There's a nice Eizo 22.5 incher on eBay that ought to suit your needs well: *http://tinyurl.com/9c7xzg7* On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM, John Schroth <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Thanks Carl: > > What I failed to mention and Carl briefly touches base on, is your > display. Without a high quality monitor, calibration hardware/software and > a good understanding of color management, any adjustments you make to an > image is a shot in the dark. A high quality monitor will reproduce and > display the full range (or almost full range) of the image's color spectrum > and the color space format you are scanning to (ie: Adobe RGB). Without the > ability to see the full gamut or range of the color spectrum on a monitor > and without that monitor being calibrated properly you cannot reproduce a > faithful color representation of the image, actually sometimes what you > create is a mess. A high-end monitor for doing image work is akin to a good > set of headphones and/or monitor speakers when working with audio. > > A good example was when I was first getting into the scanning business. I > was scanning 35mm slides for a well-known photographer here in Rochester. > He worked for Kodak for many years and took many of the Colorama photos one > would see on display in Grand Central Station in NYC. We were sending files > of the 35mm slide scans out to a stock photo house in Colorado. The owner > of the stock photo house sent him an email after receiving the first batch > of samples telling him to dump the company doing the scanning work as they > had not a clue what they were doing. The images had color banding issues, > color noise and the color balance was way off. The images looked fine on my > computer CRT display (which I thought was a good one at the time) and on my > client's Apple Mac display. We were both scratching our heads. I invested > in an Eizo Coloredge color monitor and calibration hardware/software and as > soon as we dialed in the monitor and put some of the samples up on the > display we were both embarrassed and shocked at what we saw. > > I guess where I'm going with this is, if you only have a small collection > of slides and want a really good quality scan, you're better off sending > them out. Then again, if you want to have the capability of a decent/good > scanner and like working with images it's important to know that a good > scanner is only part of the equation. Your scans will only be as good as, > not only what the scanner can deliver, but how you can see/view the data > and how the entire chain is calibrated, so that you can make accurate > adjustments. Throw in some time for a learning curve and it's definitely > rewarding on the back end. > > One last bit of advice for people looking to get into scanning images. > First, come up with a plan and do a lot of testing before you actually > begin any scanning project. Richard's post noted a lot of details about > file format type, resolutions and bit depths. Obviously he took careful > consideration of what type of file formats and settings he was using for > his project. You don't want to get half way into the project to find out > you should have been scanning to some other option or different setting. > The second is the importance of keeping one set of original raw (as in > untouched) scans without adjustment. That way if you find you want to go > back to the original because adjustments you made to the scan were less > than perfect, you can. Third, after making any adjustments to an image, you > want to back the adjustments off slightly. When you look at an image and > make adjustments, persistence of vision comes into play. The longer you sit > there and stare an an image, the more acceptable your changes become to > your eyes. Even with professionals - I too-often see oversharpening, > oversaturation, over compensation. Most often less is more (and better). > > Happy scanning! > > Regards, > > > John Schroth > Media Transfer Service, LLC > > > On 9/18/2012 11:36 AM, Carl wrote: > >> I've been doing film scanning for over a decade; not professionally, but >> seriously. With both the LS-30 and Coolscan 4000, Vuescan worked great and >> I join the chorus in recommending it. Best $80 I've ever spent on sw. >> >> If this isn't an ongoing pursuit, I'd take John's message seriously and >> send them out. There is a learning curve, which could take 200 images to >> climb. Most of my stuff is on color negative, which is more challenging >> than slides, as you have no reference for color balance. But, slides can >> also be tough as the narrower contrast range of print or screen display >> requires interpretation. That takes time and practice. Add to that the >> effort of perfecting a scanning workflow, which can vary in its details >> from one system platform to another, and the time adds up significantly. A >> cheap scanner that won't handle the higher densities will multiply your >> editing time and potential frustration. Working with pictures in Photoshop >> (or whatever) is great fun, but scanning isn't! >> >> Carl (John, I'm a fellow Rochesterian) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: John Schroth <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Sep 18, 2012 10:22 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days? >>> >>> Hello Tom: >>> >>> Part of my business includes slide scanning services. Here's my opinion. >>> >>> If you only have 200 slides, this is a very small amount. If you really >>> want to get a good quality scan, and you don't feel you'll be scanning a >>> ton of slides in the future - send the slide out to a service for >>> scanning. The time and money you will spend trying to fit out >>> hardware/software and testing will not be worth it. If you will be doing >>> more scanning in the future and/or you still want to get a scanner, then >>> read below: >>> >>> I've tried and tested many options. I have not found any flatbed >>> scanners to be acceptable for scanning small format transparencies, >>> including 35mm slides. Flatbeds just can't match small gauge dedicated >>> CCD imaging. I have a Epson VM-750 pro flatbed and any transparency >>> scans in or near the 35mm size class does not look nearly as good as >>> >> >from a dedicated small format transparency scanner. A company in town >> >>> that also offers slide scanning services uses a very high-end flatbed >>> scanner for slides and they still look crappy. You just can't get the >>> resolution and density range. >>> >>> I agree with Randy - For the money, based on your needs as you described >>> below, if you're looking for better than a flatbed, the Nikon Coolscan >>> 5000 with the bulk film loader offers the best quality. The 5000 was the >>> only one to take a bulk film loader. With all my testing, the only other >>> option that scans at better quality than the Nikon is Hasselblad but >>> you're looking at a price point of more than $10,000 over the cost of >>> the Nikon, for minimal gains only at very high resolution scans. The >>> unfortunate issue is that Nikon stopped making these units, they are not >>> available new, and can only be found used. I've had several contacts I >>> know buy the used Nikon 5000's on Ebay, as long as the seller guaranteed >>> the item, the buyer was protected. Both of the units that I know of that >>> were purchased through Ebay worked out fine. I believe you can still get >>> the bulk loader attachment through B&H Photo. >>> >>> I know of one person who has purchased a Pacific Imaging Powerslide >>> 5000. They say that the bulk loading mechanism jams (though so too does >>> the Nikon bulk loader - but I've worked out modifications to this and it >>> works fairly reliably now). They said that the quality of the scans from >>> the Powerslide were good and they were pleased with the end results, >>> though they were not a professional scanning service with a discerning >>> eye and a really good monitor, so I'm not sure how the quality compares >>> to the Nikon. My guess is that the Nikon is better. >>> >>> The Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Pacific Imaging Powerslide 5000 are the >>> only two scanners that I know of that have good-excellent ratings that >>> can handle bulk slide scanning. >>> >>> There is no type of software that I know of that offers "good" results, >>> for automatic, accurate exposure and color balance during the scan. >>> Believe me, if there was, I'd be using it - as I get many projects >>> through the door that are several thousand slides. The bottom line, you >>> really have to "touch" each slide in Photoshop after the scan to >>> accurately represent exposure and color balance. The closest I can come >>> to an automated adjustment is using Viewscan pro software and setting up >>> for an automatic white balance setting, with a safe/conservative fixed >>> adjustment for the white and black points so that both the top and >>> bottom point of the histogram are not clipped during the scan. Then you >>> can batch process the scans in Photoshop using auto color correct >>> adjustment only, then using a 25-30% fade on the adjustment as part of >>> the batch scan. This will get you close. Even at that, I still prefer to >>> make all my adjustments by hand and not batch process anything. >>> >>> The best scanning software you can get is Viewscan. It will work with >>> almost any scanner and offers many more options for your scanner than >>> the native GUI will. I can't say enough about this software and the >>> support they have after the sale. >>> >>> Let me know if you have any additional questions. >>> >>> John Schroth >>> Media Transfer Service, LLC >>> >>> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date: 09/18/12 >> >> >>