dmr
Registered Abuser
Wow, somebody finally said that!
Part of the trials and tribulations I had learning to scan was trying to make the perfect scan, doing all kinds of futzing around with the bells and whistles of the scanning software.
I finally learned, as you say, to do most of this "in post" using Photoshop.
I like this quote! It especially applies to this thread.
marcr1230
Well-known
There's a very effective tutorial on using Vuescan for B&W on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/
The key is setting the exposure initially to an off frame section of the negative.
This tells the scanner what the maximum black should be, everything else falls in place. This reminds me of a wet printing technique I learned from Fred Picker's video where you set the exposure time to the the one that first turns the test strip section max black
I've found that getting detail from shadows is ridiculously easy.
You do get a flat scan out of this, and then need to apply S-curves in post-processing. I've used Photoshop and Aperture for this, in the end I bought Aperture 3.0
The scanner I use is a Nikon Coolscan V. I tried Nikon's scanning software - it kept crashing on my Mac
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/
The key is setting the exposure initially to an off frame section of the negative.
This tells the scanner what the maximum black should be, everything else falls in place. This reminds me of a wet printing technique I learned from Fred Picker's video where you set the exposure time to the the one that first turns the test strip section max black
I've found that getting detail from shadows is ridiculously easy.
You do get a flat scan out of this, and then need to apply S-curves in post-processing. I've used Photoshop and Aperture for this, in the end I bought Aperture 3.0
The scanner I use is a Nikon Coolscan V. I tried Nikon's scanning software - it kept crashing on my Mac
tlitody
Well-known
I heard a lot of people say in the past that you should develop negs to a lower contrast for scanning to be sure to get all the detail. This is just plain wrong IMO.
The reason is that most modern scanners have a Dmax of somewhere between 3 and 4. That number is the log of the density and each 0.3 equates to one stop of negative density (not subject stop range). A normal black and white negative will have between 1 and 1.8 density depending on how you developed it and your subject. Occasionally it might goto 2 or even a bit higher. Either way, it is well within the 3 to 4 which the scanner is capable of unless you have a cheap or old scanner.
But the thin part of the neg (the shadows) may not retain all the information in the scan if you don't adjust the actual scanner settings to correct for the neg. So if you are always going to scan to print, then I would give a little over exposure to always get plenty of shadow detail in the negative. Then you can adjust in post processing. Only half a stop extra. The highlights will still be well within range of your scanners ability to get the neg highlight detail out.
Incidentally transparencies can have a Dmax of 4 which is why they are difficult to scan and you get a lot of noise in the shadows. With B+W negs you will get noise in the highlights if they are too dense but you shouldn't reach that level of density in a normal negative.
B+W negs can look really bad when scanned from some scanners. A scanner with a really strong diffusion sheet between light source and neg will probably work best. I don't have a current Nikon but my old coolscan LS-30 was useless for B+W 35mm film. It made grain look awful. I think newer ones are much better.
digital ice works by using IR light. dust stops the IR from passing and that indicates to scanner that dust is there to be removed. Silver in B+W negs looks like dust to ICE software so never use it when scanning B+W negs.
And I agree with others above that a flat looking scan is normal. This is because a B+W neg density range is much less than the scanner can handle as I pointed out above. So you shouldn't reduce development but just give a little extra neg expsoure.
Nikon scan should work just fine if you you set it correctly and save to tiff.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Having trouble with the latest Vuescan version, I tried to go back to Nikonscan 4 and found that, since I have upgraded to Window 7, it no longer works properly. I can scan individual negs, but there seems no way to get the software to recognize the batch method on my LS50. So I'm back in Vuescan and using the Flickr tutorial method referenced above. The results seem to work, but are a bit time consuming. I scan all negs and afterwards delete because there is no way for me to really determine how good or bad a shot is based on the preview. Aside from the occasional flat-out BAD photos.
If I do an exhibit print, I may set the scanner software for three passes per scan. Very time wasting it seems at first, but usually great results.
If I do an exhibit print, I may set the scanner software for three passes per scan. Very time wasting it seems at first, but usually great results.
d_ross
Registered User
four things to do to improve your scans
I have found four things using the Epson V700 scanner that vastly improve my scans. I assume they would relate to pretty much any hardware.
1, turn the small clips that hold the film holder up from the glass plate from the - to the + setting, obviously only for the Epson V700, this increases sharpness noticeably!
2, turn everything off sharpening, ice, dust removal etc.
3, scan the image to actual print size you desire at 300 dpi or whatever dpi you actually print at.
4, turn color management off in your scanner software, this gives you a virtual scanner raw file, then process the scan in Lightroom or something similar, just as you would a RAW file from digital capture.
By doing all four of these things I have improved my scans to the point where they compare well to many drum scanners.
I have found four things using the Epson V700 scanner that vastly improve my scans. I assume they would relate to pretty much any hardware.
1, turn the small clips that hold the film holder up from the glass plate from the - to the + setting, obviously only for the Epson V700, this increases sharpness noticeably!
2, turn everything off sharpening, ice, dust removal etc.
3, scan the image to actual print size you desire at 300 dpi or whatever dpi you actually print at.
4, turn color management off in your scanner software, this gives you a virtual scanner raw file, then process the scan in Lightroom or something similar, just as you would a RAW file from digital capture.
By doing all four of these things I have improved my scans to the point where they compare well to many drum scanners.
[email protected]
Established
In my experience, each negative needs to be treated differently. Many people, for example, always scan B&W negs as a 16-bit transparency. I've found that sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Using this method, I've gotten scans that were actually worse than simply scanning as an 8-bit B&W negative.
click
Established
After lots of experimentation, pulling hair out, various scanning programs, reading lots of information about scanning, more hair pulling, I still do not get good results. I tried Vuescan, I read the tutorials about getting maximum black and the results in every case are terribly grainy, ugly images. For some unknown reason Vuescan produces an output that is completely black. Nikon's scanning software results mostly in images that look like a bad solarization job or are so grainy they're unusable. I don't know if there's something wrong with my scanner. I've tried every setting there is, no settings, factory defaults and nothing works.
I primarily need scans to update my website and to provide customers with digital versions of my work. I don't make prints digitally as they don't hold a candle to my darkroom work.
Does anyone have any ideas?
I primarily need scans to update my website and to provide customers with digital versions of my work. I don't make prints digitally as they don't hold a candle to my darkroom work.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It sounds like you have Digital ICE turned on while scanning black and white film. ICE only works with color film, or the C-41 process black and white films, not traditional BW films, and it gives exactly the effect you describe!
click
Established
Thanks Chris, I will make certain that feature is disabled. I'm reasonably sure that I turned it off but as I've tried so many things who knows for sure?
Trying again now.
Trying again now.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Another tip for Epson v700 users (don't think this works with the Nikon) ...
I was getting decent results with 35mm using the supplied film holder, especially after fiddling with the height of the film holder against the glass platter. It wasn't a big adjustment, but it made a significant difference. The v700 seems to have a definite sweet spot in terms of sharpening.
Also, I tend to be fanatical about flattening my neg's nowadays. I wasn't before, and just scanned them (b&w or color) after developing. But as we all know, different film brands tend to react differently after developing. I tend to throw my negs in a dense book (Intro to Calculus, always a good choice!) ... and let them get pressed for 2-3 days. This is probably obvious to other people already, but for me, neg flatness makes a huge difference.
I was also having issues with scanning my medium format stuff into the Epson. I was never happy with the results. I bought the 'Better Scanning' holder with the ANR glass ... and still wasn't that happy. Finally, I abandoned the Epson plastic holder and Better Scanning holder ... and tried something radically different.
I went to an art supply shop and had two pieces of museum-quality archival glass cut into 8x10 inch squares. The glass is very thin and multi-coated. I handle it with gloves. Literally.
What I do is place my 120 negs on the glass and make a sandwich. I place this glass sandwich directly on the scanner's glass bed. Sometimes I have to use a bit of adhesive tape to keep the glass pieces in place. Low-tech, but it works. I can typically mount half-a-dozen 6x6 or 6x7 negs this way.
I mask this sandwich with the Epson 8x10 black scanning boarder that is supplied with the scanner. This helps the scanner identify and locate the necessary scanning area.
Using the native Epson software, I use 'pro' mode and 'film area guide', then select the negs I want to scan using the manual tool.
The quality of the scans I have gotten from this method have been incredibly sharp -- breathtaking, really. Equivalent (to my eyes) to scans from a much more expensive machine.
It's a lot more hassle than throwing the medium format negs in that flimsy Epson film holder, but the results are worth it. The Epson v700 series scanners are really really good -- you just have to experiment and learn what works.
I was getting decent results with 35mm using the supplied film holder, especially after fiddling with the height of the film holder against the glass platter. It wasn't a big adjustment, but it made a significant difference. The v700 seems to have a definite sweet spot in terms of sharpening.
Also, I tend to be fanatical about flattening my neg's nowadays. I wasn't before, and just scanned them (b&w or color) after developing. But as we all know, different film brands tend to react differently after developing. I tend to throw my negs in a dense book (Intro to Calculus, always a good choice!) ... and let them get pressed for 2-3 days. This is probably obvious to other people already, but for me, neg flatness makes a huge difference.
I was also having issues with scanning my medium format stuff into the Epson. I was never happy with the results. I bought the 'Better Scanning' holder with the ANR glass ... and still wasn't that happy. Finally, I abandoned the Epson plastic holder and Better Scanning holder ... and tried something radically different.
I went to an art supply shop and had two pieces of museum-quality archival glass cut into 8x10 inch squares. The glass is very thin and multi-coated. I handle it with gloves. Literally.
What I do is place my 120 negs on the glass and make a sandwich. I place this glass sandwich directly on the scanner's glass bed. Sometimes I have to use a bit of adhesive tape to keep the glass pieces in place. Low-tech, but it works. I can typically mount half-a-dozen 6x6 or 6x7 negs this way.
I mask this sandwich with the Epson 8x10 black scanning boarder that is supplied with the scanner. This helps the scanner identify and locate the necessary scanning area.
Using the native Epson software, I use 'pro' mode and 'film area guide', then select the negs I want to scan using the manual tool.
The quality of the scans I have gotten from this method have been incredibly sharp -- breathtaking, really. Equivalent (to my eyes) to scans from a much more expensive machine.
It's a lot more hassle than throwing the medium format negs in that flimsy Epson film holder, but the results are worth it. The Epson v700 series scanners are really really good -- you just have to experiment and learn what works.
Last edited:
wojtek
Established
Hey guys, I use the scanning method which I have described in detail here:
http://goo.gl/1y3FJ
I am yet to find a good one for the colour negatives... This one works great for black and white.
Enjoy!
W
http://goo.gl/1y3FJ
I am yet to find a good one for the colour negatives... This one works great for black and white.
Enjoy!
W
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Ronald M
Mentor
Less development is the key. But it depends on the film whether a neg that prints on #2 paper with a condenser enlarger will scan right. Plus X is worst, too much contrast. Tri X is the best. Done extensive teasting.
Delta 100, TM 100 & 400 both print and scan well if made for #2 paper/condenser.
I tried scanning as color pos and it got no more range.
If the whole range will not fit, make two scans, one for good highlights, a second for good shadows. Then combine in PS with the darker on top with a luminosity mask. This works with a digital camera also. See "The Lights Right.com", digital dark room tab, video tutorials, blended exposures.
The better the scanner, the more grain you see. Nik Define 2 is my solution. Wet scanning is better, but a PITA.
Leave the negs under a book for a few days until they flatten before you scan otherwise they buckle just like an enlarger. Reverse roll emulsion out for a few days also works.
Commercially developed film normally will not have that problem.
I never scan in any automatic mode, only manual. Save the setting so you do not reinvent the wheel each time.
Bring it into photoshop and it will be not be in correct color mode, so I convert mind to the latest monitor profile, then go to image, adjust , black and white and I get a true no color cast monochrome. Tone with any number of ways. I usually use a graduated color mask modified using "blend if" to keep the color out of the very deep blacks.
Delta 100, TM 100 & 400 both print and scan well if made for #2 paper/condenser.
I tried scanning as color pos and it got no more range.
If the whole range will not fit, make two scans, one for good highlights, a second for good shadows. Then combine in PS with the darker on top with a luminosity mask. This works with a digital camera also. See "The Lights Right.com", digital dark room tab, video tutorials, blended exposures.
The better the scanner, the more grain you see. Nik Define 2 is my solution. Wet scanning is better, but a PITA.
Leave the negs under a book for a few days until they flatten before you scan otherwise they buckle just like an enlarger. Reverse roll emulsion out for a few days also works.
Commercially developed film normally will not have that problem.
I never scan in any automatic mode, only manual. Save the setting so you do not reinvent the wheel each time.
Bring it into photoshop and it will be not be in correct color mode, so I convert mind to the latest monitor profile, then go to image, adjust , black and white and I get a true no color cast monochrome. Tone with any number of ways. I usually use a graduated color mask modified using "blend if" to keep the color out of the very deep blacks.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I've been using this method with Vuescan for B&W for some time. Just starting now with color negative and positive.
I'd like to know if anyone can provide me with a link to a viable method for color?
wojtek
Established
After so many approaches at different techniques I now use Vuescan. I am scanning colour negatives as colour negatives (so I let the software to process it for me). Then, I am manually setting the white balance and later I only change white point - nothing else. The effect I am taking through Adobe Camera Raw, as it has perfect white balance setting tools (so I can super-refine it) and it doesn't destroy data while working on the file. From ACR, I am exporting the files to whatever size/crop I want, and later fine-tune them (if required, mostly just sharpening) in Photoshop.
This works well for me.
Fuji Superia 200 (Ricoh 500G) scanned this way (pretty accurate colour-wise, as far as I remember this hot Moroccan roof and the crazy cat
cabbiinc
Slightly Irregular
I've started using this method http://benneh.net/blog/2008/04/21/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/ and also his alternative method (which requires a PhotoShop plug-in) http://benneh.net/blog/2010/09/25/vuescan-colorperfect-a-guide/?goal=yes
The Color Perfect method is the easiest, but the plug-in isn't free and it doesn't work with most non-PS editors, even the ones that work with most PS plug-ins (I prefer Corel Paintshop Pro).
Danlo
Established
My technique;
Scan on the glass with my V750, keeps the dust away and you dont get lines and other problems as when you use the holders. The difference in sharpness is minimal.
Scan on the glass with my V750, keeps the dust away and you dont get lines and other problems as when you use the holders. The difference in sharpness is minimal.
[email protected]
Mentor
Hi,
thanks to all your comments and suggestions.
the above is a scan of a neopan 400 35mm film from my epson v700.
here are the stuff i gleaned and implemented from this thread:
a. changed the height adjustment from 3mm to 3.5mm, i did this after detecting a ever-so-slight increase in shadow details between 3mm and 3.5mm (both with sharpening turned off).
b. scan as 16-bit grey
c. scan at 3200 dpi
d. turned off auto-exposure but left sharpening to default medium.
e. adjusted the histogram to make sure both black and white pointers covered the entire histogram; as for the middle grey pointer, i moved it as left-most as possible while keeping the "tone curve" as concave as possible, too much left would make it an "S" curve.
This produced a very flat low contrast file, which I Post-processing in PS.
I would appreciate comments, especially on part e.
raytoei
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Personally I would do two things differently, that is if I were scanning with post processing in mind. Seldom does a scan to ready for print work well.
I would set the Ouput range to 0 to 255. This increases the angle of the curve, increasing the spread of the histogram. I would also not set mid-grey as high as 1.65. I would set it closer to 1.00, giving a straighter curve, but not necessarily completely bereft of toe and shoulder. Check the Show ouput view. Want you want is a good spread of values all along the histogram from 0-255 if possible. Have in mind some negatives just will not scan well, no matter how hard you try.
I agree with Bob and Chris. A low contrast scan with a good and even spread of values from black to white will give you a good starting point for post processing. In PP you have much more control over levels, contrast (in general and locally), exposure, definition, sharpness, the lot. Much of which most scanners/scanner SW are not very good at.
I would set the Ouput range to 0 to 255. This increases the angle of the curve, increasing the spread of the histogram. I would also not set mid-grey as high as 1.65. I would set it closer to 1.00, giving a straighter curve, but not necessarily completely bereft of toe and shoulder. Check the Show ouput view. Want you want is a good spread of values all along the histogram from 0-255 if possible. Have in mind some negatives just will not scan well, no matter how hard you try.
I agree with Bob and Chris. A low contrast scan with a good and even spread of values from black to white will give you a good starting point for post processing. In PP you have much more control over levels, contrast (in general and locally), exposure, definition, sharpness, the lot. Much of which most scanners/scanner SW are not very good at.
literiter
Well-known
I don't have much to add here, but to say that I have the Nikon Coolscan 9000. I can get a pretty good
scan now, after a bit of a trial.
I scan at the highest rez, and output to 250 or 300 DPI. I use a glass holder, keep everything clean, and
turn off "ICE" and Clean up the inevitable dust later in Photoshop.
I don't know what others have found, but for me, "ICE" seems to make things just a little less sharp,
particularly on 35mm. Yes, It does save time, because it cleans up dust etc. , but if you want a little more sharpness, turn it off..
I output to RAW. Which for this scanner is a .NEF file. file. I have the older version CS3 version of Photoshop.
CS3 does not recognize .NEF files so I had to download the free version of "Adobe DNG converter" from Adobe
which will convert NEF files to DNG files.
scan now, after a bit of a trial.
I scan at the highest rez, and output to 250 or 300 DPI. I use a glass holder, keep everything clean, and
turn off "ICE" and Clean up the inevitable dust later in Photoshop.
I don't know what others have found, but for me, "ICE" seems to make things just a little less sharp,
particularly on 35mm. Yes, It does save time, because it cleans up dust etc. , but if you want a little more sharpness, turn it off..
I output to RAW. Which for this scanner is a .NEF file. file. I have the older version CS3 version of Photoshop.
CS3 does not recognize .NEF files so I had to download the free version of "Adobe DNG converter" from Adobe
which will convert NEF files to DNG files.