# print to scan



## denada (Mar 6, 2016)

i need a scanner. the few i'm finding around my life are not cutting it. not creating a copy true to the print to the extent i demand. this is for polaroids and soon to be black and white 8.5 by 11s enlarged from 35mm. is this the way to go ...

Epson v8000

do i want this fluid mount as well?

or does anyone have a better recommendation?

thanks in advance!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 6, 2016)

No. If you have 35mm film scan the film not prints made from the film. Photograph the Polaroids.

Joe


----------



## denada (Mar 6, 2016)

could you explain a little further? why scan the negatives instead of create and then scan the print? if scanning the negative does result in a better copy, are one of these scanners what i need for the job?

also, photographing polaroids is not anywhere near the quality i want.

is the v600 something i can get away with? or should i just splurge for the v8500? i mean i spend about this much in film every couple weeks anyway.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 6, 2016)

Fluid mount Polaroids?  Absolutely NOT And probably not needed for the film.

I also agree with scanning the film and not the prints from the film.


----------



## denada (Mar 6, 2016)

fluid mount of benefit for scanning negatives? and do you think i'll have a problem with newton rings when dry scanning the polaroids?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 6, 2016)

denada said:


> could you explain a little further? why scan the negatives instead of create and then scan the print? if scanning the negative does result in a better copy, are one of these scanners what i need for the job?
> 
> also, photographing polaroids is not anywhere near the quality i want.



Your original is a polaroid print. Don't want to offend you but "quality" and polaroid don't really associate very well. Copy the polariods with a high-res digital camera.



denada said:


> is the v600 something i can get away with? or should i just splurge for the v8500? i mean i spend about this much in film every couple weeks anyway.



A print from a film negative is a 2nd generation. In all analog transfers considerable loss occurs one generation to the next. A scan from a print from a negative is a 3rd generation. There's no way you'll maintain equivalent image quality scanning a print versus scanning the original film.

The Epson V series scanners do a good job with 70mm film on up and do an OK job with 35mm but are not as good with 35mm as a dedicated 35mm scanner. If you don't have larger film to scan you might consider a dedicated 35mm film scanner. The V600 will give you the same scan as the V850. The extra cost for the 850 is for the full-size light in the lid that permits scanning sheet size film.

Here's an example: 35mm color slide scanned with Epson V750 (prior model to v850):






Now here's a comparisons at full-res of the above scan with an identical resolution scan from a dedicated 35mm film scanner:





If you scanned a print you can expect a poorer result than the above Epson scan.

Joe


----------



## denada (Mar 6, 2016)

thanks for the thorough reply, Joe.

then i'd have to do any post in photoshop, instead of burning/dodging on the enlarger?

and i get what your saying about polaroids, but they give off little rays of light and i want my digital copies to give off near identical rays of light. i've been using a few different scanners, and none of the are up to snuff. gritty film has an aesthetic, and i like it.

maybe i need a v600 for polaroids and ls4000 for negatives? but that's about the same price as the v850 and it's likely i'll be expanding beyond just 35mm. maybe i buy another dedicated negative scanner when i expand beyond 35mm.


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 6, 2016)

denada said:


> do you think i'll have a problem with newton rings when dry scanning the polaroids?



You wouldn't, it's just a print face down on a scanner.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 6, 2016)

denada said:


> thanks for the thorough reply, Joe.
> 
> then i'd have to do any post in photoshop, instead of burning/dodging on the enlarger?



Yes -- easier to do in Photoshop and superior results.



denada said:


> and i get what your saying about polaroids, but they give off little rays of light and i want my digital copies to give off near identical rays of light. i've been using a few different scanners, and none of the are up to snuff. gritty film has an aesthetic, and i like it.
> 
> maybe i need a v600 for polaroids and ls4000 for negatives? but that's about the same price as the v850 and it's likely i'll be expanding beyond just 35mm. maybe i buy another dedicated negative scanner when i expand beyond 35mm.



If you want to scan the Polaroids you can get a much less expensive flat-bed print scanner that should serve. Don't know what you've tried -- look at Canon.

I used the Nikon scanner as an example since I had that example available. There are other dedicated 35mm film scanners that should out perform the Epson V series. I like the Epson V series scanners and I have a couple of them at work. They're good scanners but they're "jack of all trades" scanners and that usually comes at the expensive of doing just one thing really well. Plustek makes some dedicated 35mm film scanners that should be easier to find and use than an old out of production Nikon.

Joe


----------



## denada (Mar 9, 2016)

so i bought the perfection v600. $200 wasn't something i had to spend all week thinking about. i figure i'll buy a dedicated 35mm once i'm a bit more knowledgable.

and oh my gosh i'm going crazy trying to get the digital copy to look exactly like the original. photoshop is something i use for work with a rudimentary understanding; i mess with levels and some dodge/burn until i get a bright, happy photo people will share/like on social media. i'm not interested in digitally manipulation in (my) art. i want to be able to share the photos i take while having them look just like the original. it's impossible.


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 9, 2016)

denada said:


> i'm not interested in digitally manipulation in (my) art. i want to be able to share the photos i take while having them look just like the original. it's impossible.



There's usually a 'home' (quick, auto) mode with scanner software that gives a  basic result without needing to get deep into it settings. You could just flatbed  scan polaroids.


----------



## denada (Mar 9, 2016)

^yep, this has that option. problem is that result is not even close to the original image. i was about to post the two examples to show my point, but as you can't see the original i guess there's no point. well, i just spent an hour photoshopping it to get it close, i wanna post anyway.

'shopped until i got it as close as i could ...







scanned on "home" ...





i also realize it doesn't look the same from display to display. drives me crazy.


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 9, 2016)

It's very subjective - hard to know what it lacks, how you want it look. The auto scan is less saturated; using Levels a midpoint RGB adjustment would make it look darker/denser and alter the look to be more like your 'shopped one. What does it lack that you are unhappy about?


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 9, 2016)

A basic digital camera with 'macro' lens function, on a tripod (or even handheld in good light), custom white balance and using the 10 second self timer would give you a digital file of your polaroid. That should be quite accurate color and easier to crop and prep for use on the web.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 10, 2016)

denada said:


> so i bought the perfection v600. $200 wasn't something i had to spend all week thinking about. i figure i'll buy a dedicated 35mm once i'm a bit more knowledgable.
> 
> and oh my gosh i'm going crazy trying to get the digital copy to look exactly like the original. photoshop is something i use for work with a rudimentary understanding; i mess with levels and some dodge/burn until i get a bright, happy photo people will share/like on social media. i'm not interested in digitally manipulation in (my) art. i want to be able to share the photos i take while having them look just like the original. it's impossible.



It is impossible. There's a reason for that. Your original is a reflected light print and your scan is a transmitted light screen image.

You're not going to get the scanner to deliver a finished result that doesn't require some further adjustment. How much further adjustment and how difficult that will be depends on your working methods. First question, how is your monitor calibrated and how did you calibrate the scanner?

Joe


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 10, 2016)

denada said:


> i also realize it doesn't look the same from display to display. drives me crazy.



thats where display calibration comes in.

you should also calibrate your scanner


----------



## denada (Mar 10, 2016)

a moment on google suggests there is a sheet i need buy to make this happen? like this IT8 target? none of those are for exactly what i'm scanning. how do i pick which one?

and then i need to buy this DatacolorSpyder5PRO Display Calibration System to do my screen?

thanks!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 10, 2016)

denada said:


> a moment on google suggests there is a sheet i need buy to make this happen? like this IT8 target? none of those are for exactly what i'm scanning. how do i pick which one?
> 
> and then i need to buy this DatacolorSpyder5PRO Display Calibration System to do my screen?
> 
> thanks!



You haven't even calibrated your display yet: that means this is an entirely new area for you. Be careful here before you start spending money. The topic is color management and you have homework to do. You'll need hardware, software, targets and understanding. The understanding will cost little to nothing. Whereas the hardware and software can cost quite a lot and quite a lot more if purchased without the understanding first.

You have reading to do. Start here: Overview of Color Management

and here: https://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/L11-176_Guide_to_CM_en.pdf

and here: Color Management for Photographers: Hands on Techniques for Photoshop Users: Andrew Rodney: 9780240806495: Amazon.com: Books
Hint: Andrew hangs out over at the Dpreview Retouching forum under the handle digidog. You might go over there and tempt him with a few questions.

and here's another: Real World Color Management (2nd Edition): Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy, Fred Bunting: 9780321267221: Amazon.com: Books

Good luck,
Joe

P.S. Make sure and compare X-Rite products with what you found from DataColor.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 10, 2016)

denada said:


> a moment on google suggests there is a sheet i need buy to make this happen? like this IT8 target? none of those are for exactly what i'm scanning. how do i pick which one?
> 
> and then i need to buy this DatacolorSpyder5PRO Display Calibration System to do my screen?



The laser soft scanner calibration software and charts came with the epson v750 i have at work.  Calibration for reflective scanning and film scanning are separate.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2016)

Good place to start. Making fine prints in your digital darkroom: Getting started


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 11, 2016)

I'd think about if you need to get into a lot of expense for what you want to do (getting copies of darkroom prints and Polaroids).

If you're doing B&W darkroom work, you could make copies (wet prints) at the time. For any significant photos I would keep notes of what I did step by step, how many seconds exposure, if I increased or decreased a second or half second, what part of the image I burned or dodged, etc. Then I'd often make a copy or two right then. But I have notes if I'd want to go back and do another print.  

I have scanned and printed some of my original darkroom prints (at a higher res setting on my printer). It depends on the quality/sharpness of the original image but I can get something comparable - it's obviously different in appearance (paper and gloss, etc.). I can often get a better copy scanning the darkroom print than a scan from the negative done by a lab, it just depends. I don't post much online but usually downsize to a low, low res copy for internet use which of course isn't as sharp.

I've gotten good quality scans of photos taken on peel apart Fuji and expired Polaroid films. I haven't gotten a comparable scan of an Impossible Project film that to me looks like the original; it just doesn't capture the appearance of it. (I guess the material is too different maybe, with more dimension, not as flat as a photo on paper.)

With Polaroids too I often take a couple of photos that are almost the same at the time I'm out taking pictures so I'll have a second photo that's almost a copy of the first one. 

I have a Canon Pixma and eventually plan to upgrade to a more 'pro' printer since I've been doing most of my own printing. I've had a few of mine accepted into juried exhibits and shipped to a gallery, etc. But starting out I don't know how much expense is necessary for your purposes.


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 11, 2016)

You seem driven to achieve a very exacting technical standard for a pictoral style which is low-fi. Technology isn't a magic wand that will compensate for a handheld polaroid of a brick wall. Calibration is good for printing - it doesn't guarantee how other peoples' monitors see your pictures. I'd scan the print, share it and move on to the next visual idea. High fidelity digital imaging requires either a digital camera or great scan/editing ability. There's no shortcut


----------



## denada (Mar 14, 2016)

i appreciate the wealth of information. including from those providing despite disagreeing with my priorities -- which are unwavering. there's a lot of reading and info to digest. don't think i'm abandoning this thread; i'll be back when i've had a chance to shift through it. 

in the meantime, i tried making my first "digital darkroom" photo with 35mm, the v600, and ps.


----------



## denada (Mar 20, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Here's a head up for the OP: Epson instructions packed with the scanner tell you to place film in the scanner emulsion up in the holder. DO THE OPPOSITE! If you follow the instructions you'll be scanning through the film base -- dumb. Film emulsion down and then flip the image in Photoshop for a sharper more detailed scan.


the difference is so subtle i think the winner varies from scan to scan. not as in from frame to frame, but as in i scanned a frame five times, flipping it each time, i did not get the emulsion side being up or down consistently producing a better image. sharpness was always the same or of indiscernible difference; there were slight differences in contrast from scan to scan. what i noticed in the process though is that film curl is worse emulsion side down and either way the film curl distorts the image.

these film holders are unbelievably shoddy. that's not even their only problem. they don't fit the film horizontally or vertically -- with six in the holder it cuts the end off the last frame (so that i need to scan each strip of six twice or cut them into threes) and no matter how many frames are in the holder it's absurdly difficult to not cut off the tiniest bit of either the top or bottom of the frames.

if i could do this over again, i might have purchased a sub-$100 flatbed scanner for instant film and a dedicated film scanner for 35mm, as someone (ha, just checked and it was you, Ysarex) recommended to me in another thread (which i ended up posting in because i think it's more on topic vs a gallery thread). the office scanner i started using actually did a better job of picking up the texture in the polaroid frames, though i think the v600 does a better job with the much more important actual image. with how much time and money i'm sinking into photography, i guess $125 bucks is next to nothing. funny, because i joined this forum to ask if i should offer a little less than asking (which was just $200) for some used darkroom equipment. which i haven't finished setting up, because that is a whole other set of complications. i think that's where i am going to refocus my energy for a bit, as this scanning stuff is driving me crazy.

even as a consumer, photography drove me crazy. i'd want to throttle a publisher and/or photographer for posting or printing different looking copies of the same photograph.


----------

