New answers tagged

1

Yuck. Likely faster to get a better scanner. Try this: Use an image of an 18% grey card. This will give you a non-saturated grey to work with. When you're shooting the greycard, make a range of exposures. In Gimp take your image, ups the range to 16 bit, divides it by the grey image chosen, then downsamples back to whatever format you choose for ...


1

Assuming that what you get without a negative is a mostly white field with even whiter corners, you can try to use that by adding it as layer in Gimp and setting it to "Divide" mode.


2

The results you will get are simply very bad. Pro-am scanners don’t go below $900 and lately you will have to shell another $200 to get the license that allows the full functionality of the software. The cheapest used pro scanners, if you find them because they are not manufactured anymore, will set you back a minimum of $5000 and another $1000 for one ...


3

You will be much happier if scanning slides with it than if scanning color negatives. This inexpensive type will have a tiny compact-camera style sensor and an inexpensive lens (whereas a DSLR camera will have a much larger sensor and maybe a $600 macro lens, which will of course be better). Hopefully the lens is adequate, but even this inexpensive camera ...


4

The major quality-determining components of film scanners are similar to those of camera systems – lenses and sensors. Better components are more expensive. Keep in mind that the "scanners" you're considering are the low-end point-and-shoots of the film scanning world. If that is all you need and expect, you may find them to be more than "passably good". ...


Top 50 recent answers are included