Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

iamnotmad · Jun 16, 2002, 07:53 PM

Hello, that's my question... For those of you with lots of scanning experience. I have the epson 1650 photo which I like very much. It does a great job of scanning both from negatives and prints.

My question is ideally, which should I use if I have both available; a print or a negative? Which should produce better results?

Thanks for any insight!

Vanquish · Jun 17, 2002, 05:48 AM

normally if you have a scanner with a good D-value your scans from negatives should be better than the print versions and also, in the print (not if you print them yourself) version the colors could be different from the negative due to the setting of the printing-machine which printed your pictures. So, when you scan a negative you should get more detail and color who are more "real" than your prints.

also, going from negative to positive is not always that easy in Photoshop, invert does not always work.

[ 06-17-2002, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Vanquish ]

iamnotmad · Jun 17, 2002, 10:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Vanquish:
normally if you have a scanner with a good D-value your scans from negatives should be better than the print versions and also, in the print (not if you print them yourself) version the colors could be different from the negative due to the setting of the printing-machine which printed your pictures. So, when you scan a negative you should get more detail and color who are more "real" than your prints.

also, going from negative to positive is not always that easy in Photoshop, invert does not always work.<hr /></blockquote>Ahhhh, thanks. That about the print having potentially modified colors depending on the printer making adjustments makes sense. What do you mean by D-value though?

Vanquish · Jun 17, 2002, 10:57 AM

If you have a high d-value or dynamic range than your images will have more color saturation and more shadow detail. So the higher the better. The dynamic range is VERY important for negative-scanning. A 3.3Dmax or higher is recommended, I don't really recommend you to go lower than this for negative scanning. If you are really into negative-scanning, I advice you to get a Nikon CoolScan; they are VERY good but...also expensive. You can find the dynamic range of your scanner on the tech specs sheet of your scanner.
I hope this is enough info, if you need some more (or more detail) just ask.

(your scanner the Epson 1650 has 3.2D which is fair enough if you don't really need it for professional use (I was talking a littlebit out of a pro-view.

[ 06-17-2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Vanquish ]

iamnotmad · Jun 17, 2002, 11:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Vanquish:
If you have a high d-value or dynamic range than your images will have more color saturation and more shadow detail. So the higher the better. The dynamic range is VERY important for negative-scanning. A 3.3Dmax or higher is recommended, I don't really recommend you to go lower than this for negative scanning. If you are really into negative-scanning, I advice you to get a Nikon CoolScan; they are VERY good but...also expensive. You can find the dynamic range of your scanner on the tech specs sheet of your scanner.
I hope this is enough info, if you need some more (or more detail) just ask.

(your scanner the Epson 1650 has 3.2D which is fair enough if you don't really need it for professional use (I was talking a littlebit out of a pro-view.<hr /></blockquote>Great, thanks again. I'll use negs when I have them then. It seems to do a fine job scanning them. I'm using the pre-release epson software for OSX and scanning from within Photoshop.

Thanks!

buchrob · Jun 17, 2002, 07:26 PM

Having read and agreed with 90% of the above, and also thrown my 2 cents worth into the neg scanning & command-I issue mentioned in another forum, I would still suggest having the prints handy, at least as a reference.

Many times I have scanned negs in a professional environment only to be told that my work was not "accurate" when compared to even the cheapest prints the customer had on hand!

I quickly learned that my best ally was the photo finishing store a few blocks away from my office. If negs same in, we paid them the 75 cents it cost us to get rush prints to at least get a feel of what the client had in hand, even though we knew we could do better.