for organizing?

Vuescan works fine with both scanners, with slides, negatives and with prints. Only minor adjustments are possible, so it ist easy to use. From my point of view it is a scan software, and not more and that is, what I looked for. For editing a scanned picture another software should be used, specialized for editing and easy to use.

So my solution was the combination of Vuescan and Lightroom. VS for scanning, LR for editing and organizing. Worked fine for my meanwhile scanned 10,000 pictures. And about 10,000 others are still waiting.

I dind't use a camera for the task, I stayed with the two scanners, since in combination with a scan software dust and scratches of a slide or a negative can be wiped out autoamatically.

Klaas


----------



## Replytoken

Klaas said:


> Two years ago I started scanning slides, negatives and prints and I faced the same problems as discussed here. I bought a slide scanner, a used Nikon Coolscan V ED.  A flatbed scanner was already available. And now - what scan software for both scanners? I tested Silverfast and Nikon Scan for the Nikon Coolscan and Vuescan for both scanners. And finally - how to organize the thousends of files?
> 
> The old Nikon Scan software works fine, even with Win 10. But handling was a bit outdated. And what software for the flatbed and for organizing?
> 
> Silverfast is a not only a scan software but also it is for editing the scanned pictures. And this editing I found a bit too complicated. May be that it can deliver perfect results but it needs a lot of time to get familiar with it, I assume. With SF I wood have needed two versions for two different scanners.  And what software for the flatbed and for organizing?
> 
> Vuescan works fine with both scanners, with slides, negatives and with prints. Only minor adjustments are possible, so it ist easy to use. From my point of view it is a scan software, and not more and that is, what I looked for. For editing a scanned picture another software should be used, specialized for editing and easy to use.
> 
> So my solution was the combination of Vuescan and Lightroom. VS for scanning, LR for editing and organizing. Worked fine for my meanwhile scanned 10,000 pictures. And about 10,000 others are still waiting.
> 
> I dind't use a camera for the task, I stayed with the two scanners, since in combination with a scan software dust and scratches of a slide or a negative can be wiped out autoamatically.
> 
> Klaas


This is a somewhat similar arrangement to some of the older equipment that I have.  I picked up a Nikon Coolscan LS-40 a number of years ago, and it can still be used with VueScan under Win10. When I eventually get to scanning my own work, which includes negatives and transparencies, this will probably be where I start, although digital cameras have become reasonable alternatives for scanning.  I like your work flow and will probably look at something similar.  It looks like it is going to be a lot of work, more than I originally anticipated given the time required for good scans, so a wholesale conversion is probably not likely.  Right now, I am trying to work out some reasonable approach to the prints at hand.

--Ken


----------



## Bikie John

New member here with first post - hello everybody! Interesting that this thread from 2012 has been revived and is obviously still generating interest. There is lots of jolly good advice so far.

I have been doing a lot of scanning  of old negatives so I wondered if a few tips born of experience might be useful.  I have been using an Epson V750 scanner (flatbed with a light lid) for more than 10 years and it is still going strong. I learnt a few things from doing large batches of 35mm negatives, I started with about 15 years worth of photos of the local rugby club, so here is what I found. Of course your circumstances and needs will  be different but there might be something useful here.

Number 1 - If you are doing a lot of stuff, have a good think before you even start about how you are going to organise the files. Whether you use folders or Lightroom keywords/collections just depends on your normal workflow. But what you need is a way to organise the stuff, and possibly relate it back to the originals in case you want to go back and scan again. If you have a draw full of unsorted unlabelled originals, it will be far better to organise it all first - the process of turning  it into bits and bytes will be relatively low down the list of problems!

Number 2:  If you have lots to do, you can decide whether to sort out what you want to keep earlier or later. I am a hopeless judge of what other people will find interesting, so I scan the lot. For that, there is no point in scanning at the best quality as it will take for ever, and then some, and will generate huge volumes of data. For high-resolution scanning to be worthwhile you really need to clean up the originals first. My approach was to scan at 1200dpi (one of the scanner's preset resolutions) and not bother about doing individual adjustments.  The files that come out are around half a megabyte,  quite dusty and fluffy, big enough to see what's there but small enough to be manageable. These just serve as an index of what you've got, then when you identify something interesting you can go full blast on the ones you really want. It may even be that the most cost-effective way to deal with that is to get them scanned professionally.

Number 3: If your scanner has holders for negs or slides, get hold of another one. Loading them up beforehand and emptying them afterwards can be a bit fiddly and time-consuming, if you have two you can be loading up the next batch while the previous lot is scanning, which can save a lot of time. Scanning is a slow and boring job, you don't want to make it take any longer than it has to. I just phoned up Epson and asked for one, the spare film carrier cost about a tenner if memory serves, and I think they are fairly easy to find on eBay.

Hope this helps ... John


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Great tips John, welcome to the forum!


----------



## Replytoken

Bikie John said:


> Number 2: If you have lots to do, you can decide whether to sort out what you want to keep earlier or later. I am a hopeless judge of what other people will find interesting, so I scan the lot. For that, there is no point in scanning at the best quality as it will take for ever, and then some, and will generate huge volumes of data. For high-resolution scanning to be worthwhile you really need to clean up the originals first. My approach was to scan at 1200dpi (one of the scanner's preset resolutions) and not bother about doing individual adjustments. The files that come out are around half a megabyte, quite dusty and fluffy, big enough to see what's there but small enough to be manageable. These just serve as an index of what you've got, then when you identify something interesting you can go full blast on the ones you really want. It may even be that the most cost-effective way to deal with that is to get them scanned professionally.


Welcome.  In the spirit of wanting to measure twice and cut once, I had hoped to do proper scans for archiving and then pull derivatives fro posting with the family.  It seems like an efficient, approach, but I suspect my output would be so little as to frustrate everybody.  I am now seeking a workflow similar to what you are describing.  Scan quickly and see what needs to be re-scanned with proper attention.  it does mean doing things twice, but I may actually keep folks better engaged, and that is important as well.

--Ken


----------



## Paul_DS256

From some recent tests, I realize I can likely cull slides on the slide reader light box  but negatives need to go through the scan to see what they are.


----------



## Replytoken

Paul_DS256 said:


> From some recent tests, I realize I can likely cull slides on the slide reader light box  but negatives need to go through the scan to see what they are.


If you do not have a loupe, a 50 mm used in reverse will sometimes do the trick for culling slides.

--Ken


----------



## Bikie John

Replytoken said:


> Welcome.  In the spirit of wanting to measure twice and cut once, I had hoped to do proper scans for archiving and then pull derivatives fro posting with the family.  It seems like an efficient, approach, but I suspect my output would be so little as to frustrate everybody.  I am now seeking a workflow similar to what you are describing.  Scan quickly and see what needs to be re-scanned with proper attention.  it does mean doing things twice, but I may actually keep folks better engaged, and that is important as well.
> 
> --Ken



Exactly.  I think a key thing is that as photographers we are very concerned - perhaps too much so - with image quality.  For most people they just want to see the pictures.  As long as they can see the one of Auntie Mabel face-down in the wedding cake they will be happy!  And if someone wants to make a print, or you discover a long-forgotten masterpiece, it is no great hardship to make individual high quality scans.

I forgot to mention software.  I have been using the supplied Epson Scan software, and in "Professional mode" I find it fine.  For bulk scans I just let it take all the default settings.  I think it applies some fairly basic tonal adjustments.  The only thing I normally do after preview and before scan is rotate them into the right orientation, then scan and save the results as 8-bit JPEG files.  The Epson Scan workflow is OK, you tell it folder to save the scans into and give it a file name prefix and starting number and it just saves them with the numbers going up incrementally in 1's.  I try to match the file name with the number on the side of the negative strip.  This doesn't always work perfectly - sometimes if the negs are very thin it will miss some out and you have to adjust, and sometimes you want the numbers to be 001A etc. rather than 001 but these are easy enough to correct manually.  LR or Adobe Bridge can automatically rename the files to stick an A on the end.  I even found some very old negs which looked as if they were numbered for half-frame because the 35mm frame numbers went up in 2's - that was a pain as the scan software won't let you set that increment and I couldn't figure out how to automate it in LR or Bridge and had to do it manually.

For high quality stuff with 35mm slides and negs I use a very old Nikon Coolscan V with the Nikon Scan software.  It is pretty slow but gives good results  most of the time.  I have used the Epson flatbed a very small number of times for medium format negatives and got astonishingly good results.  I can't remember the details but I think I just let it take default options for tonal adjustment, scanned at something like 2400dpi and saved the result as 16-bit TIFFs which gives plenty of food for Photoshop to work on.

John


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

Bikie John said:


> My approach was to scan at 1200dpi (one of the scanner's preset resolutions) and not bother about doing individual adjustments. The files that come out are around half a megabyte, quite dusty and fluffy, big enough to see what's there but small enough to be manageable. These just serve as an index of what you've got, then when you identify something interesting you can go full blast on the ones you really want


Exactly what my approach was 10 years ago!  I wrote a (dutch) blog about my experience with the Epson V700 and Epson Scan software (on my negatives).


----------



## Bikie John

Roelof Moorlag said:


> Exactly what my approach was 10 years ago!  I wrote a (dutch) blog about my experience with the Epson V700 and Epson Scan software (on my negatives).



It sounds as though we were doing the same thing at the same time, Roelof!  Once I got the workflow sorted out it worked really well, and several times since I have used it to to do (relatively) quick & dirty  scans of batches of films.

John


----------



## Paul_DS256

Bikie John said:


> These just serve as an index of what you've got


Hmmm. I like that idea for use with negatives that I feel I can't cull during the pre-scan.  Quick thumbnails to find. If I do find one I like, do a proper clean and scan on it.


----------



## LRList001

Replytoken said:


> The one thing I am still trying to better come to terms with if I want a more convenient, but still decent scan, is 300 vs 600 PPI.  @Conrad Chavez mentioned that most newer display are high resolution.  If that is the case and 600 is actually a better scan than 300, then 600 is the choice.  But, if 300 is really the limit of a print, is 600 on a high resolution monitor any better than a 300 at 200%?
> 
> --Ken



I have scanned photos from the past 100+ years and found the best resolution by trial and error.  Start at 300 dpi by all means, but I found that even those old, Victorian photos have pretty good quality to them, so 600 (or more) has been fine.  I would guess that most were taken professionally (if by itinerant photographers at the seaside), it was later that the quality dropped off as cameras became more ubiquitous and people took their own pictures (can be awful) and did their own processing (often pretty good).

I aim to get as many on the flat bed scanner as will fit and then tell the scanner where they all are, it doesn't take very long at all, once you get going.


----------



## Paul_DS256

My readings suggest that the DPI/PPI to select will be based on any potential print size you want.  From a DAM Forum (sorry lost link).  Yes, if you are just producing thumb nails or for display on screens, the DPI can be lower.

"For example, my thought process would be, I want to make 12 x 18 in prints, on my injet printer, I usually print at 240 dpi on my inkjets (some like to print at 300 or 360 dpi and there are good arguements for each resolution).  This requires one to need 2880 pixels on the narrow side and 4320 on the long side.  I would go ahead and choose 3000 dpi as the resolution for the scan as that will allow you to crop out some of the rebate (there will likely be a black border on the sides of your scan). "


----------



## Replytoken

LRList001 said:


> I have scanned photos from the past 100+ years and found the best resolution by trial and error.  Start at 300 dpi by all means, but I found that even those old, Victorian photos have pretty good quality to them, so 600 (or more) has been fine.  I would guess that most were taken professionally (if by itinerant photographers at the seaside), it was later that the quality dropped off as cameras became more ubiquitous and people took their own pictures (can be awful) and did their own processing (often pretty good).
> 
> I aim to get as many on the flat bed scanner as will fit and then tell the scanner where they all are, it doesn't take very long at all, once you get going.


This was my thought as well. I used VueScan to do a few test runs to compare the same image scanned at 300 and 600.  When viewed side-by side at the same size on screen, they both looked about the same.  Now that does not account for post processing, down sampling or enlarging, but it does tell me that 300ppi is sufficient for quick viewing on the web.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken

Paul_DS256 said:


> My readings suggest that the DPI/PPI to select will be based on any potential print size you want.  From a DAM Forum (sorry lost link).  Yes, if you are just producing thumb nails or for display on screens, the DPI can be lower.
> 
> "For example, my thought process would be, I want to make 12 x 18 in prints, on my injet printer, I usually print at 240 dpi on my inkjets (some like to print at 300 or 360 dpi and there are good arguements for each resolution).  This requires one to need 2880 pixels on the narrow side and 4320 on the long side.  I would go ahead and choose 3000 dpi as the resolution for the scan as that will allow you to crop out some of the rebate (there will likely be a black border on the sides of your scan). "


My question with this approach, which common sense tells me is the preferred one, would be - is the IQ any different than upsampling an image with good software?  I do not feel that I have enough experience with either method to make that determination right now.  I have upsampled a few digital files for large prints,  but the subject matter was very forgiving when viewed at close range.

--Ken


----------



## Paul_DS256

Replytoken said:


> is the IQ any different than upsampling an image with good software?


That's a good question. In this post, the author talks about his experience with my scanner and when  to use upsampling software. The question that I don't have the answer to is how a scanner physically takes scan's at different DPI. The author seems of suggest a speed spot of around 3200dpi for the V500. 

So, to your question, could the answer be the difference between the scanning DPI and upsampling be the former provides more information about the image rather than having to extrapolate?


----------



## Replytoken

Paul_DS256 said:


> That's a good question. In this post, the author talks about his experience with my scanner and when  to use upsampling software. The question that I don't have the answer to is how a scanner physically takes scan's at different DPI. The author seems of suggest a speed spot of around 3200dpi for the V500.
> 
> So, to your question, could the answer be the difference between the scanning DPI and upsampling be the former provides more information about the image rather than having to extrapolate?


Looking forward to reading the whole series of articles you linked to when I get a chance.

--Ken


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Klaas said:


> The old Nikon Scan software works fine, even with Win 10. But handling was a bit outdated. And what software for the flatbed and for organizing?
> 
> Klaas



Klaas - please tell me how you get the Nikon Scan software to work with Windows 10.

I have a Nikon 5000 ED and Nikon 4.0 software, and I have to keep an old Windows 7 laptop running,  just for scanning.

Thanks very much,
Regards

Kelvin


----------



## Bikie John

The main problem with Win 10 is that it refuses to recognise the driver - it says it is "unsigned". It is a bit of a faff to get it working but it can be done, I will dig around for my old notes later if nobody updates the thread in the meantime.

Nikon have done us no favours by dropping support fore these old drivers - and Windows doesn't help, every time it does a major update I have to go through the process of persuading it to accept the driver again.

John


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Thanks John.... it would be good to be able to get it working with Windows 10, although as I mentioned, I do keep an older Windows 7 laptop going for scanning (and I even have a Windows XP machine still running for Akai software on my 24-track Akai DPS-24 HD recorder !).  It’s annoying when big manufacturers leave us in the lurch, when they discontinue products.....


----------



## Bikie John

I've had a furkle around, just googled for Nikon Scan Windows 10 and found some familiar-looking links.

First, you need version 4.0.3 of the driver, which I thnk is for Windows Vista. There is what looks like a live link for download here:

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/ni/NI_article?articleNo=000002646&configured=1&lang=en_US
Second, you might need to get some ancillary files. I found this article a long time ago, pre-windows 10, but I thibnk the info is still good:

https://axelriet.blogspot.com/2009/10/nikon-ls-40-ls-50-ls-5000-scanners-on.html
I think you only need to do these steps once, as you will then have the files for any future use. And I don't know whether it is needed for Win 10 anyway.

Having done all that, you also have to persuade Win 10 to accept the "unsigned" driver. This is my note on it, you may need to redo it after any major Windows update (typically twice a year, not every month thank goodness):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Nikon driver is unsigned so you need to switch off driver authentication at startup. For Win 10:

1. Install from the driver from downloaded ns403en.exe

2. Close everything, hold down Shift, and restart Windows. Follow options to disable driver signature checking.

3. Once it's rebooted, switch scanner on then go to Device Manager (should show it with a problem), right-click and update driver from this folder. Allow it to install the unsigned driver.

4. Switch off scanner, do normal restart of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I said, it's a bit of a faff but it has worked for me for a very long time.

Good luck, let us know how it goes!

John


----------



## kelvinjouhar

John - thank you very much for taking the trouble to find this info.  It looks and sounds a bit daunting but , if I have a crack at it , I will certainly report my progress.


----------



## Paul_DS256

Bikie John said:


> The main problem with Win 10 is that it refuses to recognise the driver - it says it is "unsigned"


Not sure if this will help but try changing the the properties on the installer to run as Window's 7. Here's an example of where I can to change Adobe Acrobat to run as Windows 8.


----------



## Bikie John

kelvinjouhar said:


> John - thank you very much for taking the trouble to find this info.  It looks and sounds a bit daunting but , if I have a crack at it , I will certainly report my progress.


It looks a bit daunting but as usual it is harder to describe than to do. The only hairy bit really is restarting your system while pressing the shift key - this brings it up in some sort  of maintenance mode, if memory serves, and gives all sorts of warnings about the damage that you can do. As long as you follow the on-screen instructions carefully it should be pretty straightforward.

It is a shame it is so hard. Nikon is the villain here - Microsoft are being quite sensible in normally only allowing drivers that have passed their checks to be installed. These Nikon film scanners were really quite good so it is a real shame that they have dropped them like hot potatoes. I can't imagine it would be too much of a task to submit the driver to Microsoft for signing, but they just haven't.

John


----------



## Paul_DS256

Bikie John said:


> I can't imagine it would be too much of a task to submit the driver to Microsoft for signing, but they just haven't.


I wonder if Vuescan would work with them? They provide their own drivers for devices and don't rely on the HW manufacturers from what I understand.


----------



## Conrad Chavez

Bikie John said:


> Nikon have done us no favours by dropping support fore these old drivers - and Windows doesn't help, every time it does a major update I have to go through the process of persuading it to accept the driver again.


It's the same on the Mac. Nikon stopped supporting the scanning software for my Coolscan film scanner many years ago. Fortunately, VueScan still drives that scanner in the current versions of macOS and Windows, which is good because after all these years I’m still not done scanning my old film…


----------



## Bikie John

Paul_DS256 said:


> I wonder if Vuescan would work with them? They provide their own drivers for devices and don't rely on the HW manufacturers from what I understand.



I am almost certain that Vuescan does, and  Conrad immediately above confirms it. I downloaded the trial  version a while back, and found a couple of samples that I must have scanned from negs.


----------



## Klaas

kelvinjouhar said:


> Klaas - please tell me how you get the Nikon Scan software to work with Windows 10.
> 
> I have a Nikon 5000 ED and Nikon 4.0 software, and I have to keep an old Windows 7 laptop running,  just for scanning.


I used Nikon Scan 4.0.3, but it didn't work either, so I de-installed it. Then I tryed the free version of Vuescan and this software works fine with my Nikon scanner. But then I installed Nikon Scan again and it suddenly works fine. Via the internet I learned, that Vuescan installed a driver for the scanner. This driver stays installed, even after I de-installed Vuescan.

But later I bought a full version of Vuescan and de-installed Nikon Scan. Vuescan was easyier to understand and to handle, at least for me.

Klaas


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Klaas said:


> I used Nikon Scan 4.0.3, but it didn't work either, so I de-installed it. Then I tryed the free version of Vuescan and this software works fine with my Nikon scanner. But then I installed Nikon Scan again and it suddenly works fine. Via the internet I learned, that Vuescan installed a driver for the scanner. This driver stays installed, even after I de-installed Vuescan.
> 
> But later I bought a full version of Vuescan and de-installed Nikon Scan. Vuescan was easyier to understand and to handle, at least for me.
> 
> Klaas



Wow... !!     It will be great if that works.....I will have to try it..... I bought Vuescan the other day and initially I am getting decent results with old BW negatives and I can scan them into my Windows 10 computer..... but I also make use of the multi-slide feeder on my Nikon 5000 scanner and so far, I prefer the Nikon software for that, so my Windows 7 machine is still in use.....I like to have alternatives, as there is no right or wrong way.....I also use an Epson V700 for scanning medium-format material.

My latest purchase (arriving in a couple of days) is a 40x30 cm light pad .... I have 25,000+ BW negatives taken by my Grandfather from the late 1930’s to the early 1960’s .... (He was a world-renowned amateur who exhibited at the RPS and the London Salon , but that’s  another story) All of the negatives are in translucent sheets in ring-binder files..... The sheets won’t fit on my Epson flatbed, which I bought quite a few years ago, so up till now I haven’t really seen many of them, except for the 500 or so that he made into “Exhibition“ prints..... I am going to make “contact sheets” by laying them on the light pad and photographing with my DSLR, and then import into LR.

The translucent sheets will obviously not allow for perfect images, but plenty good enough for me to be able to catalog what I have, and then individually scan images of interest.


----------



## Klaas

A question about your Nikon 5000 scanner: Vuescan should work with your scanner, even with the multi-slide-feeder. At least this is mentioned at the description at the Vuescan scanner list, see the Nikon Coolscan page. If not, contact them, Mr. Hamrick is most supportive, as I found out.

Klaas


----------



## Replytoken

Klaas said:


> If not, contact them, Mr. Hamrick is most supportive, as I found out.


This is good to hear.  Others on the forum have not had the same experiences, and I was somewhat left with the impression that he would prefer to be contacted as little as possible.

--Ken


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Klaas said:


> A question about your Nikon 5000 scanner: Vuescan should work with your scanner, even with the multi-slide-feeder. At least this is mentioned at the description at the Vuescan scanner list, see the Nikon Coolscan page. If not, contact them, Mr. Hamrick is most supportive, as I found out.
> 
> Klaas



I now have Nikon Scan, Epson Scan and Vuescan all running on my Windows 10 computer.  I haven’t yet tried the multi-slide feeder but I now have plenty of possibilities - thanks to Klaas and Bikie John for their input and advice.


----------



## Bikie John

That's good news, thanks for letting us know. How did you get Nikon scan working - did you go through the (slightly scary) rigmarole of getting Win10 to accept the unsigned driver?

John


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Klaas said:


> I used Nikon Scan 4.0.3, but it didn't work either, so I de-installed it. Then I tryed the free version of Vuescan and this software works fine with my Nikon scanner. But then I installed Nikon Scan again and it suddenly works fine. Via the internet I learned, that Vuescan installed a driver for the scanner. This driver stays installed, even after I de-installed Vuescan.
> 
> But later I bought a full version of Vuescan and de-installed Nikon Scan. Vuescan was easyier to understand and to handle, at least for me.
> 
> Klaas



John - I decided to buy Vuescan anyway, as it seemed to be selling at a discounted price when I looked. I loaded it and tried a few scans with my Nikon and with my Epson flatbed and it worked fine..... THEN , I had the reply above, from Klaas which suggests that the Vuescan driver will get the Nikon software working - and it does !! So when I installed the Nikon 4.0.3 on my Windows 10 computer, I just unticked the boxes when the installer prompted me to choose the Nikon drivers.... I fired up the Nikon Scan - and it works !!

Klaas seems to suggest that it works even with the *trial* version of Vuescan, so maybe it can be done for free, but I had already bought my Vuescan (which I am happy with) before I saw his reply, so now I am well loaded up on scanning software.


----------



## Bikie John

I missed that post from Klaas, that would be a great help. I installed Vuescan on trial but didn't really feel that it offered much so didn't pay for the full version. I will have to refer back to this thread if a Windows update causes problems again. 

John


----------



## Klaas

kelvinjouhar said:


> ... Klaas seems to suggest that it works even with the *trial* version of Vuescan, so maybe it can be done for free, but I had already bought my Vuescan (which I am happy with) before I saw his reply, so now I am well loaded up on scanning software.


Sorry, but jou did a big mistake with installing working scanning software. Now you have to spend a lot of time (months or even years) with scanning  I'm experiencend now, believe me  But Corona and a closed nation are most helpfully for saving spare time for scanning  The last two years, but mainly the two last months I scanned about 9,500 slides. When this process is over, I'm going to start scanning my negatives.

Klaas


----------



## kelvinjouhar

Klaas said:


> Sorry, but jou did a big mistake with installing working scanning software. Now you have to spend a lot of time (months or even years) with scanning  I'm experiencend now, believe me  But Corona and a closed nation are most helpfully for saving spare time for scanning  The last two years, but mainly the two last months I scanned about 9,500 slides. When this process is over, I'm going to start scanning my negatives.
> 
> Klaas



You are right Klaas !!....   I have just finished “scanning” (using DSLR, tripod and light box) nearly 500 pages of negatives in translucent sheets - approximately 20,000 negatives.... now I will be splitting each page into 14 JPEGs, and keywording the resulting 7,000 images.... then I will have a better idea of what is in the archive that I inherited.  Then I can use my Nikon scanner to make high quality scans of interesting images.


----------

