marcr1230
Well-known
Guess what arrived in the mail today - a Coolscan 5000!!!
I set it up and went to work
Immediately, one realizes that Nikon Scan is a piece of junk, buggy and non-intuitive. After 5 minutes, I downloaded VueScan. After another 5 minutes , I paid $39 for the non-hobbled version.
I fond a thread herewith a link to setting up VueScan for B&W scanning. The link is
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/
it's funny because it is the electronic equivalent of what I learned in the Video "Printing with Fred Picker". you set the exposure for the shortest time/exposure to reveal true black in the border outside of the image.
here are some shots:
TMY, Contax IIa, 85mm Nippon Kogaku
TMY, OM-3, 85mm Zuiko
Contax IIa w/50 Sonnar, TMY
Contax IIa w/85 Nippon Kogaku, TMY
I set it up and went to work
Immediately, one realizes that Nikon Scan is a piece of junk, buggy and non-intuitive. After 5 minutes, I downloaded VueScan. After another 5 minutes , I paid $39 for the non-hobbled version.
I fond a thread herewith a link to setting up VueScan for B&W scanning. The link is
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/
it's funny because it is the electronic equivalent of what I learned in the Video "Printing with Fred Picker". you set the exposure for the shortest time/exposure to reveal true black in the border outside of the image.
here are some shots:
TMY, Contax IIa, 85mm Nippon Kogaku
TMY, OM-3, 85mm Zuiko
Contax IIa w/50 Sonnar, TMY
Contax IIa w/85 Nippon Kogaku, TMY
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Congrats for the Coolscan, I wish I could get one now.
Those shots are quite nice, too, but have too low contrast for my taste - no real blacks or whites.
Those shots are quite nice, too, but have too low contrast for my taste - no real blacks or whites.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Agreed. The images need a serious contrast increase. Viewscan gives very flat images so it can capture a very wide range in the scan; it is up to you to finish the job in Photoshop
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Here's one I worked on for you
pachuco
El ****
Congrats! Just adjust the curves in PS and it will help.
ChrisN
Striving
Personally, I'm very happy with the Nikon software, but I did have to spend more than five minutes learning how to get the best from it. Good start - enjoy your excellent scanner.
marcr1230
Well-known
So now I need photoshop...
Thanks for the advice - these were indeed essentially raw scans
I will see whether the credit card still works
Thanks for the advice - these were indeed essentially raw scans
I will see whether the credit card still works
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Doesn't have to be photoshop, you could use paint shop pro or Photoshop Elements or Adobe Lightroom. They're all cheaper by a long ways than Photoshop (which is over $600). I use the expensive photoshop because I earn my living with it and need some of the graphic art features it has for my graphics work. But, yeah, you need an image editor of some kind. Raw scans are always very flat and need curves adjustments to make them look like the image you'd get printing in the darkroom,
mh2000
Well-known
As a Vuescan user, I prefer Nikon Scan. The only real difference is that I have to scan in color for c41 b&w and convert myself in photoshop and with VS I scan in color and save to 16 bit grayscale tiff. All the adjustments are easier in NS. Vuescan gets the job done too...
marcr1230
Well-known
I'm getting the hang of this:
Before iPhoto:
After increase contrast and adjust exposure:
Before iPhoto:
After increase contrast and adjust exposure:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You're getting there. Try a little more contrast...don't be shy about it. Most people who post BW photos online make them too flat. Your example is close, you don't want to go too much more or you'll blow out the whites, but the darks could go a little darker.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Here's my version of your higher contrast example. I raised it a bit more, which gives more depth to the image and realistic texture to the skin. I am not sure how much iPhoto lets you change things, I have never used it. If it'll let you increase contrast enough, you could use that instead of buying something else. Also, if you want the images to print well the monitor you use should be calibrated and profiled. If mine looks way too contrasty to you, it may be your screen is too bright (they always are by default).
Ronald M
Veteran
Yes.You get it.
Once you know what you are looking for, you can do it with any software.
Darkroom is the same way. Without an idea in the head of how it is supposed to look, you can`t get there.
Do try to get a flat non contrasty scan. Then fix is photoshop.
Once you know what you are looking for, you can do it with any software.
Darkroom is the same way. Without an idea in the head of how it is supposed to look, you can`t get there.
Do try to get a flat non contrasty scan. Then fix is photoshop.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I've not used the nikon software as I have a canon scanner, but Vuescan works pretty well once you get the hang of it. I calibrate each roll of film and then the majority of the pictures don't need to be touched except for a crop every now and then, or adjusting exposure when my choice of spot metering is off 
Jamie123
Veteran
As others here I'm also quite happy using Nikon Scan with my Coolscan 9000. Tried Vuescan but didn't like it at all. Would like to use Silverfast but it's way too expensive.
marcr1230
Well-known
I was wondering if, my friends, can give me a sanity check on my work flow, Are the post scan steps in line with what you do, am I missing anything major, other than skills and talent ?
I am scanning with a CoolScan 5000 using VueScan.
I just downloaded a trial version of PhotoShop
I'm scanning and saving as a gray scale jpeg, this was done before I had the PS trial, I guess I could save as DNG format now if it makes for better results
The scan come across flat, which I understand is expected
In PS:
1. I open the jpeg
2. create a levels layer , click on auto, to "realign the max black and white levels"
3. select Assign Profiles and choose a pleasing "dot gain " profile, this apparently can change the contrast w/o touching the background layer
4. add a curves layer, adjust the S-curve again to achieve a decent spectrum and pleasing range of white to black
5. Flatten the layers and save the result as a jpeg for posting/uploading
this is a link to the tutorial I used: http://oomz.net/bw_workflow/
Here are the results
Original Scan
After the PS post processing
The best I could do with iPhoto
I am scanning with a CoolScan 5000 using VueScan.
I just downloaded a trial version of PhotoShop
I'm scanning and saving as a gray scale jpeg, this was done before I had the PS trial, I guess I could save as DNG format now if it makes for better results
The scan come across flat, which I understand is expected
In PS:
1. I open the jpeg
2. create a levels layer , click on auto, to "realign the max black and white levels"
3. select Assign Profiles and choose a pleasing "dot gain " profile, this apparently can change the contrast w/o touching the background layer
4. add a curves layer, adjust the S-curve again to achieve a decent spectrum and pleasing range of white to black
5. Flatten the layers and save the result as a jpeg for posting/uploading
this is a link to the tutorial I used: http://oomz.net/bw_workflow/
Here are the results
Original Scan
After the PS post processing
The best I could do with iPhoto
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You don't want to do the profile change and auto levels.
Scan as a Tiff in Greyscale. Keep it in Grey Gamma 2.2, this is the standard greyscale space. the others are for printing on printing presses and will not give the best results printing on inkjets.
Do a TIFF, not JPEG, and scan in 16 bit, not 8 bit. This allows you to do more drastic curves and levels adjustments without having banding and other artifacts show up.
Scan as a Tiff in Greyscale. Keep it in Grey Gamma 2.2, this is the standard greyscale space. the others are for printing on printing presses and will not give the best results printing on inkjets.
Do a TIFF, not JPEG, and scan in 16 bit, not 8 bit. This allows you to do more drastic curves and levels adjustments without having banding and other artifacts show up.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Your workflow will get you good JPGs to post on line but will send you down a frustrating dead end when you want to make an actual print. Eventually you will discover that the print is what it is really all about.
1) as Chris suggested, scan as a TIF. There is no compression or data loss when saving later. Save the original scan TIF in case you ever want to go back to the start. It saves rescanning.
2) It is important that you choose a color space (even if monochrome) that will let you have prints that match your screen. You just cannot pick any dot gain that is pleasing. It needs to be consistent. Personally I use Grey Gamma 2.2, but what I use is not significant.
3) Once you flatten the layers and save as a JPG, there is no going back. Save the unflattened PSD file. That way you can always go back and tweak if you want to. Only after you save the unflattened PSD file, do you want to flatten the layers, resize and save as a JPG. Just make sure you do not overwrite the original PSD file with layers intact after you flatten the image.
You should end up with 3 files: the original scan TIF, the Photoshop file with layers intact, and the JPG.
You do have it right about the S shaped contrast curve being the key to making a b&w photo really look good.
WDPictures
Established
So you haven't pulled the trigger on PS? If not you might look into Adobe Lightroom? All this and more much cheaper, easier and faster. Especially if this is a process you repeat over and over to export for the web. Spend the extra time in PS for your printing, fine tuning, etc. If you have the $ maybe there is still a bundle sale for both.
For me, the workflow described in that tutorial is way too time consuming for each scanning session regardless of the software. The workflow you describe is only for your keepers right?
Kozhe
Well-known
This is a great thread! I understand now why my scans are so flat and tasteless I thought it had something to do with my processing skills.
What really disturbs me about this scanning/editing thing is that since you´re changing contrast after all, where´s the point of having a good contrasty lens?? I mean, from now on where´s the advantage of let´s say a Jupiter 8 over an Elmar 3.5?
I thought it had something to do with my processing skills.What really disturbs me about this scanning/editing thing is that since you´re changing contrast after all, where´s the point of having a good contrasty lens?? I mean, from now on where´s the advantage of let´s say a Jupiter 8 over an Elmar 3.5?