Re: RES: Scanning

[Jack Fulton <jefulton1@comcast.net>]

Ricardo:
Dan has provided a solid, well put, simple truth.
I've found the 4990 (that's what I own but also an older Imacon)  
software to be surprisingly good
with converting color negatives.
You will absolutely obtain a better scan by purchasing SilverFast  
software.
It is far more complicated and even th eon-line tutorials are not that  
easy.
The controls are somewhat intuitive and if you get the fancier version  
like Studio Ai (not really necessary)
it will do a number of scans, interpolate among and between then to  
produce significatnly better shadow detail.
though it i snot the same but you sort of see how multiple scans of  
the same image and then using those is
similar on concept to the HDR method beginning to be used more. Even  
HDR is not the panacea nor final
way to obtain the complete image complexity. But, working with that  
scanner and SilverFast with a lot of
practice will provide excellent and surprising results. Quite honestly  
I'd sell your 4990 on eBay and use
that money to buy the V700 model from which you can really get some  
mighty fine scans.
Okay that is the Epson story . . great stuff. About $575. If you are  
serious enough get the Nikon 9000 but that'll
set you back $18k . . but worth it. The only glitch in that I hear is  
that if you work w/Macs like I presume most
of us do, once Snow Leopard appears Nikon will not write software for  
it. However, the SilverFast people do
and will.
Jack F



On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Dan Burkholder wrote:

> Hi Ricardo,
>
> Are there specific pre-scan adjustments about which you're  
> concerned? If you list those things, maybe more will chime in with  
> suggestions.
>
> Many of the software controls are designed for commercial batch  
> scanning, where you want every scan to be ready to go to press  
> (size, dpi, color profile, etc.) without any futzing in Photoshop.  
> Artistic types usually work in a different mode: the scan is the raw  
> materials and you expect to do some tonal work (and retouching)  
> before outputting your scan to some other from.
>
> For negative scanning, I suggest that you scan (16-bit per channel  
> please) to get good shadow and highlight detail. If you have  
> information on those two ends, you can pretty much dial-in the  
> midtones to your liking in Photoshop. Make sure you have any  
> sharpening turned off during the scan; the worst scan I ever saw  
> came from a high-end drum scanner that confused T-Max grain with  
> important image detail. Yikes!
>
> What I'm saying is that much of the "control" in the scanning  
> software can be more trouble than it's worth unless you're in a  
> production environment. Make sense?
>
> Good luck!
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> info@DanBurkholder.com
> www.DanBurkholder.com
>
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa wrote:
>
> > My main concern is about pre scan adjustments.