scanning fuji film from a k1000 with a canoscan 8600f

[doha]

I recently put two test rolls of film through an old K1000 and scanned some of the results with my 8600F at 2400 DPI. Now keep in mind, I've never used this particular film before, the camera hasn't been used in years and I've never scanned film before. But, I was quite disappointed with the results. Some pictures can been seen here:

http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10009.JPG http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10010.JPG http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10011.JPG http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10012.JPG http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10013.JPG

Are the cruddy results from my scanner? I have no idea. I've never scanned film before!
Thanks.

 

[sherwoodpete]

At first glance these results look fairly acceptable, typical of film scans.
Having said that, film scanning is somewhat of an art as well as a science.

Particular issues arise from colour balance, particularly in shadow areas, which may show a lack of total blackness, and a strong colour cast, even when the rest of the image shows quite accurate colour.

Secondly film grain may appear to be an issue, particularly in blue skies. This is probably an artefact as the film grain is likely to be smaller than the scanner resolution. Adjusting the scanning software settings may help, as can scanning at the maximum resolution, though that may slow down the whole process.

All I can really suggest is to keep practising, as there may be particular settings that give better results.

For comparison, here are a few of my own film scans, mostly from transparency. Note, some of the images (the harp player) in this gallery are from a digital camera, for comparison purposes, please see the captions.
http://www.pbase.com/peter_k/film_scan
Regards,
Peter

 

[charlesh]

Given everything you said above, it's not surprising you are disappointed. Scanning skills are the same as photoshop...you need to work, study, practice in order to get acceptable scans. You'll also learn that some films scan better than others, and you will learn that it has to be a good image going in to get a good image coming out of the scanner. Keep at it.
--
charlesh

 

[Darrin Behm]

I know some have gotten great results with flatbed scanners, but I have not.

I have been scanning my film since 2001 with the Minolta Scan Elite II and now I use the Nikon Coolscan V. Pretty straight forward with the Nikon load in the strip set the ICE setting and hit scan. Looks great right out of the scanner...depending on the original film quality that is.

The few flatbeds I have tried I have seen results similar to what you have here even with shots I know that looked great on the Nikon.

Darrin
--
ださかわ

 

[LesDMess]

The results will depend on the type of film, exposure, processing and scanning. Assuming reasonably decent processing of the film, I can suggest that the kind of film, exposure and scanning are at fault. For comparisons, you can access my Film 2 Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/D163377BD1A059A which has many examples of the various films that I have scanned with my Coolscan 5000 film scanner as well as some comparison scans from other scanners. I used to have other scanners - still have a Canoscan flatbed today that I would occasionally compare to, but the Coolscan provides automatic near perfect results (technically not photographically in my examples!) across all films as shown in my Film 2 Album without pre or post processing.

BTW, perceived grain maybe exaggerated due to high compression but they are easily distinguished by their squarish patterns.

I recently put two test rolls of film through an old K1000 and
scanned some of the results with my 8600F at 2400 DPI. Now keep in
mind, I've never used this particular film before, the camera hasn't
been used in years and I've never scanned film before. But, I was
quite disappointed with the results. Some pictures can been seen here:

http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10009.JPG
http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10010.JPG
http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10011.JPG
http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10012.JPG
http://doughamlin.com/for/public/Scan10013.JPG

Are the cruddy results from my scanner? I have no idea. I've never
scanned film before!
Thanks.

 

[Norman Cavender]

It's hard to give a definite answer without seeing the originals. The samples you show are very poor, but I doubt it is a fault of the scanner itself. I have the earlier Canon flatbed scanner -- 8400F -- and get far better results from 35mm positive and negative films. Not the equal of what can be obtained from a dedicated film scanner, but acceptable enough for most ordinary purposes. In fact, I've produced pretty good 8x10 prints from its output.

Just as a guess, I think your originals have some exposure problems because some show major loss of detail in the shadow areas. There is also a substantial problem of color balance, either from the film or (more likely) from improper scanner settings. You also have much less resolution than you should be getting even from a flatbed (are you perhaps scanning only a portion of the film?) But as others have said, best results from a scanner require considerable understanding of color balance, dynamic range, etc. Unless your scanner is absolutely defective, which I doubt, I think more work on technique will bring much better results.