ayazdani
Member
16 bit Grayscake for me on an Epson V700 initially using the Epsonscan software, then tweaking and cleaning in LR.
I've played around with scanning in color (24 and 48 bit) and personally didn't notice enough of a difference to compensate for the speedier scans of grayscale.
I've played around with scanning in color (24 and 48 bit) and personally didn't notice enough of a difference to compensate for the speedier scans of grayscale.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
16 bit greyscale. But as a positive, then invert in PP. It seems to lessen the scanner´s propensity for enhancing grain (V500).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
32-bit (as in color) "transparency"; you literally have the "negative" scanned; post-process in Photoshop. If that's a daunting task (it can be if one doesn't have the patience to learn and/or apply the process), simply scan 16-bit greyscale without any curves or levels applied. Do that later.
Unless you trust the scanning program you use, you should scan with the most information as possible. The equivalent of you printing your negs vs. letting the underpaid, undertrained guy at the drugstore lab do it for you.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
^ Excellent advice. I will try that with my Epson v700.
rdocksey
Member
I would like to scan grayscale (silverfast/plustek 120) but use capture nx2 (+nik plugins) for editing the scans and it turns out that the tiffs produced by the grascale scan cannot be loaded by cnx2. I end up scanning in color, loading into cnx2 and desaturating the color (not sure that's the best way to get to b&w but it seems to work).
any tips greatly appreciated - I spent some time messing with the grayscale tiffs to try and get cnx2 to understand them without much success. I found I could edit the image in irfanview to get cnx2 to load it but this was tripling the size of the tiff - in effect duplicating the single channel among two others (I guess).
any tips greatly appreciated - I spent some time messing with the grayscale tiffs to try and get cnx2 to understand them without much success. I found I could edit the image in irfanview to get cnx2 to load it but this was tripling the size of the tiff - in effect duplicating the single channel among two others (I guess).
DNG
Film Friendly
Same here with my V700... there is plenty of exposure controls to get it very close... Also, I save in the "Adobe aRBG", NOT the Epson Profile!!..
I load it in Lr55 for any further adjustments, them maybe PSCC if I need more complex editing, save as a JPG for the final image.
bwcolor
Veteran
Vuescan 9000ED and V=750 16 bit Greyscale Usually adjust and downsize in PS and import into Aperture.
jazzwave
Well-known
I scan in color with Plutesk, convert to BW in PS.
My concern with post processing from BW negative, sometime eliminate "signature/character" of negative film.
Let's say, scan result from Neopan negative can be adjusted to "like Tr-X" by PS action/workflow/preset...
So probably later what I need is cheap low contrast BW negative film but has good detail . Contrast,shadow/highlight can be added later in software.......
My concern with post processing from BW negative, sometime eliminate "signature/character" of negative film.
Let's say, scan result from Neopan negative can be adjusted to "like Tr-X" by PS action/workflow/preset...
So probably later what I need is cheap low contrast BW negative film but has good detail . Contrast,shadow/highlight can be added later in software.......
Last edited:
rolo
Established
I scan as my Imacon scanner sees it, highest resolution in RGB, and then export to convert in Photoshop CS6 after selecting the preferred channel.
Scanner conversion software takes longer and adds it's own flavour.
Gary
Scanner conversion software takes longer and adds it's own flavour.
Gary
usagisakana
Established
This is my workflow exactly. I've found that I need to scan individual frames and tweak the levels (in Epson scan software) in order to get results I like - if I let the scanner just auto-expose they rarely come out right.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
There really is no such thing as "scanning in greyscale". All photo scanners will actually scan the red channel, the green channel, and the blue channel even if what they are scanning is a greyscale b&w negative. This is never user adjustable. This raw data will result in very similar results if what is being scanned is no more than black and white. This raw data is sent from the actual scanner back to the CPU to be manipulated by the scanner driver software into a usable file.
The scan driver software can be set to either output the individual RGB channels so the user can manually combine them or automatically combine the three similar channels into a greyscale file for output. This is what people here are talking about when they speak of "scanning in RGB" or "scanning in greyscale".
Once one understands how the scan process actually works, it becomes very clear why there is so little difference.
Remember that the scanner itself does exactly the same thing every time no matter what the settings are. It is just software manipulation by the scan driver running in the CPU that determines is the file outputted is RGB vs. Greyscale, 8 bit vs. 32 bit, positive or negative, formatted as a TIF, JPG, or PSD file, and other choices.
The scan driver software can be set to either output the individual RGB channels so the user can manually combine them or automatically combine the three similar channels into a greyscale file for output. This is what people here are talking about when they speak of "scanning in RGB" or "scanning in greyscale".
Once one understands how the scan process actually works, it becomes very clear why there is so little difference.
Remember that the scanner itself does exactly the same thing every time no matter what the settings are. It is just software manipulation by the scan driver running in the CPU that determines is the file outputted is RGB vs. Greyscale, 8 bit vs. 32 bit, positive or negative, formatted as a TIF, JPG, or PSD file, and other choices.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I always use the Vuescan default which combines all three channels with a bias towards the green channel. I tried all the various options many many years ago and concluded that Ed Hamrick knew what worked best more than I did.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
The differences seem pretty minimal to me anyhow.
Fernando2
Well-known
Not always. Some scanners win on the Blue channel (V7x0, Nikon SuperCoolscan), others on the Green channel.
That's why Ed mixed the channels.
Having a per-scanner default would be nightmarish.
V700, for example, can reach 3200 ppi of actual resolving power on B, yet only 2500 on R.
Fernando
That's why Ed mixed the channels.
Having a per-scanner default would be nightmarish.
V700, for example, can reach 3200 ppi of actual resolving power on B, yet only 2500 on R.
Fernando
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I certainly agree with you there.
I am one of those who believes that if what channel you select makes a difference in your photography, you need to evaluate your ability to determine where to stand, where to point the camera, and when to trip the shutter.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
I think this may actually be shifting focus because of the wavelength of the light. I noticed on my nikon scanner that the IR channel is the softest of all the channels.
Highway 61
Revisited
This is why scanning as "RGB" then possibly select the sharpest channel in PhotoShop is a good option for black and white.
As Bob Michaels wrote, some scanners drivers and softwares are better than others at not deteriorating the RAW data coming from the scanner itself.
For instance with the Minolta film scanners softwares, scanning B&W negatives as "Slides, RGB Tiff 16 bits per channel" is the only viable option not to have the rich RAW data coming from the (very good) scanner deteriorated by the scanner software. You then get excellent Tiff files with lots of headroom for some very good post-processing job in PhotoShop.
Things are different with VueScan and NikonScan (little difference if any between "RGB" and "greyscale" with them).
As Bob Michaels wrote, some scanners drivers and softwares are better than others at not deteriorating the RAW data coming from the scanner itself.
For instance with the Minolta film scanners softwares, scanning B&W negatives as "Slides, RGB Tiff 16 bits per channel" is the only viable option not to have the rich RAW data coming from the (very good) scanner deteriorated by the scanner software. You then get excellent Tiff files with lots of headroom for some very good post-processing job in PhotoShop.
Things are different with VueScan and NikonScan (little difference if any between "RGB" and "greyscale" with them).
Fernando2
Well-known
But the Minolta 5400, for example, has the 3 channels pretty equal, resolution-wise.
Fernando
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Colors 24-bit with Epson V500 sw as TIFF.
I edit it in LR always, don't care for curves, histogram and such.
I convert it to BW sometimes and two temp bars gives a lot to play if it is TIFF with color info.
Sometimes I do auto color balance or leave it as it is. Gives tones I like.
by Ko.Fe., on Flickr
I edit it in LR always, don't care for curves, histogram and such.
I convert it to BW sometimes and two temp bars gives a lot to play if it is TIFF with color info.
Sometimes I do auto color balance or leave it as it is. Gives tones I like.
by Ko.Fe., on Flickr