Scanning tips for B&W

[AndrewNYC]

I've started archiving my black and white negatives. Since the negatives are all over the place as far as types and developers, I'm getting very inconsistent results. I've since standardized on TMY II, and really like the scans, but older negatives are very grainy. Does anyone here have experience with Nikon scanners and black and white film? I'm specifically wondering if teh digital GEM might help me with grain and getting some consistency. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Andrew

 

[Dan States]

Your softwear will make all the difference. Get Vuescan as the driver for your scanner and you will get outstanding scans from all types of black and white film.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[Rogier]

I just started scanning and quickly found out that scanning as a color negative gave me way better results.

 

[AndrewNYC]

I have Vuescan and find it incredibly unintuitive and annoying versus the Nikon software. Maybe I need to spend more time on it. It's so bad, though 🙁

 

[ranger]

I just started scanning and quickly found out that scanning as a color negative gave me way better results.

I totally agree. My color negs can be scanned with ICE which really cleans the image up nicely. Then, I just convert it to B/W. I wonder why I havent done this before. B/W film is cheaper, but this way, I have the choice of keeping the image color or B/W. Any reason I should not do this?

 

[fotobiblios]

Anyone digitise negs by using a copying set-up (eg illumitran or bellows plus hi qual enlarging lens) and a digital SLR?

respected minolta dimage IV is 14Mpix as are several of todays slrs

some worry about local focus issues, stepper motors and speed with scanners

personally I have no experience except with disappointing scanners

 

[AndrewNYC]

I don't think that C41 has the same look. I prefer the look of true silver halide. Just not scanning the crap 😉

 

[whitecat]

A trick I heard about which works very well is to scan the negs as positives and invert in Photoshop. It is said to bring in more detailed info. I have tried it and it works well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A trick I heard about which works very well is to scan the negs as positives and invert in Photoshop. It is said to bring in more detailed info. I have tried it and it works well.

That's the way I normally do it.

Still no ICE though. I prefer the wet darkroom.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

A trick I heard about which works very well is to scan the negs as positives and invert in Photoshop. It is said to bring in more detailed info. I have tried it and it works well.

That's the best way to do it. Another trick is to take your color scan that you've now converted to a positive, and then review each of the R, G, B channels. Some scanners have less noise in the red or green. Select that less noisy channel and delete the rest.

 

[SixPM]

I scan and print black and white negative/print in full RGB for many years now (as I can add small colours for better image print depth), last year I started to use Silverfast with 48bit HDR scanning software, this function open up more shadow and highlight detail which dogs software/ scanner of the past. As a rule I never use any ICE or GEM as then tend to degrade the images, hope this is a good starting point for you.

 

[mh2000]

I did a bunch of b&w scanning tests between Vuescan and NikonScan and can get the same results from both. It really helps with the Nikonscan software when you scan in as color and convert to b&w in PS, in Vuescan I scan as color and save as b&w which just does the channel mix in the output stage. If you scan with the Nikonscan as black and white it apparently only scans using one channel and you get speckles in your grain. Yes, digitalICE degrades your photos, especially in "Fine" mode, standard is well worth the compromise IMO. The dust removal in Vuescan just sucks, I've written Hamrich about it and he acknowledged that I was not alone in my complaints. I have not noticed any difference between scanning as positive or negative

 

[MikeL]

I have not noticed any difference between scanning as positive or negative

Me neither. There was a thread some time ago where this was brought up. I think someone mentioned that it may help with a poorly exposed negative. I played around with a Delta and HP5 negative and I couldn't see a difference in shadow detail or anything, even when blown up. If I remember correctly, clicking the color or positive or negative button doesn't change the scan itself, but what the software does with the information. Maybe I just haven't had the software get in the way yet.

But then again, I couldn't see a difference that would make or break a photo when scanning in color and converting to black and white either.

 

[tedwin]

Anyone digitise negs by using a copying set-up (eg illumitran or bellows plus hi qual enlarging lens) and a digital SLR?

Yep, see here..

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64247

 

[dmr]

Back in 2006 I did a bunch of experimenting scanning B&W negatives (real silver ones, not C41) as negatives, as positives, and as color positives to compare the results, as many were saying they had better results scanning as positives and inverting. I posted the results here.

I found the threads. That's the good news. Here they are:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18536
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18644

The bad news is that the examples I posted did not survive some software "upgrade" or there was some kind of data rot or something that killed them. 🙁 If there's interest, I may be able to find them again.

The conclusion was, that yes, for some B&W negatives, scanning them as color positives, inverting, and then in some cases even selecting or adjusting the levels in the various color channels got a better end print.

Now, to shift the subject slightly ... and not to be a total b*tch here!

Get Vuescan as the driver for your scanner and you will get outstanding scans from all types of black and white film.

You're probably tired of me saying this, but it annoys me when somebody suggests "Get Vuescan" as the knee-jerk one-size-fits-all solution for any and all scanning issues! (As an aside, why do you seldom hear "Get Silverfast" as a similar one-size-fits-all similar solution?)

I'm not really against Vuescan, if it works for you, all the better, do it. I'm just opposed to suggesting this one solution as a magic bullet cure-all for those who are learning to scan! Here's why ...

Back when I started with the negative scanner I began the slow tedious climb up the learning curve. When I stumbled, I would as questions here and on other fora. Many of the answers made sense, but there was this chorus of "Get Vuescan" for about any problem.

So I tried Vuescan. I found it bloated and confusing and yet another obstacle to climb over while on the learning curve.

(One helpful hint that was handed to me here was to scan B&W negatives as positives and invert.) 🙂

I never found any magic bullet. What I did find was that I needed some time and experience using the stock (K-M) software to get what I wanted out of it, and I also had to learn the best technique, attention to detail, etc. I now get very consistent scans from most negatives and slides, and when they don't come out just right, I usually can fix it!

(Yeah I know, b*tch b*tch b*tch!) 🙂

 

[luketrash]

Vuescan is a different application for each scanner.

Their version for the spendy Nikon scanners is nicer than it is for my crappy Epson 3170.

That said, I use the Epson software. It pays to understand how to tweak the settings for both the histogram and the curve and just scan as regular negative film in grayscale.

If you're a real stickler for archival, make three scans to get the shadows, highlights, and midtones and use an HDR program to bring out everything for the historical record.

Every scan on my flickr photostream was done with a 70 dollar flatbed scanner and the free software I downloaded on Epson's site. It pays to figure out your software and maximize its potential. The problem when people ask these questions is that there are a myriad of different scanners and Vuescan and SilverFast apps vary as well based on the cost of the scanner.


THEN I typically still have to dink with the curves in photoshop a bit to make things look the way I feel they should.

I crack up when I see elitist snobs write "direct scan, no post-processing" as if it matters. In most cases their scans look like flat, gray rectangles. Bleh... It's as if they're really saying, "I can't be bothered to read the owner's manual and figure out how to work this complex piece of machinery."

 

[stephaneb]

Scan to DNG with VueScan

Scan to DNG with VueScan

I scan as a RAW in VueScan. I save the RAW in DNG format and treat it with Adobe Camera Raw. It works a treat. Even better than scanning as a positive in Vuescan.

 

[clayne]

I wrote a VueScan exposure tutorial for B&W scans a while back, posted to the I Shoot Film flickr group: VueScan Lock Exposure Tutorial. It's mainly for accurate black point.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

the real problem is not blowing highlights, which I cant solve no matter what I try. You can always dial in everything else, clone stamp your dust, but its the highlights that just kill me. Nikon cs 8000, hundreds of scans weekly and no solution in sight 🙁

 

[clayne]

the real problem is not blowing highlights, which I cant solve no matter what I try. You can always dial in everything else, clone stamp your dust, but its the highlights that just kill me. Nikon cs 8000, hundreds of scans weekly and no solution in sight 🙁

Well the lock exposure thing is definitely one step in this direction. The goal is to set an appropriate black for the film base - which is represented as a transparent area. Once this is done the curve won't be heavily shifted to the right - resulting in blown highlights.

Try the tutorial and follow the steps. Also turn off all correction of everything. Everything should be flat. Curves should be 0.01 and 0.01 for white and black. Just look at the settings, really.

If you're blowing highlights after that, I guarantee you it isn't the scanner.