A long time ago I was using a Heidelberg Topaz 2, and I was happy with it. Now, I have an Epson V330, which I use mainly for document scanning and text recognition. But it can also scan photos and films. Epson claims 4800 optical DPI... We all know that is a lie. At best, that thing can resolve maybe 1200DPI.
The sensors aren't great and quite noisy, the optics aren't great, and the stepping motor isn't great either... on top of that the Epson software plain sucks... Even when using a better software (I'm using Silverfast), the scan quality doesn't really change, but at least you can export 48bits raws, and the scanning process is much faster.
I could stick to 1200 DPI. That resolution is just below the apparent resolving power of this scanner. But if a 1600x1200 pixels scan is maybe good enough for instagram, it definitely is not for printing.
Therefore, I had to figure out a way to get the best out of this scanner.
With my scanner, I'm quite lucky: it's already perfectly focused. I don't have to adjust the neg height to have the scan in focus. Most people aren't that lucky with their flatbed scanner.
I can't fix the optics or make the step motor more accurate. The main issue with these optics and stepping motor is that each color channel is not perfectly aligned: the red, green and blue channels are slightly out of alignment following the sensor movement axis. The result is something that looks like chromatic aberration and blured image.
Fixing it in LR with the CA tool doesn't really help because it is not really "that" kind of lens CA. All you actually have to do is align those RGB channels. That will neutralize the pseudo CA, and slightly improve sharpness.
Now, the resolving power is not good, but that doesn't mean data isn't scanned. There is actually still a lot of sub pixel data waiting to be recovered. Stacking and averaging would do the job.

My process for now: In this example the film is Kodak UltraMax 400.
In this example I scanned 4 times the same crop of the neg, at 4800DPI, no postprocessing in silverfast, export to 48bits RAW.
I opened each RAW in Photoshop. I made a small action:
- invert the neg,
- basic levels adjustments so I can see something on my screen,
- duplicate the base layer 2 times and turns each layer into a red, green and blue channel
- upscale the image x2 nearest neighbor
- apply unsharp mask on each layer (120% 89 pixels radius here)
Not very pretty:
Hopefully it gets better.
The next step is aligning those RGB layers. Here I wish PS had some elastic grid deformation alignment tool... But the auto-align layers function works quite well. I could also do it by hand. When it's done the image can be flattened and I repeat the same process on the 3 remaining scans.
In the end I have 4 big images that I can import as layers in PS.
These 4 layers need to be aligned, converted in a smart object, stack mode set to median, and then rasterized. I apply some light smart sharpen on the rasterized output (150%, 4 pixels, remove Gaussian blur, shadows and highlights 50%, 50%, 8 pixels)
That is already much better, but keep in mind it is a 400% upscale. It has to be downscaled back (25% bicubic sharper).
I then used topaz denoise (low light mode, remove noise 15, sharpen 15.
Comparing that process to the original 2400DPI scan!
To be fair, I had to correct the RGB channels alignments on the original 2400DPI scan, and apply the same topaz denoise filter.

2400DPI scan, CA corrected, Topaz denoise.

4 4800 dpi scans, CA corrected, stacked aligned, topaz denoise

This is quite a simple process, and there is huge room for experimentation and improvements.
Anyways, as it is, it's easy, and the result is definitely better than the 2400DPI scan.
I tested with up to 8 scans, with mixed results when using photoshop only: the problem here is the very basic PS alignment that can not take into account the speed variation of the scan chariot. With elastic grid deformation, it is noticeably better. I could actually scan a quite hazy photo at the equivalent 2900DPI, resulting in a 11MP image with quite good details and conservation of the original film grain.

You may also like

Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022
If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.
Shooting the Sony Alpha 700 in 2022
I really never was really interested in Sony after they bought Minolta and started their "own" line of DSLRs. 15 years later, I buy a pristine Alpha A700 for peanuts and I quite like the Minolta DNA.
Sony alpha A200: a Nikon D80 with IBIS
After Sony bought the Minolta photography department, they released the A100 in mid 2006, the A700 in mid 2007, and the A200/A300/A350 in early 2008. Two years after the Nikon D80, we find the same SONY ICX493AQA CCD sensor (wich is basically a slower ICX483AQA that was in the Nikon D200 released 3 years earlier) in what is basically a Minolta body with Sony branding imitating a Nikon D80..
Birding with a cheap Sigma 135-400?
When it comes to birding, the common advice is to get a camera with low noise, fast AF, fast burst, big buffer and some long lens, preferably a super fast telephoto. It is indeed good advice, but you'll have to pay thousands of dollars to buy that gear, even on the used market. What if you want to shoot birds on a super tight budget? You'll still need some camera and lens. Maybe consider buying some older inexpensive gear?
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro
It took me some time to write about that A-mount lens I got NOS for 250 bucks. At that price, you will unlikely find any better F/2.8 telezoom.
Nikon N50 / F50 shooting Kodak UltraMax 400
I didn't shoot film for years. Didn't really plan to. Not that I don't like it, because I love film, but I just didn't have an opportunity to do so. When I saw that Nikon F50 with a 35-80 for 20 bucks, I just bought it. Ordered a new battery on amazon and a couple rolls of Kodak Ultramax 400
Olympus OM-D E-M5
August 2018 I bought that little camera for $150. Definitely a bargain considering it was sold boxed, in a not too bad condition, with less than 6.000 clicks, and included two batteries and charger, a 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3 zoom lens, a 45mm F/1.8 prime lens, the tiny Olympus flash, a couple filters (ND1000 and CPL) and a (slow) 64GB SD card that I just trew away and replaced with a Sandisk Extreme Pro.
Nikkor Plastic 70-300 F/4-5.6 AF-D ED
This Nikkor 70-300 has been one of the most poorly reviewed Nikkor lens ever.
Can you take any photo with an outdated crappy camera?
A short essay I wrote back in 2019.
Shooting the Minolta Maxxum / Dynax 7D in 2022
The short lived most advanced Minolta DSLR was released in late 2004. It became later the foundation for Sony's A-mount cameras. It featured the first in body stabilization in a DSLR, a 6MP CCD sensor and loads of controls. This camera is a photographer's delight. The body feels right, the controls are great and natural: coming from a film SLR, you just feel at home with the Minolta 7D. And You can use all the now often cheap quality Minolta lenses, as well as the more expensive Sony A-Mount lenses.
Back to Top