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 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body