Im at a loss. Thanks for the responses to my previous film scanner question.

I have performed a non-scientific test and id appreciate any comments.

In my zing album I have scanned 4 photos using the Jenoptik js21 film scanner (2400bpi) Using the TWAIN drivers supplied with the scanner into Photoshop LE. I also scanned the same photos using an HP Scanjet 5300c flatbed scanner. 300 dpi. The differences are vast. The film scanner seems to be much more sensitive to light and produces much worse contrast rendition in the generated files.

For example if you take a look at js-teresa and compare it to hp-teresa, you can clear see that poor Teresa is anemic when scanned by the JS-21 but looks fine when scanned by the HP scanner.

These photos were taken with a M6, Summicron 50mm on a cold cloudy day in Cornwall (SW England) using t-max 400. They were developed at a lab.

Id appreciate any comments (be brutal) and advice, frankly im seriously considering getting a flatbed.

Many Thanks

Jason

http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4292895745

-- Jason Vicinanza (jvicinanza@yahoo.co.uk), April 06, 2001

Answers

Jason, what is you intended usage of the digital files? If you are only scanning for web work, then you probably don't need the resolution of a film scanner (and the Dmax,color accuracy and noise variables are "you get what you pay for").

Did you manipulate the scanners software controls (I don't know this model, but I assume there is some basic color& contrast correction which you can perform on a prescan). Remember that B&W film is not the standard that a scanner would be designed for.

I use a Minolta Dual Scan of 2400dpi, with Vuescan, and this software gives great control (within the hardwares limitations). You can download a free trial at www.hamrick.com. If you like it, pay the $40 and you will get a code which removes the chicken wire watermark.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), April 06, 2001.

When I save the image, open it in Photoshop, and look at the histogram, I see something where the endpoints have been seriously clipped (it's a truely strange histogram--but that's another issue :-)--you've somehow chopped off both the shadows and the highlights. I'm assuming that there's some software for adjusting the scanning process, and you've set the contrast (or levels endpoints) much too high, losing both ends of what's on the film. Without the interface here in front of us, it's going to be hard to give advice.

Is there a preview screen for the scan, and do the results in that screen look different from what actually happens? Or does the preview look as bad as the product? Are there adjustments you can make for scanning, or does the scanner just grab what it wants, leaving you no options?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 06, 2001.

Jason, good questions. I have been using an HP flat bed scanner to scan prints - mostly 10x8's. Some results are on http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=320712 Some work ok but others like 'David'seem to have a glazed look. I would be interested in others comments on the scanning technique. Charles

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 07, 2001.

meant to add, I have also been saving for a film scanner to reduce the cost of printing.

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 07, 2001.