jano
Evil Bokeh
Hi, I'd appreciate a little input here 
Based on suggestions from you guys, I tried a roll of rela at 80. In the process of scanning now -- I'm scanning a few frames on my nikon cs v in both vuescan and nikonscan. I'm not sure which one looks more like the scene I saw! Help?
In viewscan, I end up with what looks more like a "film" picture, but nikonscan was more "digital". In vuescan, the "generic negative" had a strong green tint, and after changing the film type to reala, it gave me a more balanced, pleasing color result. Just a slight color balance in PS to remove a light yellow glow. In nikonscan, however, I ended up with a very contrasty, dark scene. The dirt in the bottom half of the pictures were DARK. So with a little PS curves and slight color balance, I have the attached result.
Which one looks "right" ? Shot about 40 mnutes before sunset. Yes, a sad scene, someone basically took out the entire cliff above my favorite beach and either a hotel or some homes are going in.
Jano
Based on suggestions from you guys, I tried a roll of rela at 80. In the process of scanning now -- I'm scanning a few frames on my nikon cs v in both vuescan and nikonscan. I'm not sure which one looks more like the scene I saw! Help?
In viewscan, I end up with what looks more like a "film" picture, but nikonscan was more "digital". In vuescan, the "generic negative" had a strong green tint, and after changing the film type to reala, it gave me a more balanced, pleasing color result. Just a slight color balance in PS to remove a light yellow glow. In nikonscan, however, I ended up with a very contrasty, dark scene. The dirt in the bottom half of the pictures were DARK. So with a little PS curves and slight color balance, I have the attached result.
Which one looks "right" ? Shot about 40 mnutes before sunset. Yes, a sad scene, someone basically took out the entire cliff above my favorite beach and either a hotel or some homes are going in.
Jano
willie_901
Veteran
If possible scan that negative with no compression (orange cast) correction what so ever. One way to do this might be to tell the scanner software you are scanning a 35mm slide transparency.
Transfer the data to Photoshop. In PS adjust the red, breen and blue channels independently to produce an optimum histogram in each of those channels.
In PS curves, click options and check the "snap to midtones" box. You can then touch up the image with the curves controls.
The scanning software is altering the original data to compensate for the negative color compression. Each program is modifying the neagtive image differently. If you postpone the orange-cast correction to the PS steps, you should get similar results with both scanner drivers.
willie
Transfer the data to Photoshop. In PS adjust the red, breen and blue channels independently to produce an optimum histogram in each of those channels.
In PS curves, click options and check the "snap to midtones" box. You can then touch up the image with the curves controls.
The scanning software is altering the original data to compensate for the negative color compression. Each program is modifying the neagtive image differently. If you postpone the orange-cast correction to the PS steps, you should get similar results with both scanner drivers.
willie
jano
Evil Bokeh
Thanks willie.. but.. errrm.. hhrrrmm. No. For many, many reasons, I'm not going to do that.
I'm wondering which one is supposed to be more "correct" but I realize this question is somewhat subjective, as the various programs apply their own "orange" mask removal thingy and it's probably up to me to decide which is "right." Phooeey.
Perhaps I should just shoot positives?
I'm wondering which one is supposed to be more "correct" but I realize this question is somewhat subjective, as the various programs apply their own "orange" mask removal thingy and it's probably up to me to decide which is "right." Phooeey.
Perhaps I should just shoot positives?
hiwatt
send some talent this way
YES shoot positives.
Positives rule, and they scan much better...
Positives rule, and they scan much better...
James Burton
Shoot into the light
hiwatt said:
Phoowh. That's a BIG statement! For some choice of software, scanner, photoshop-adjustments you may be correct. I find that I cannot get into a digital file what I see in the slides. I get severe clipping of both darks & lights, especially with velvia which looks like shit. Reala works much better for me, but still looks disgusting.
James
Fred
Feline Great
James,
I shoot Velvia and have had some very odd results when scanning it with a Coolscan IV to the point I was looking at replacing the scanner with the Minolta 5400 (old one probably) that has a higher dynamic range. The highlights blew out too quick and the shadow detail had completely run off into a muddy sludge. It makes Velvia look very poor.
Anyway after a phone call to the dealer resulted in being told that they had no more 5400s left at the price, in a fit of wallet fatigue I downloaded and bought the Vuescan software. It has totally transformed the old graying Nikon into a much more usable machine. OK its still not as good as a KM 5400 but it's a pile better than the results gained from the old Nikon software. For $49 it's the best bargain I've got this Christmas. This software works with a bunch of other scanners so it might be worth a try to get the Velvia images more usable.
Oh and I'm nothing to do with the Vuescan SW people or organisation etc, just happy I've saved a lot of money that I could not really afford.
I shoot Velvia and have had some very odd results when scanning it with a Coolscan IV to the point I was looking at replacing the scanner with the Minolta 5400 (old one probably) that has a higher dynamic range. The highlights blew out too quick and the shadow detail had completely run off into a muddy sludge. It makes Velvia look very poor.
Anyway after a phone call to the dealer resulted in being told that they had no more 5400s left at the price, in a fit of wallet fatigue I downloaded and bought the Vuescan software. It has totally transformed the old graying Nikon into a much more usable machine. OK its still not as good as a KM 5400 but it's a pile better than the results gained from the old Nikon software. For $49 it's the best bargain I've got this Christmas. This software works with a bunch of other scanners so it might be worth a try to get the Velvia images more usable.
Oh and I'm nothing to do with the Vuescan SW people or organisation etc, just happy I've saved a lot of money that I could not really afford.
hiwatt
send some talent this way
James,
I know it's a BIG statement, maybe excessive; in fact I just wanted to express my preference for slide film (especially if we're talking colour).
Probably it just depends on the fact that I always had better results scanning slides rather than negs. If you get lots of clipping on both ends of the range, then you should try multiple scan passes: you'll end up with a much higher dynamic range.
With colour negs I've always spent lots of time calibrating the colour to obtain only ordinary results...maybe there's something wrong in my approach to negs.
I know it's a BIG statement, maybe excessive; in fact I just wanted to express my preference for slide film (especially if we're talking colour).
Probably it just depends on the fact that I always had better results scanning slides rather than negs. If you get lots of clipping on both ends of the range, then you should try multiple scan passes: you'll end up with a much higher dynamic range.
With colour negs I've always spent lots of time calibrating the colour to obtain only ordinary results...maybe there's something wrong in my approach to negs.
traveller
Learning how to print
Fred said:
Have you got the Pro-Version? If yes you should try the IT8-Target from Wolff Faust. They are good and I don't think you will get them cheaper anywhere.
John
Peter Klein
Well-known
I second the vote of confidence for Vuescan. I own a Canon FS4000, and previously owned a Nikon LS-2000. In both cases, Vuescan gave me *much* better results than the native scanner software.
The native software clipped both highlights and shadows and gave a typical "drugstore" photo with excessive contrast. The Canon software could not be adjusted to eliminate this. The earlier Nikon software couldn't either, but later software could. I knew one person who an LS-2000, who used the Nikon software for color and Vuescan for B&W.
Vuescan's interface isn't the most intuitive in the world, but once you know it and have your preferences set, it's not terribly difficult. If you scan in 16 bits per pixel, you can get scans that capture the whole range of your negatives. Vuescan has built-in profiles for some films. Then in your image editor, you can adjust color balance and the brightness curve.
--Peter
The native software clipped both highlights and shadows and gave a typical "drugstore" photo with excessive contrast. The Canon software could not be adjusted to eliminate this. The earlier Nikon software couldn't either, but later software could. I knew one person who an LS-2000, who used the Nikon software for color and Vuescan for B&W.
Vuescan's interface isn't the most intuitive in the world, but once you know it and have your preferences set, it's not terribly difficult. If you scan in 16 bits per pixel, you can get scans that capture the whole range of your negatives. Vuescan has built-in profiles for some films. Then in your image editor, you can adjust color balance and the brightness curve.
--Peter
Peter Klein
Well-known
Oh, I should add, slides are easier to scan in terms of getting good color balance. But negs capture much more dynamic range. And it's much easier to get a set of 4x6 prints from negs when they're processed. That way family members have the prints they want, and you can scan only the really good ones yourself.
--Peter
--Peter
jano
Evil Bokeh
Well, I gave willie's method a shot. Used nikon scan to scan as slide. I also turned on ICE and GEM, then messed around in photoshop with inversion, snaping midpoints, color balances, hues, etc and was able to get a nice result. In fact.. I ended up with a very smooth result, I can see now what people talk about "creamy" colors with Reala. The trouble is that this took roughly two hours on my old computer, and adjusting colors drove me nuts because I can't really make up my mind as to which are correct.
I gave vuescan another try. I hate the interface, but then I did use blender (3d program) back in its infancy so I can get used to it. However, it's version of grain reduction and dusts/scratches didn't match the ICE/GEM.
I might try messing with it a bit more, because I don't like to just burn the bridge. BUT.. the last thing I want to be doing is scanning every negative twice, once in nikon scan and then once in vuescan to see which one gives me the better results!
Thanks for everyone's input.
Jano
I gave vuescan another try. I hate the interface, but then I did use blender (3d program) back in its infancy so I can get used to it. However, it's version of grain reduction and dusts/scratches didn't match the ICE/GEM.
I might try messing with it a bit more, because I don't like to just burn the bridge. BUT.. the last thing I want to be doing is scanning every negative twice, once in nikon scan and then once in vuescan to see which one gives me the better results!
Thanks for everyone's input.
Jano
Last edited:
James Burton
Shoot into the light
hiwatt said:
I agree that slides look a LOT better scanned if the contrast is well controlled prior to taking the shot. But it seems to me that the contrast range that slide film will record is quite a bit larger than what a scanner can get out of the slide. Anyway I keep trying periodically.
James
James Burton
Shoot into the light
Peter Klein said:
Yes this is the next avenue I will try.
Thanks Peter,
James