DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
ARTIXSCAN F1 FIRST IMPRESSIONS
- Thread starter jotloob
- Start date
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Jürgen,
I have the Epson Perfection V500 which has digital ICE but I find that however careful I am I still get dust on my transparencies. I use canned air and a Kenro antistatic brush but still find there is dust. I find that on the V500, Ice does not really remove the dust, just some of it. Epson are unable to comment. Since, as you say, it is a hardware matter, I may ask them to look at it but that presumably means sending it back to them.
In other respects, it is an excellent scanner but I find that Vuescan works better than Epson's own software and Vuescans proprietory infra red cleaning works better than ICE. I am sure that should not be the case.
On my old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 digital ICE works very well indeed.
I have the Epson Perfection V500 which has digital ICE but I find that however careful I am I still get dust on my transparencies. I use canned air and a Kenro antistatic brush but still find there is dust. I find that on the V500, Ice does not really remove the dust, just some of it. Epson are unable to comment. Since, as you say, it is a hardware matter, I may ask them to look at it but that presumably means sending it back to them.
In other respects, it is an excellent scanner but I find that Vuescan works better than Epson's own software and Vuescans proprietory infra red cleaning works better than ICE. I am sure that should not be the case.
On my old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 digital ICE works very well indeed.
This whole subject of dust control is an interesting one.
Back when working in the darkroom we all had stringent procedures to tame dust, and certain types of enlarger lighting helped mask it even more.
Now with scanners there are technological methods to deal with dust to varying degrees of success. Some of those have the trade off of additional time spent per scan .... in some cases a lot of extra time. And there is the lingering suspicion that some of them slightly degrade the image quality.
If I recall correctly, users of the Minolta MultiScan MF scanner hacked the light and replaced it with a more diffused source, which not only improved the quality of the scans visually ( more enlarger like) but also mitigated the dust issue to some degree. I have also noticed the same thing with my Imacon 949 which is the only Imacon with a more diffused light source.
What I've found is a collection of techniques tends to outperform just one. Like a diffused light source, some form of scanner program dust control mildly applied, and Photoshop dust and scratch tools set carefully by enlarging the image to at least 100 or 150% and watching as you adjust the sliders.
Back when working in the darkroom we all had stringent procedures to tame dust, and certain types of enlarger lighting helped mask it even more.
Now with scanners there are technological methods to deal with dust to varying degrees of success. Some of those have the trade off of additional time spent per scan .... in some cases a lot of extra time. And there is the lingering suspicion that some of them slightly degrade the image quality.
If I recall correctly, users of the Minolta MultiScan MF scanner hacked the light and replaced it with a more diffused source, which not only improved the quality of the scans visually ( more enlarger like) but also mitigated the dust issue to some degree. I have also noticed the same thing with my Imacon 949 which is the only Imacon with a more diffused light source.
What I've found is a collection of techniques tends to outperform just one. Like a diffused light source, some form of scanner program dust control mildly applied, and Photoshop dust and scratch tools set carefully by enlarging the image to at least 100 or 150% and watching as you adjust the sliders.
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Hi Marc,
I find that Photoshop's dust and scratch tool just doesn't work for me or if it does, it spoils the image so I tend not to bother with it now.
I have read that ICE can degrade the image but I have not noticed that as a problem with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite. I read about the fix for the MultiScan MF and emailed the inventor but he told me that it cannot be done on the Elite Scan. I don't think it would work on a flat bed like the V500 but it's a thought.
Interestingly, I have now discovered that ICE works fine with the V500 for lower resolution scans. It is when I scan at the native resolution that ICE is not so effective, which is a bit of a pain. I have taken the issue up with Epson. They want me to send ex&les but the files are over 1GB in size so I am waiting to hear from them if I can send such large files.
I find that Photoshop's dust and scratch tool just doesn't work for me or if it does, it spoils the image so I tend not to bother with it now.
I have read that ICE can degrade the image but I have not noticed that as a problem with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite. I read about the fix for the MultiScan MF and emailed the inventor but he told me that it cannot be done on the Elite Scan. I don't think it would work on a flat bed like the V500 but it's a thought.
Interestingly, I have now discovered that ICE works fine with the V500 for lower resolution scans. It is when I scan at the native resolution that ICE is not so effective, which is a bit of a pain. I have taken the issue up with Epson. They want me to send ex&les but the files are over 1GB in size so I am waiting to hear from them if I can send such large files.
Hi John, your experience mirrored mine concerning the use of Photoshops Dust and Scratch
function ... until I had an expert retoucher I use for commercial work teach me how to use it more effectively. The secret is in 1) selecting areas, not application to the whole image, 2) doing it with the image at least 100% view so you can really control the pixel range 3) use of History brush for application and then the Fade tool for even more control. 4) optional use of channel application since in color work the degree varies by channel, just like it does with noise. Sounds complex, but isn't in practice.
So, I do not use it wholesale, but in a much more subtile and controlled way, and only as part of a ongoing dust control "system" of various steps as I mentioned above.
Also, I will be doing a ton of scanning after the New Year and am anxious to try my new "Arctic Butterfly" from VisableDust for the film prep. This is primarily designed for digital sensor cleaning, but I will be using it for film also. It is a motorized brush so you can turn it on and create a fresh electrostatic charge, turn it off and then it collects dust like a magnet. I was skeptical until Irakly cleaned the sensors on my Leica M8s with his. I immediately thought of a film scanning application as well, and ordered one immediately.
function ... until I had an expert retoucher I use for commercial work teach me how to use it more effectively. The secret is in 1) selecting areas, not application to the whole image, 2) doing it with the image at least 100% view so you can really control the pixel range 3) use of History brush for application and then the Fade tool for even more control. 4) optional use of channel application since in color work the degree varies by channel, just like it does with noise. Sounds complex, but isn't in practice.
So, I do not use it wholesale, but in a much more subtile and controlled way, and only as part of a ongoing dust control "system" of various steps as I mentioned above.
Also, I will be doing a ton of scanning after the New Year and am anxious to try my new "Arctic Butterfly" from VisableDust for the film prep. This is primarily designed for digital sensor cleaning, but I will be using it for film also. It is a motorized brush so you can turn it on and create a fresh electrostatic charge, turn it off and then it collects dust like a magnet. I was skeptical until Irakly cleaned the sensors on my Leica M8s with his. I immediately thought of a film scanning application as well, and ordered one immediately.
jotloob
DPRF-Patron Gold
Hi John
On page 13 of the english instruction manual of the F1 scanner, it reads as follows :
1) Scanning damaged photos: This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for reconstructing damaged photos .
2) Scanning damaged positive film : This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for correcting flaws that my be present in your positive film .
3) Scanning damaged negative film : This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for correcting flaws that my be present in your negative film .
I have not tested any of the above situations yet .
Jürgen
On page 13 of the english instruction manual of the F1 scanner, it reads as follows :
1) Scanning damaged photos: This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for reconstructing damaged photos .
2) Scanning damaged positive film : This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for correcting flaws that my be present in your positive film .
3) Scanning damaged negative film : This scenario utilizes DIGITAL ICE for correcting flaws that my be present in your negative film .
I have not tested any of the above situations yet .
Jürgen
jotloob
DPRF-Patron Gold
Austin
I have found a drawing of a flatbeds scanner principle .
Yes , you are right , there must be a lens . The lens is not of the type , we would imagine .
For ex&le a MACRO SIRONAR , but that does not mean , it is a bad lens .
What surprises me , is , that this is not mentioned in the specs. anywhere .
But autofocus is mentioned .
Jürgen
I have found a drawing of a flatbeds scanner principle .
Yes , you are right , there must be a lens . The lens is not of the type , we would imagine .
For ex&le a MACRO SIRONAR , but that does not mean , it is a bad lens .
What surprises me , is , that this is not mentioned in the specs. anywhere .
But autofocus is mentioned .
Jürgen
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Hi Jürgen,
Thanks for that. It just shows doesn't it?
This is the reply I had from Microtek Tech support to the same question:
"Hi,
Pro and Non Pro are software issue and ICE doesn’t work on film scanning.
Regards,
Tech support
-----Original Message-----
From: photoscapes@blueyonder.co.uk [mailto:photoscapes@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:28 PM
To: Support@Umax
Subject: RE: ArtixScan F1
Hello again.
I wonder if you could tell me what the difference is between the two models of the F1. I have looked at the specs in an advert on the web and cannot see any difference between the Pro and non Pro models apart from the price.
Also please could you let me know if ICE works with film scanning as it is primarily the film scanning aspect that I am interested in?
Thanks.
John Strain"
Thanks for that. It just shows doesn't it?
This is the reply I had from Microtek Tech support to the same question:
"Hi,
Pro and Non Pro are software issue and ICE doesn’t work on film scanning.
Regards,
Tech support
-----Original Message-----
From: photoscapes@blueyonder.co.uk [mailto:photoscapes@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:28 PM
To: Support@Umax
Subject: RE: ArtixScan F1
Hello again.
I wonder if you could tell me what the difference is between the two models of the F1. I have looked at the specs in an advert on the web and cannot see any difference between the Pro and non Pro models apart from the price.
Also please could you let me know if ICE works with film scanning as it is primarily the film scanning aspect that I am interested in?
Thanks.
John Strain"