Clancycoop
Established
Lately have been scanning old Kodachromes--it has been going well.
However, when I try to scan negatives, the highlights are off the charts (histogram). Here is a screenshot of the histogram:
You will have to believe me that this happens with properly exposed negatives. I have tried it with many different frames and it always happens.
The interesting thing is, that if I scan it as a positive and then invert it in Photoshop, it actually looks really good. Obviously this a workaround and not acceptable as a long-term solution. When I do this however, the histogram appears much different; it is balanced and good.
I only recently got the scanner and have yet to get an acceptable scan from a black and white negative.
Things I have tried:
I reset the settings, reinstalled the software, and updated it to 8.0.1 or whatever they called it. I have made sure to select the correct profile for the film I am scanning, and have tried different films, both brand and rolls. I have adjusted the gamma, as well as the exposure, contrast, and tolerance. I always scan with the Multiple exposure, but leave the HDR off since I don't have Silverfast HDR and that is needed to properly edit the files. I don't use iSRD.
Anyone else experience something similar?
Thanks in advance.
BTW, I searched the web and RFF high and low for a solution, so I apologize if someone has already answered this somewhere.
Equipment used: Late Model MacBook Pro with Lion (updated), Plustek Opticfilm 7600i, Silverfast 8 (updated), with Lightroom 3 and CS5 to use for PP.
However, when I try to scan negatives, the highlights are off the charts (histogram). Here is a screenshot of the histogram:
You will have to believe me that this happens with properly exposed negatives. I have tried it with many different frames and it always happens.
The interesting thing is, that if I scan it as a positive and then invert it in Photoshop, it actually looks really good. Obviously this a workaround and not acceptable as a long-term solution. When I do this however, the histogram appears much different; it is balanced and good.
I only recently got the scanner and have yet to get an acceptable scan from a black and white negative.
Things I have tried:
I reset the settings, reinstalled the software, and updated it to 8.0.1 or whatever they called it. I have made sure to select the correct profile for the film I am scanning, and have tried different films, both brand and rolls. I have adjusted the gamma, as well as the exposure, contrast, and tolerance. I always scan with the Multiple exposure, but leave the HDR off since I don't have Silverfast HDR and that is needed to properly edit the files. I don't use iSRD.
Anyone else experience something similar?
Thanks in advance.
BTW, I searched the web and RFF high and low for a solution, so I apologize if someone has already answered this somewhere.
Equipment used: Late Model MacBook Pro with Lion (updated), Plustek Opticfilm 7600i, Silverfast 8 (updated), with Lightroom 3 and CS5 to use for PP.
niels christopher
Established
I experienced the same thing with tri-x 400 negatives. The scans came out with blown highlights and close to no detail in the shadows.When scanned as positive everything looked fine.
I did not find a solution other than to scan the negatives as positives and then invert every single picture in gimp afterwards.
I did not find a solution other than to scan the negatives as positives and then invert every single picture in gimp afterwards.
print44
Well-known
I'm using Vuescan and the 7600i. I find that scanning tri-x negatives I'm suffering from really muddy shadows. I've used Chris Crawford's vuescan settings - see scanner thread. The highlights don't seem too problematic with this software, but overall there is a kind of video-like quality to the images when printed. I'm going to try to re-scan as positives and will try to post a comparison here.
print44
Well-known
gimp? what's that?
thegman
Veteran
A free paint program, along the same lines as Photoshop.
Clancycoop
Established
alexnotalex
Well-known
Just reframe your bothersome "workaround" and call it "the optimal scanning workflow for the way I shoot" then marvel at your results and skill.
There may be nothing wrong with your equipment.
There may be nothing wrong with your equipment.
Clancycoop
Established
You're right, perhaps all I need is a paradigm shift.
I am almost certain nothing is wrong with my equipment. My lack of experience with the scanner and software leads me to believe that I am the weakest link. I have no problem admitting that.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My Viewscan settings work on a Nikon scanner, but I haven't used the Plustek so your settings may need to be quite a bit different than mine. What do you mean by muddy shadows? Are they too dark with no detail? If so,scanning as a positive will probably fix it.
Steve M.
Veteran
You're probably going to have to continue scanning as a positive. With every scanner I've ever owned, when I first set it up I run scans of the same neg in every configuration I can think of, and take detailed notes on each method. The one that gives me the best scan is then how I scan everything from then on.
Mcary
Well-known
I've tried two different models of Plustek scanner and both produced scans of B&W film that were 1-2 stops over exposed no matter if I was using the Silverfast that came with the scanner or Vuescan. On the other hand the same negatives scan about 1/3 stop underexposed when done with the Nikon V I currently own and the Minolta IV I had before it. So while I don't get perfect scans from the Nikon I do get usable ones that are easily adjusted in LR.
print44
Well-known
OK so I've tried scanning as positive and inverting in photoshop - though my version is the cut-down Elements 9. Then Ive scanned as neg. First is the positive scan:
Now the negative scan:
Both have been post produced and contrast/brightness tweaked. There's not a curves adjustment that I can find in PSE just sliders. Thoughts? How do these compare to your scans?
An example of the kind of mushy shadows I'm talking about is this - it seems that its very difficult to get clean blacks and still retain a dynamic range without making everything too contrasty and also grainy. There are plenty of variables I can change, and perhaps PSE isnt the best?? But I'm sure I should be able to get a better result from this neg than this version -
Now the negative scan:
Both have been post produced and contrast/brightness tweaked. There's not a curves adjustment that I can find in PSE just sliders. Thoughts? How do these compare to your scans?
An example of the kind of mushy shadows I'm talking about is this - it seems that its very difficult to get clean blacks and still retain a dynamic range without making everything too contrasty and also grainy. There are plenty of variables I can change, and perhaps PSE isnt the best?? But I'm sure I should be able to get a better result from this neg than this version -
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
James,
The positive scan is a better starting point since it doesn't blow the highlights like the negative scan did. Part of your problem is using PS Elements. You NEED curves to work with film scans because you need to be able to increase midtone contrast along without pushing the light and dark tones off the edge,which is what the levels sliders in Elements do. There are free curves plugins available on the net for Elements to add that functionality. Google it, I can't remember where they're at. That'll keep you from spending $600 for Photoshop just for one tool.
The images you posted of the store with the funny architecture are badly oversharpened too. That causes the halos around places where dark and light tones meet and distorts the overall contrast too. Another problem is you shot them in harsh contrasty sun. Those kind of negs are the hardest to get good scans from. When I shoot in conditions like that, I reduce the developing time 20-30 percent (the amount depends on the film) and increase exposure one stop. (reducing dev time causes a drop in the film's effective speed). This lowers overall contrast, making the neg scan easier and keeps the contrast manageable. If you shoot in very contrasty light without compensation in exposure and developing, you will have to compromise by losing the darks or the lights. That's not the scanner's fault and no scanner settings will fix that.
Look at the developing times I show on my website. Most filmsare listed with a Normal time for normal light,and an N-1 time for contrasty light. N-1 isZone system terminology, but you do not need to use or know the Zone system to do this. Just use the exposure indexes I show (which give one stop over the normal exposure) and the reduced developing times and it'll improve your sunny-day harsh light negs.
The positive scan is a better starting point since it doesn't blow the highlights like the negative scan did. Part of your problem is using PS Elements. You NEED curves to work with film scans because you need to be able to increase midtone contrast along without pushing the light and dark tones off the edge,which is what the levels sliders in Elements do. There are free curves plugins available on the net for Elements to add that functionality. Google it, I can't remember where they're at. That'll keep you from spending $600 for Photoshop just for one tool.
The images you posted of the store with the funny architecture are badly oversharpened too. That causes the halos around places where dark and light tones meet and distorts the overall contrast too. Another problem is you shot them in harsh contrasty sun. Those kind of negs are the hardest to get good scans from. When I shoot in conditions like that, I reduce the developing time 20-30 percent (the amount depends on the film) and increase exposure one stop. (reducing dev time causes a drop in the film's effective speed). This lowers overall contrast, making the neg scan easier and keeps the contrast manageable. If you shoot in very contrasty light without compensation in exposure and developing, you will have to compromise by losing the darks or the lights. That's not the scanner's fault and no scanner settings will fix that.
Look at the developing times I show on my website. Most filmsare listed with a Normal time for normal light,and an N-1 time for contrasty light. N-1 isZone system terminology, but you do not need to use or know the Zone system to do this. Just use the exposure indexes I show (which give one stop over the normal exposure) and the reduced developing times and it'll improve your sunny-day harsh light negs.
print44
Well-known
Thanks Chris very much. That's really useful advice. I use sliders in my day job when I have to grade tv pictures occasionally, but didn't realise they were available to PSE. I find the program fairly disappointing and have been wondering about upgrading to the full-blown CS series, but as you say it's pricey. Not sure why the sharpening came in - that's not something I tend to play with. Maybe I need to de-select it. Also in VueScan all I did was to change the settings from negative to 'slide'. I didn't go through any of the other levels to check if that had altered any other input/output settings.
With regard to processing I tend to end up with negs which have been exposed in varying lighting conditions - I carry the camera all day and end up with a film which may have been exposed over several days & evenings. I process in HC110 and rate tri-x at 200 (6 mins45 with 2 inversions every 30s) I've just bought some TMax400 and TMax3200 to try, but will get some Tmax dev for this and rate them initially at the box speed.
Cheers
With regard to processing I tend to end up with negs which have been exposed in varying lighting conditions - I carry the camera all day and end up with a film which may have been exposed over several days & evenings. I process in HC110 and rate tri-x at 200 (6 mins45 with 2 inversions every 30s) I've just bought some TMax400 and TMax3200 to try, but will get some Tmax dev for this and rate them initially at the box speed.
Cheers
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Turn off sharpening in Viewscan, I think that's where the excessive sharpening is coming in. You shouldn't sharpen a fresh scan, sharpening is applied at the end when you've finished editing (PSE has sharpening as one of its filters).
You will like CS5 if you get it, but the cost is pretty high if you aren't earning money with it. I learned on it when I began editing on a computer after I began getting sick from darkroom chemicals (I developed severe allergies to chemical fumes, which is only an issue when printing since open trays of chems allow a lot of evaporation into the air). I knew I'd be using it professionally, so I bought Photoshop (it was version 7 back then! CS5 is version 12, I think).
The free curves plugin I mentioned will add most of the functionality of Photoshop to Elements. Curves look daunting but are VERY powerful once you learn to use them. I have a how-to page on that on my website.
I have never tried HC-110, but I know that Tmax Developer is great for Tmax 400 and 3200. Kodak's recommended times work perfectly at the standard 1+4 dilution, but the developing times are kind of short for Tmax 400, so I dilute it 1+7 for that film. Gives great results, a longer developing time that helps avoid uneven developing that you can get with short developing times, and it saves a little money on chemical cost. Email me and I'll send you a PDF of Kodak's tech publications on the Tmax films and developer.
I carry two bodies, one with film for normal developing and one for reduced contrast developing. I'm an obsessive perfectionist, most guys here will tell you that I'm crazy, lol!
rogerzilla
Well-known
To be fair, the Bull Ring exterior is a stern test for any imaging system, being dazzling to the naked eye.
Clancycoop
Established
I think it's safe to say that this thread has been hijacked.
Anyone have any info on Plustek scanners overexposing negatives while using the included software (Silverfast 8)?
Anyone have any info on Plustek scanners overexposing negatives while using the included software (Silverfast 8)?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Is there a manual exposure control in the software? My Nikon scanner has a control called "analogue gain," which is the exposure control. I rarely use it, because the scanners auto exposure works very well, but its there if needed. Viewscan has a manual exposure control too, which is labeled simply "Exposure". If Silverfast has such a control for your Plustek, that might be the solution.
Also, there is a guy from Plustek who is a member of RFF. He posts occasionally and answers questions people have about his company's products. I cannot remember his username, but if you search threads on Plustek, you'll find him. Try emailing him and see if he can help.
Last edited:
Clancycoop
Established
Yes I have tried the exposure slider.
I also reset the settings, reinstalled the software, and updated it to 8.0.1. I have made sure to select the correct profile for the film I am scanning, and have tried different films, both brand and rolls. I have adjusted the gamma, as well as the exposure, contrast, and tolerance. I always scan with the Multiple exposure, but leave the HDR off since I don't have Silverfast HDR and that is needed to properly edit the files. I have also tried not using multiple exposure in case that was causing the problem. I don't use iSRD.
I don't want to be a stickler about thread topics but I don't think other forum members would want me to start a new thread with the same title--this thread is all I have to fix my problem.
I am hoping that someone has experienced the same thing and found a solution.
I have attempted to contact Plustek but have yet to hear back.
I also reset the settings, reinstalled the software, and updated it to 8.0.1. I have made sure to select the correct profile for the film I am scanning, and have tried different films, both brand and rolls. I have adjusted the gamma, as well as the exposure, contrast, and tolerance. I always scan with the Multiple exposure, but leave the HDR off since I don't have Silverfast HDR and that is needed to properly edit the files. I have also tried not using multiple exposure in case that was causing the problem. I don't use iSRD.
I don't want to be a stickler about thread topics but I don't think other forum members would want me to start a new thread with the same title--this thread is all I have to fix my problem.
I am hoping that someone has experienced the same thing and found a solution.
I have attempted to contact Plustek but have yet to hear back.
Clancycoop
Established
This may prove very helpful--I will try that.