James,
I just finished scanning a batch of (> 200) Kodak 400UC negatives on my
Minolta Multi II (2800 dpi,
I also could not afford higher resolution and I occasionally need medium
format scanning capabilities).
Try the following:
* lock the exposure
* use manual focus (on the Multi II) this is part of the work flow
* scan as positives
* use VueScan for an initial film transfer function correction
* make sure you scan consistently with respect to emulsion (I do
emulsion down)
I use a slide feeder that I bought on ebay (sc-100) and manually mount
negatives into slide frames.
That way cleaning and keeping it clean is easier during scanning. Still
the post-scan dust removal
for me is the most work-intensive part of the job.
I keep telling myself going forwards that I will use slides as much as
possible (easier to color correct
and dust) but the 400UC is too great of a film and allows me to get real
prints when I want them.
Just my two cents,
Roland.
jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi sorry yet more questions from me. I decided to buy a relativly cheap
>scanner. Minolta Dimage IV (3200dpi) on the principle I could not justify
>the cost of a 5400dpi film scanner. the aim was to scan some hundreds of
>print film negatives with as accurate and repeatable results as possible
>with minimum fuss.
>
>I would agree with observations on this list that colours are less
>saturated and that the result is less sharp when scanned. (I have not
>tried manual focusing)
>
>At the moment I only take colour prints and have never use slide film. I
>tend to use Fuji 100, 200 and occasionally 400 ASA film. However, when I
>scan the negatives using the software supplied with the minolta I don't
>get consistent results in exposure and colour ballance from day to day
>scanning the **same** film frame! I was not sure if this was a rubbish
>scanner or rubbish software so I decided to try some different software.
>after a web search I found alternative software which supports my
>scanner.
>
>I tried the software and can get consistent results from the **same**
>frame but **even** **more** **widly** **inconsistent** results between
>frames on the same roll. (I should mention the prints I got back from the
>film are fine). These scans where made with the *lock* *exposure* and
>*colour* *ballance* settings. so the software does not adjust the exposure
>and colour ballance for each frame individually.
>
>So the quesition in my mind is, bearing in mind that the developed photos
>look fine. what is going on?????????????????????
>
>1. is scanner *correctly* seeing large differences between exposures on
>the same film which is being compensated for by the developer when they
>make the prints. This would imply either
> 1. My om 3's light meter is not consistent
> 2. I am rubbish at controlling the exposure!!!!!!!
> 3. Its the nature of print film and not to worry
>or
>2. there are not large differences in exposure between shoots on the same
>film and that the scanner is not consistent. (however scanning the same
>shoot on different occasions with scan view give consistent results)
>
>3. I should just let the ascanning software automatically set the exposure
>for each shoot and not worry about this at all.
>
>4. I should start taking slides and forget about print film because it is
>too inconsistent.
>
>5. other alternatives welcome!
>
>Yours confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>James
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|