[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
Not sure how it works on a Nikon, but on my Sprintscan 120 Vuescan compensated for the orange mask on color neg by altering exposure times, rather than just twiddling bits, so scanning B&W as raw color neg gave me three differently exposed channels to combine as needed. Almost enough to save pushed TMY. Finally got tired of the Sprintscan's other defects and bought a nice used drum for not much more money. Handles dense highlights effortlessly. On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:40 PM, "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks to all for their advice. I've never tried a Vuescan raw scan or > a positive scan, so I'll be giving those a try. Already, Vuescan is > giving > me a nice flat scan that I can tweak. > > Me'thinks I'll be delving deeper into the myriad options Vuescan's > provides > from here on out. > > Now I've also got to get some settings together to get a decent *batch* > scan > set of results (not all so flat) on FP4+ for initial quick digital > "contact sheet" > style results. > > Scott > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from B&W film, but I haven't >> got >> around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which >> is a >> very fine grain extended red film. >> >> Vuescan has a "raw" option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no >> correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and then see if >> the blown highlights show up. >> Vuescan has a control to set the white clipping point. I'm not sure >> how >> vuescan sets it, but so the theory goes you should allow a small >> percentage of the pixels to be clipped on the high end. This is >> because >> often some specular highlight ends up setting the high end of the >> display, making most of the image too dark. I like to photograph >> aircraft, and this option just plain doesn't work well since shiny >> subjects can have many specular highlights. I set this option to zero. >> >> Going back to the raw mode, if your highlight are not blown, you could >> try something like this. >> 1) Do a raw scan, saving in grayscale 16 bit. I think the default for >> this is a positive image. If so, then invert it immediately after you >> load it into photoshop >> 2) In photoshop, go to the adjust levels menu >> 3) Set the gamma to 6 (middle text box), making the image look very >> white >> 4) slide the leftmost slider to the right until you start to see black >> specs in the display. This is setting the black clip point. >> 5) Set the gamma to 0.1 >> 6) move the right slider to the left until the white specs are at an >> acceptable level. This is setting the white clipping point. >> 7) move the middle slider until the image is acceptable. For a bell >> shaped curve, this is generally at the peak of the distribution. >> >> Acros and Astia (color slide film) are low acutance films. The images >> don't look very sharp, but they are. I didn't like this low acutance >> at >> first, but now I think it is more realistic. >> >> You have discovered (rediscovered) what people call grain enlargement. >> When you take a high latitude film and adjust the contrast to look >> natural, the grain gets enhanced. This is why I prefer to do slide >> film. >> It may be harder to scan, but you need to adjust the endpoints much >> less, so the grain doesn't get magnified. >> >> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and >>> haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and >>> the Coolscan V for most of my work. >>> >>> I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom). >>> I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost >>> exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a >>> low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have >>> achieved >>> pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO. >>> >>> >>> But I have some problems. >>> >>> (1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown >>> routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in >>> HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests >>> per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots >>> of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and >>> then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into >>> three strips and develop different ways. >>> >>> The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time >>> except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was >>> unacceptible, as you can imagine. >>> >>> I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm >>> about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these >>> seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from >>> what I read. >>> >>> I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because >>> big >>> tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of >>> using slower film in the first pla
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
Thanks to all for their advice. I've never tried a Vuescan raw scan or a positive scan, so I'll be giving those a try. Already, Vuescan is giving me a nice flat scan that I can tweak. Me'thinks I'll be delving deeper into the myriad options Vuescan's provides from here on out. Now I've also got to get some settings together to get a decent *batch* scan set of results (not all so flat) on FP4+ for initial quick digital "contact sheet" style results. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from B&W film, but I haven't got >around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which is a >very fine grain extended red film. > >Vuescan has a "raw" option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no >correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and then see if >the blown highlights show up. >Vuescan has a control to set the white clipping point. I'm not sure how >vuescan sets it, but so the theory goes you should allow a small >percentage of the pixels to be clipped on the high end. This is because >often some specular highlight ends up setting the high end of the >display, making most of the image too dark. I like to photograph >aircraft, and this option just plain doesn't work well since shiny >subjects can have many specular highlights. I set this option to zero. > >Going back to the raw mode, if your highlight are not blown, you could >try something like this. >1) Do a raw scan, saving in grayscale 16 bit. I think the default for >this is a positive image. If so, then invert it immediately after you >load it into photoshop >2) In photoshop, go to the adjust levels menu >3) Set the gamma to 6 (middle text box), making the image look very white >4) slide the leftmost slider to the right until you start to see black >specs in the display. This is setting the black clip point. >5) Set the gamma to 0.1 >6) move the right slider to the left until the white specs are at an >acceptable level. This is setting the white clipping point. >7) move the middle slider until the image is acceptable. For a bell >shaped curve, this is generally at the peak of the distribution. > >Acros and Astia (color slide film) are low acutance films. The images >don't look very sharp, but they are. I didn't like this low acutance at >first, but now I think it is more realistic. > >You have discovered (rediscovered) what people call grain enlargement. >When you take a high latitude film and adjust the contrast to look >natural, the grain gets enhanced. This is why I prefer to do slide film. >It may be harder to scan, but you need to adjust the endpoints much >less, so the grain doesn't get magnified. > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and >>haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and >>the Coolscan V for most of my work. >> >>I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom). >>I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost >>exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a >>low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have achieved >>pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO. >> >> >>But I have some problems. >> >>(1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown >>routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in >>HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests >>per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots >>of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and >>then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into >>three strips and develop different ways. >> >>The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time >>except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was >>unacceptible, as you can imagine. >> >>I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm >>about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these >>seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from >>what I read. >> >>I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because big >>tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of >>using slower film in the first place. >> >>(2) I often get what look like weird bright reflections off the grain. Not >>in highlight areas. It's like bright specs, visible at 1:1 mag. This >>stuff really >>makes its appearance known during USM. I wonder if this is due to the >>Coolscan's LCD light source? don't know. >> >>(3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's "auto-exposure" >>is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my >>film >>speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but >>I don't >>know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve adjustment >>that I could make myself, or is it adjusting the analog gain or maybe doing >>something else? Any
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
Hi Art, I use MS Entourage. But I'm guessing it was somehow my mistake, because only the filmscanner emails were missing as far as I know. Bizarre. Berry On 4/22/05 7:19 AM, "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of interest what email client do you use? (I think I want to > stay away from it ;-)) > > If I lost my last 3 months of email archives, I'd be very annoyed! > > Art > > Berry Ives wrote: > >> When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the >> last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my >> mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me to >> something I haven't seen... >> >> >> > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
One advantage of chromogenic B&W film over the "silver stuff" ;-) is that you can use IR cleaning methods on the scan (dICE, etc). Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's been my experience that chromogenic film is even harder to scan > since it has an extremely wide latitude. I guess the problem here is we > don't know exactly what the complaint is regarding the Nikon CSV and > scanning B&W film. That is, is it noise, an odd looking image due to a > funny gamma, etc. > > Chromogenic film is great stuff for long exposure night shots. Light > sources don't bloom in the image as much as compared to regular film. I > like the Kodak Portra 400BW for this purpose.You can expose it at ISO 50 > to bring out the areas not near light sources. > > Berry Ives wrote: > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
>(3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's "auto-exposure" >is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my >film >speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but >I don't >know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve adjustment >that I could make myself, or is it adjusting the analog gain or maybe doing >something else? Any input here would be greatly appreciated. > Nikon's s/w no matter the setting for it's clipping zones is quite aggressive in setting levels and contrasts. While Hamrick's VueScan is not without its quirks, I find myself using it more and more often over NikonScan because I get a much much wider range from it than from NikonScan. There's detail in shadows and highlights in VS that I canNOT get with NikonScan w/o a great deal of work. Note that this may be different for LS-5000/9000 users since Nikon's s/w has a few extra options for those scanners to do with shadow-detail and highlights. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> First, if you haven't seen this page, take a look: it's got lots of sample scans. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ >> (1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown routinely even with extremely conservative development, as in HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into three strips and develop different ways. The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was unacceptable, as you can imagine. Try scanning your negatives as positives, and then inverting in your photo editor. >> I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from what I read. << Yes. If you look at the response curves, you will see that the ISO 100 films all have a much shorter tonal range (higher contrast) than the ISO 400 films. When I have my digital hat on, I love to rant that the film partisans are sleazy snake oil salespersons with the egregious trick of advertising the latitude of Tri-X (and the ISO 400 consumer color films) and the grain of the ISO 100 films and not fessing up that you can't have both at the same time. >>> I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because big tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of using slower film in the first place. <<< Again, try scanning as positives and invert after the fact. Scan in 16-bit mode and do your inversion and Levels/Curves adjustments in 16-bit mode. >>> (2) I often get what look like weird bright reflections off the grain. Not in highlight areas. It's like bright specs, visible at 1:1 mag. This stuff really makes its appearance known during USM. I wonder if this is due to the Coolscan's LCD light source? don't know. <<< Hmm. The only B&W films I've scanned on my 8000 are Tech Pan and TMAX 100. Here's what the Tech Pan looked like: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg Note the blown highlights in this crop: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c1.jpg >>> Anyway, howdy to the list from a new member. I do need to experiment with scanning B&W film as a positive and see what I get going that route. << Didn't I just say that. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from B&W film, but I haven't got around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which is a very fine grain extended red film. Vuescan has a "raw" option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and then see if the blown highlights show up. Vuescan has a control to set the white clipping point. I'm not sure how vuescan sets it, but so the theory goes you should allow a small percentage of the pixels to be clipped on the high end. This is because often some specular highlight ends up setting the high end of the display, making most of the image too dark. I like to photograph aircraft, and this option just plain doesn't work well since shiny subjects can have many specular highlights. I set this option to zero. Going back to the raw mode, if your highlight are not blown, you could try something like this. 1) Do a raw scan, saving in grayscale 16 bit. I think the default for this is a positive image. If so, then invert it immediately after you load it into photoshop 2) In photoshop, go to the adjust levels menu 3) Set the gamma to 6 (middle text box), making the image look very white 4) slide the leftmost slider to the right until you start to see black specs in the display. This is setting the black clip point. 5) Set the gamma to 0.1 6) move the right slider to the left until the white specs are at an acceptable level. This is setting the white clipping point. 7) move the middle slider until the image is acceptable. For a bell shaped curve, this is generally at the peak of the distribution. Acros and Astia (color slide film) are low acutance films. The images don't look very sharp, but they are. I didn't like this low acutance at first, but now I think it is more realistic. You have discovered (rediscovered) what people call grain enlargement. When you take a high latitude film and adjust the contrast to look natural, the grain gets enhanced. This is why I prefer to do slide film. It may be harder to scan, but you need to adjust the endpoints much less, so the grain doesn't get magnified. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and >haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and >the Coolscan V for most of my work. > >I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom). >I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost >exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a >low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have achieved >pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO. > > >But I have some problems. > >(1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown >routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in >HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests >per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots >of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and >then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into >three strips and develop different ways. > >The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time >except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was >unacceptible, as you can imagine. > >I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm >about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these >seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from >what I read. > >I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because big >tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of >using slower film in the first place. > >(2) I often get what look like weird bright reflections off the grain. Not >in highlight areas. It's like bright specs, visible at 1:1 mag. This >stuff really >makes its appearance known during USM. I wonder if this is due to the >Coolscan's LCD light source? don't know. > >(3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's "auto-exposure" >is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my >film >speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but >I don't >know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve adjustment >that I could make myself, or is it adjusting the analog gain or maybe doing >something else? Any input here would be greatly appreciated. > >Anyway, howdy to the list from a new member. I do need to experiment with >scanning B&W film as a positive and see what I get going that route. > >Scott > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>Give Ed Hamrick's Vuescan a try. The demo mode (last time I checked >>which I will admit was 4 years ago) just puts a watermark on the >>image.There used to only be one version, but now there is a pro and >>regular (maybe called basic) version. If you like it, get the Pro >>version since it is updated frequently. Ed has many profiles for Kodak >>B&W
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and the Coolscan V for most of my work. I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom). I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have achieved pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO. But I have some problems. (1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into three strips and develop different ways. The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was unacceptible, as you can imagine. I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from what I read. I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because big tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of using slower film in the first place. (2) I often get what look like weird bright reflections off the grain. Not in highlight areas. It's like bright specs, visible at 1:1 mag. This stuff really makes its appearance known during USM. I wonder if this is due to the Coolscan's LCD light source? don't know. (3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's "auto-exposure" is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my film speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but I don't know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve adjustment that I could make myself, or is it adjusting the analog gain or maybe doing something else? Any input here would be greatly appreciated. Anyway, howdy to the list from a new member. I do need to experiment with scanning B&W film as a positive and see what I get going that route. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Give Ed Hamrick's Vuescan a try. The demo mode (last time I checked >which I will admit was 4 years ago) just puts a watermark on the >image.There used to only be one version, but now there is a pro and >regular (maybe called basic) version. If you like it, get the Pro >version since it is updated frequently. Ed has many profiles for Kodak >B&W film. > >I would think that Nikon's lack of a color mask would make for >exceptional B&W scans. On more conventional scanners, people have tried >to scan in color and then pick the best looking channel to convert to >grayscale. > >It's really a shame they can't make an B&W transparency film (other >than Scala, which is really "fringe":). I find scanning positives to me >much easier than negatives. Yes, the scanner has an easier time with >negatives since the densities are not as extreme, but the inversion >process is the gremlin. > >Any particular type of B&W film you find most difficult? > >Here is an idea. See if the Nikon software will let you scan the B&W >film as color slide film. Then see if the histogram is reasonably centered. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>I only get messages very, very sporadically. Is there traffic on >>this list that I'm missing? >> >>I'm desparate for tips on getting better scans of B&W film on >>a Nikon Coolscan V, understanding Nikon's "autoexposure" vs. >>what I might do myself and so forth. >> >>Scott >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>I have a different problem. My last two posts never showed up. >>> >>>Berry Ives wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me to something I haven't seen... >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
I only get messages very, very sporadically. Is there traffic on this list that I'm missing? I'm desparate for tips on getting better scans of B&W film on a Nikon Coolscan V, understanding Nikon's "autoexposure" vs. what I might do myself and so forth. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I have a different problem. My last two posts never showed up. > >Berry Ives wrote: > > > >>When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the >>last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my >>mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me to >>something I haven't seen... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Oops?
I have a different problem. My last two posts never showed up. Berry Ives wrote: >When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the >last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my >mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me to >something I haven't seen... > > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
