rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I recently used my D850 to digitize some 8x10 negatives for a friend. The resulting images were RAW images. I processed them, initially, in ACR and then brought them into Ps. Inverted the image and did minor touch-up work from there.
--Bob

Johanna Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Has anyone used the Plustek 8200iSE?
I am in need of digitizing lots & lots of 35mm slides & negs.
With this unit is the workflow speedy or snails pace?

BebuLamar

So the problem is back because I did well with the scanner because it has the software to convert negative to positive. Doing the conversion myself in photoshop has not been very good. I know it can be done, it's just I am not good enough that is why I am looking to learn from you but you also have to rely on the software. So yeah I do not agree with those who say converting a image of the negative to positive is simple. It's not.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It’s very simple if you like Lightroom Classic.

BebuLamar

I meant it's not simple if you don't have the negative pro plug in and just use the built in photoshop command. Many posters in this thread seem to think all you have to do is to use the invert command.

therwol Loc: USA

I've not used this scanner, but you may find this link to be useful.

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

ScanDig has done some real world tests on current and past scanners, and they debunk the claims of the manufactures who make unrealistic claims about scan resolution. The scan resolution and effective resolution are not the same due to the optical limitations of the scanners.

Having said that, the Plustek you mention is one of the better film scanners for 35mm, with an effective resolution of 3350 dpi. You can scan at higher resolution, but the effective resolution stays the same and you get larger files. The Reflecta scanners top the list in terms of effective resolution, topping out at 4300 dpi. (Sold under the brand Pacific Image in the US.) In contrast, the "high end" Epson V850 flat bed scanner tops out at around 2300 dpi. The very popular Epson V600 tops out at 1560 effective dpi.

I have the Epson V800 which tests identical to the V850. I am satisfied with the results overall, considering my need at times to do batch scanning, but I can achieve better results with my Nikon D810 camera and macro lens for my "special" pictures.

If you care about the best quality you can buy on a reasonable budget, then the Plustek would seem to be a reasonable choice. A high end flatbed scanner like the V850 does have the advantage of being able batch scan negatives and to scan large format film, and when working with large format film, you don't need super high resolution to get good results.

Read the test report on the Plustek and come to your own conclusion about speed for scanning a lot of negatives or slides. A flatbed scanner will likely be faster at a price. How much is quality worth to you?

therwol Loc: USA

You are correct. You can process a RAW file and save it as a jpeg, but it's a one way street.

therwol Loc: USA

ColorPerfect works in Photoshop. I demonstrated that in one of my posts in this thread with images to prove it.

Some things to keep in mind. Before you process the RAW images in Photoshop, you have to first convert them to linear .tiff files. You need to have the DNG converter installed on your machine and use a small program called MakeTiff to batch convert your files. These files are huge, but Photoshop can handle them.

Once you apply the plug in to these linear .tiff files in Photoshop, you will obtain images that are very close to what you want, but you will still want to tweak them. I find that the images are a bit flat and need the colors punched up a bit.

Before applying the plug in, you must crop out anything that may show outside of the image, otherwise the color correction will be screwed up. These linear .tiff images are very dark, and it can help to invert them temporarily to be able to see the borders better when you crop.

You can export the output as jpegs or .tiff files. .tiff files are better for future editing, but the files are massive. Using my Nikon D810 (36 megapixels) I end up with .tiff files that are 190 megs apiece. I don't object to that, since I have plenty of storage available. I'm just saying....

https://www.colorperfect.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah. Slow strategy. NLP gets extremely close in a few clicks. Then you can adjust with controls made for working with negatives.

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

Thank you Bill. I read your paper and made a copy.
My cousin has a Nikon bellows (PB-6) and slide copy attachment. If I borrow his bellows, would I be able to achieve similar results? I would use your other recommendations using the suggested backlight, etc. I will have to purchase a macro lens or enlarger lens. Macro photography also interests me. I will purhase a Nikon D850 as soon as they are available at B&H.
Most of my slides are Kodacolor 25 and 64.
Thanks for your assistance.
Mundy

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes, certainly that works. Any macro or enlarging lens on a bellows. I duplicated slides for 8 years using an enlarger lens on a bellows.

sscnxy

Looks like my initial question let loose a most enlightening genie in a bottle. So many fantastic ideas from our UHH membership, and I've enjoyed reading and pondering them all. My "precious vintage photos" are just that, of family, friends, and wonderful moments, and I'd like to make high quality photo files for them to keep as long as they want.
The reason I'm using the D850 with a Micro Nikkor 60mm is because that is what I have. I'll have to add the computer software. As far as resolution and image quality goes, I share Burkphoto's opinion about a fine macro lens on a good camera.

I'll keep studying this very helpful thread long after it has been retired. Thank you all.

NY

therwol Loc: USA

If you're also using the ES-2 adaptor, you're way ahead of the game and won't need any elaborate setup. The lens is firmly fitted to the camera. The adaptor is firmly fitted to the lens. The film will be parallel to the plane of the sensor. All you need to figure out is a proper light source. I would not recommend simply pointing the camera at the sky. The color temperature of the sky changes throughout the day and will change depending on the degree of haze and clouds. Either figure out something with a detached strobe and diffuser or get a high quality LED light source. They have ratings now. Match the color temperature in your camera to the color temperature of the light source. I will suggest manually focusing each negative and shooting in Live View to eliminate any mirror vibrations.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Please see the PDF I attached above. The light mentioned in there is around $45, and serves many purposes besides copying slides and negatives.

For camera scanning color negatives, the color temperature of the LIGHT SOURCE should be 3200K to 4500K. 3200K works for quartz-halogen tungsten lamps. 4400K seems to work best for bi-color LED panels with adjustable color temperature.

In-camera white balance is irrelevant, because elimination of the orange mask on color negative films requires white balancing with the eyedropper tool in post-production. Regardless of your process, that's the first step.

In the film days, color enlargers and printer lamp houses used 3200K to 3400K quartz-halogen lamps, with dichroic filtration (Yellow, Magenta, and Cyan filters). In the digital world, software handles the filtration with the eyedropper sampling of the film base. This eliminates all of the color cast of "base plus fog plus mask." You're left with negative color that is much easier to convert.

Here's a sample from a partly faded 35mm Fujicolor negative exposed and processed in June, 1978. It is much better than the original lab print looks at this point, and probably better than it ever looked!

>

(Download)

10MPlayer Loc: California

I agree about the scanner. I have a Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II. It has trays that hold different sized of film strips and you can do several at a time. It comes with the software that takes out some of the dust spots, corrects colors and does the conversion from negative to positive. It does jpeg, tiff, png and pdf file formats.

edit - Forgot to say it does a great job. Quality high resolution copies. png and tiff are lossless formats so everything you scan is there. There's plenty of resolution, up to 1200 dpi but it makes for huge file sizes.