B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 458 times:
I’ve been trying to scan the slides I took to my trip to DFW back in August but I’ve never been able to get any to scan well. I used the trip to DFW to test out various kinds of film and various setting on my new camera (Nikon N65) and the result are almost identical no matter what film/settings I used. While most of the slides are clear and bright (if you put them into a slide projector) when I scan them they turn out crapola. I shot 8 rolls of film during my trip with two rolls of each kind of film. I used Fuji Sensia 100, Velvia 50, Provia 100F, and Kodak Kodacrome 64. I also had them developed @ the best place in town. Now what has driven me nuts is some slides my dad took for his job. He used an extra roll of my Velvia film but the difference is he used a 25 year old Cannon camera and had them developed @ the supermarket. When I scanned them, the only thing I had to do was brighten them a bit since he had the bad habit of taking pictures under bad light conditions. I don’t have any of his pictures available to post since he took the slides and the zip disk with all the pictures with him when he went out of town. Now I know my scanner is not messed up because it scanned his just fine and it scans all my negatives ok. My only picture on Airliners.net came from a negative.
I’d really like to get some of these slides scanned because I know if the scan worked right, getting them onto Airliners.net would be easy. If I ever get it to work, I’m still debating whether or not I should scan and upload a picture of N334AA. That was the aircraft that was flown into the World Trade Center’s north tower. I guess it means a little bit more to me because my boss’ brother was on the 99th floor of that tower on Sept. 11. Needless to say, he didn’t get out.
Anyway, this is what I used for these slides.
Camera: Nikon N65
Lens: Quantaray - 135-400MM F4.5-5.6 (Not quite the one I wanted but when you get a gift this expensive, you don’t say No.)
Scanner: Nikon Coolscan IV ED
Scanning Software: Nikon Scan 3.1
I’ve also tried Vuescan and worked with it for almost the same amount as I did the Nikon. I wasn’t able to get any better picture with Vuescan than I did with the Nikon software.
If you want more detailed info, just ask. My brain is too tired right now to put more technical stuff up.
Here is a sample of what I usually end up with. I made them small so they would load quickly but they still look the same even if they're bigger.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3808 posts, RR: 67 Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 247 times:
I've got absolutely NO idea what might be causing this. What I do know is that the pics in your website are brilliant! Have you tried uploading some of those? With what did you scan those? Or were they some of the negatives you were talking about? (the one pic that got uploaded)
B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 226 times:
The pictures in my Yahoo briefcase all come off negatives except for the pictures in the folder "Other Things". All of them except for the VC-137 came from very old slides. (8-10 years). I uploaded almost all of them and only one made it into the database. Two didn't get past the screeners and Johan rejected the rest. Only the one below made it though and it has a warning.
B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 199 times:
It gives great results with everythinb BUT my slides. It scans negatives just fine as well as the slides my dad took but the ones I've taken all come out like the two examples I posted. They come out this way no matter what DPI I set it on.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 201 times:
From the look of the samples you provided, I'm guessing that the problem is with your originals. Now, you're using a lens that zooms to 400mm, but the aircraft is small in the middle of the frame - does that means you had the lens set on maximum zoom but were still too far away? There's certainly significant vignetting there, which is certainly down to your lens, and from the look of the first pic, and the changes to it caused by software adjustment, I'd say that the slide is probably underexposed. This of course can be corrected to an extent with software, but at the expense of quality.
You don't say what the slides of your dad's are OF; if he has taken them with a short lens (maybe a 50mm or a 35-70 zoom) then the chances are that they'll look a lot sharper than your own when scanned because the originals will be much sharper.
You say your negatives are all fine: did you take these with the same camera/lens combination? (I see you say your N65 and lens are new)
B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 197 times:
My dad's slides are of fire hydrants, water towers, pumps, etc. Like I said, its for his job. Anyway, the camera he used was the camera I used before I was given the Nikon. Its a Cannon that dates back to the dinosaurs. In the slide I used for an example, the aircraft was on an approach that took it further away from me so it appears smaller. I used that slide because it was the first one I pulled out. Since every slide does it, I didn't feel like looking for one in which the aircraft is closer to me. As for my negatives, the majority were taken with the Cannon but a small amount also come from using the Nikon. The problem with those is the weather @ IAH that day was so hazy it really ruined any good approach shots and I didn't take very many of aircraft on the ground. I'm really leaning to the idea that the lens is the problem because many of my pictures with it tend to come out very "soft" and kind of fuzzy. Now maybe I'm just not setting the camera correctly. Even though I've read the book for the camera, I haven't really figured out exactly what setting to use. Tomorrow, I'll scan a negative or two and post them as well.
SpitfireMk9 From Australia, joined May 2000, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 190 times:
Eric
I'm using a Nikon Coolscan IV (three weeks old) to scan Sensia 100 slides which I have processed and cut into strips of 6. The camera is a Canon with normally a 80-400 Tokina. The aperture of 5.6 at max is a problem and I found that 1/350 can be used.
Scanning. This is what I do
Preview 1 Crop first before checking the Histogram
2 With dark slides and little contrast the sliders can be moved to the left quite a bit to lighten the whole photo
3I scan at 2300 with Normal Digital Ice
The finished Tiff is in Photoshop LE as I access the scanner via PS.I use the USM in Photoshop and not via the Nikon Software
The Compression to a JPEG is achieved by using JPEG Wizard> Generally a setting between 5 to 8 is OK
It works for me with better than average acceptance rates.
Bezoar From United States, joined Nov 2001, 805 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 164 times:
You say "While most of the slides are clear and bright (if you put them into a slide projector) when I scan them they turn out crapola."
It might be that the 'default settings' of the software have been modified, and might be scanning at a reduced brightness for which you are having to compensate for afterwards. Try returning to the default settings.
If that is not possible, or doesn't work, the software may be corrupted. Try uninstalling the software, then reloading it.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 154 times:
Its not the scanner or the software that is causing the problem. In in the starting post, the first picture is what happens when all settings are "default". The second picture is what happens with almost any adjustment. It isn't just my scanner that does this. I tested a few slides on a Minolta Scan Dual II @ work and they do the same thing. Something is wrong with the slides and I just can't figure out what or why.
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2032 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 138 times:
Many cameras underexpose white sunlit objects. If so, you can compensate by either +'ing the exposure compensation button or by manipulating the ASA.
/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3808 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 293 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, 
Anyway, the camera he used was the camera I used before I was given the Nikon. Its a Cannon that dates back to the dinosaurs. In the slide I used for an example, the aircraft was on an approach that took it further away from me so it appears smaller. I used that slide because it was the first one I pulled out. Since every slide does it, I didn't feel like looking for one in which the aircraft is closer to me. As for my negatives, the majority were taken with the Cannon but a small amount also come from using the Nikon. The problem with those is the weather @ IAH that day was so hazy it really ruined any good approach shots and I didn't take very many of aircraft on the ground. I'm really leaning to the idea that the lens is the problem because many of my pictures with it tend to come out very "soft" and kind of fuzzy. Now maybe I'm just not setting the camera correctly. Even though I've read the book for the camera, I haven't really figured out exactly what setting to use. Tomorrow, I'll scan a negative or two and post them as well.
From Australia, joined May 2000, 16 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2032 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
