schmoozit
Schmoozit good...
So, you're saying that you can get the contrast you need, but you need to pull the curves around more than you are used to? If so, I don't really see it as a problem. I love yankin' the curves all over just to see how far I can go.
Nothing wrong with more punch in your negs, however. Of course, if Vuescan has trouble giving you detail in either extreme, then you've gone further than you can justify. I have to scan most of my slides twice. Vuescan gives me grainy results and scanlines in the shadows.
Nothing wrong with more punch in your negs, however. Of course, if Vuescan has trouble giving you detail in either extreme, then you've gone further than you can justify. I have to scan most of my slides twice. Vuescan gives me grainy results and scanlines in the shadows.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
For Tri-X (ISO 200) in Rodinal 1:50 at 68 deg. I agitate the first min., and then 6-8 sec. every thirty sec. after that for 9.5 min.
Todd
Todd
djon
Well-known
Peter's workflow with Vuescan is interesting, but I believe I've confirmed that there can be fine detail loss in the inverstion step, despite it being in TIFF. Therefore I scan negs as negs.
With Nikonscan (instead of Vuescan, which I use for everything) I think it's necessary to do Peter's inversion step in order to avoid white speckles. I use Vuescan for my Nikon and my Epson flatbed, which helps with the habits, though Epson's application is quite good in general, and Nikon's is fine for color slides and negs.
With Nikonscan (instead of Vuescan, which I use for everything) I think it's necessary to do Peter's inversion step in order to avoid white speckles. I use Vuescan for my Nikon and my Epson flatbed, which helps with the habits, though Epson's application is quite good in general, and Nikon's is fine for color slides and negs.
djon
Well-known
schmoozit...you complained of grain/scanlines in shadows with Vuescan...what kind of scanner are you using and what resolution (4000ppi?). I do see very fine (almost imperceptable) scan lines in 11X17 B&W/QTR, only in large even midtones, never with color, and no extra shadow grain...Nikon V.
HOWEVER I usually scan fast film with "slight grain reduction." Nikon V is grain-sharp and it stays that way with that slight adjustment...there's no sense of softness.
I suspect scanning with NO grain reduction may actually exaggerate grain...I think this adjustment may more closely approximate what I'd see with a sharp optical enlargement.
HOWEVER I usually scan fast film with "slight grain reduction." Nikon V is grain-sharp and it stays that way with that slight adjustment...there's no sense of softness.
I suspect scanning with NO grain reduction may actually exaggerate grain...I think this adjustment may more closely approximate what I'd see with a sharp optical enlargement.
schmoozit
Schmoozit good...
I'm using a Canon FS4000US. I don't get the grain/lines from Canon's software, though it's useless in just about every other regard. I always scan @ 4000 dpi. The problem seems to be a scan that goes too fast, and therefore leaves too much work for the software side of Vuescan to deal with the shadows. When I give it a longer CCD exposure (from 2~5), it gives amazing results in the shadows.
I really only scan slides, mostly Velvia, or Tri-X. I very, very, rarely shoot color neg film.
Oh! BTW, how is it that you think you saw a loss of detail in the conversion to a positive in PS? It seems very unlikely, as you're just asking PS to flop the values.
I really only scan slides, mostly Velvia, or Tri-X. I very, very, rarely shoot color neg film.
Oh! BTW, how is it that you think you saw a loss of detail in the conversion to a positive in PS? It seems very unlikely, as you're just asking PS to flop the values.
P
Peter S
Guest
What a wonderful forum this is, really of the friendliest ones around. I really like the way people here share information and experience without any arrogance etc whatsoever.
As what regards my Vuescan workflow I somehow think it can be simplified, I will let you know if i change anything. The copyright of my workflow lies with schmoozit (no copyright police this time
). Schmoozit I am almost happy with the contrast I get in PS, but somehow I think I need a higher base (negative) contrast to start with. So guys if you have any ideas what to change to my development technique (dilution, time, agitation) please let me know.
Djon, I also think that PS just flops around the values so that should not make a major difference to scanning as a negative, apart from the fact that it seems as if scanning as a positive gives me more shadow detail.
As what regards my Vuescan workflow I somehow think it can be simplified, I will let you know if i change anything. The copyright of my workflow lies with schmoozit (no copyright police this time
). Schmoozit I am almost happy with the contrast I get in PS, but somehow I think I need a higher base (negative) contrast to start with. So guys if you have any ideas what to change to my development technique (dilution, time, agitation) please let me know.Djon, I also think that PS just flops around the values so that should not make a major difference to scanning as a negative, apart from the fact that it seems as if scanning as a positive gives me more shadow detail.
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Have you tried the Local Contrast Enhancement trick (i.e. large-radius Unsharp Mask) in Photoshop? I usually use 20% amount, 50 pixel radius, 0 threshold on 4000 dpi scans. This is in addition to (either before or after, sometimes both) applying a tone curve to adjust the tonality.Peter S said:
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Vincent
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Peter
What do you mean by "base" contrast? Is it that the blacks aren't black enough? That the highlights are too dull? Both? Is it that you aren't happy with the amount of work you have to do with curves in PS? I'm a bit confused.
I, too, find that there is no benefit to scanning as positive in Vuescan and then inverting. In fact, I that it causes some issues with the tonality in the midtones. I scan as a color negative (I need RGB for photokit sharpner anyway) using the TMax 100 or 400 profile, usually with the D76 .55 CI. I am very happy with the results, and it requires only a bit of a curve to get it right.
Keep in mind that very few scans will be right straight out. I find that I almost always need to use a curve. I find that the shadows and highlights are a bit too smooth in terms of transition, and I need to simulate the compression (toe and shoulder) with a curve (even though I know the film itself already has a toe and shoulder in terms of response).
allan
What do you mean by "base" contrast? Is it that the blacks aren't black enough? That the highlights are too dull? Both? Is it that you aren't happy with the amount of work you have to do with curves in PS? I'm a bit confused.
I, too, find that there is no benefit to scanning as positive in Vuescan and then inverting. In fact, I that it causes some issues with the tonality in the midtones. I scan as a color negative (I need RGB for photokit sharpner anyway) using the TMax 100 or 400 profile, usually with the D76 .55 CI. I am very happy with the results, and it requires only a bit of a curve to get it right.
Keep in mind that very few scans will be right straight out. I find that I almost always need to use a curve. I find that the shadows and highlights are a bit too smooth in terms of transition, and I need to simulate the compression (toe and shoulder) with a curve (even though I know the film itself already has a toe and shoulder in terms of response).
allan
djon
Well-known
schmoozit, Peter, wtr loss of detail via neg-as-pos/inversion, you might want to test that. I have, but I'm always open to contrary experiences. I was talking about loss of fuzz on peaches, for example...genuinely fine stuff.
I agree that such loss within TIFF makes no sense unless it actually is somewhat lossy.
In any case, it's an extra step that I don't find necessary with Vuescan/Nikon.
Incidentally, your own observation about better shadow detail with neg-as-pos may reflect something about your scanner, it's light source for example....
I use a Nikon V...what about you? Nikon behaves quite differently in B&W with Nikonscan and with Vuescan.
Another note...4000ppi results in the same files size with all scanners, but detail resolution differs widely. As well, scanners reportedly vary in the digital noisiness of their electronics, just as do digital cameras of the same MP.
I agree that such loss within TIFF makes no sense unless it actually is somewhat lossy.
In any case, it's an extra step that I don't find necessary with Vuescan/Nikon.
Incidentally, your own observation about better shadow detail with neg-as-pos may reflect something about your scanner, it's light source for example....
I use a Nikon V...what about you? Nikon behaves quite differently in B&W with Nikonscan and with Vuescan.
Another note...4000ppi results in the same files size with all scanners, but detail resolution differs widely. As well, scanners reportedly vary in the digital noisiness of their electronics, just as do digital cameras of the same MP.
Last edited:
P
Peter S
Guest
I have to admit that when I batchscan to get a rough idea what the negs look like I always scan as B&W negative in Vuescan and it works well. I shall experiment a bit on the next couple of scans; maybe you are right Djon.
Vincent, thanks. Will try it.
Kaiyen, what I mean is that my negs look a little bit flatter then I seem to remember from my old days (10 years ago, I only recently started taking pictures again) when I had a wet darkroom.
They look more like Trix in Diafine, just more even grey. Good for scanning I think.
What I mean with base contrast, is what I see on the neg when I hold it against a lightsource. I remember seeing more blacks in my "old" days.
You can change things in PS, but if you have to increase contrast heavily you get local ugly contrast. I would like to have a little bit more punch before I start scanning. I use a Coolscan IV ED BTW.
The majority seems to think it is in the scanning and PS; and you could well be right: I have a lot to learn there, but I think I also do not have my development quite right so any guidance there would also be much appreciated.
Vincent, thanks. Will try it.
Kaiyen, what I mean is that my negs look a little bit flatter then I seem to remember from my old days (10 years ago, I only recently started taking pictures again) when I had a wet darkroom.
They look more like Trix in Diafine, just more even grey. Good for scanning I think.
What I mean with base contrast, is what I see on the neg when I hold it against a lightsource. I remember seeing more blacks in my "old" days.
You can change things in PS, but if you have to increase contrast heavily you get local ugly contrast. I would like to have a little bit more punch before I start scanning. I use a Coolscan IV ED BTW.
The majority seems to think it is in the scanning and PS; and you could well be right: I have a lot to learn there, but I think I also do not have my development quite right so any guidance there would also be much appreciated.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Peter S said:
You mean that the scans you get now are flatter than the prints you made then? Same negatives as back then, or different negatives altogether?
As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, I feel you get more speed out of scanning than you do from classic densitometer tests. So it's possible you're simply overexposing your film by 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop.
By blacks do you mean areas of high density (highlights when printer) or low density (blacks when printed)?
Depending on the answer, you either need to develop more (former) or underexpose more (latter). As always, to increase contrast you decrease exposure and/or increase development time.
I use the same scanner. I completely agree that it's better to get the EI and dev time dialed in to get a full tonal range when scanning, rather than just being safe with overexposure and underdevelopment. The idea of a thin neg can go too far. I try to shoot it so that my Zone II is right up against the left of the histogram, and develop it so that my Zone VIII is right up against the right side.
I have spent a fair amount of time dialing in my system. It's not super ZS-crazy, but I tried to lock in certain parameters when scanning, and then calibrating my EI and development technique to get the best results with that. I can go more in depth if you want.
allan
schmoozit
Schmoozit good...
Poor Peter! Trying to get his negs right and we are all badgering him about scanning and PS techniques! Sorry, man.
I think I stated above that I've not used Rodianal yet. You may shoot Merciful an email, as he's pretty well tamed Rodinal, I think. He usually is way on the push side, but has also shot Tri-x at 50, and pretty sure soups only in Rodinal. It might be worth a try.
I think I stated above that I've not used Rodianal yet. You may shoot Merciful an email, as he's pretty well tamed Rodinal, I think. He usually is way on the push side, but has also shot Tri-x at 50, and pretty sure soups only in Rodinal. It might be worth a try.
P
Peter S
Guest
A lot of food for thought. Thanks for that. As a beginner I still need to get a lot things pat. Metering, development and scanning. The more I think about it I realize my Cuban negatives are simply slightly overexposed; the light was very harsh and my usual metering techniques (used in cold dark Holland) may not have had the best result. The Trix that I rated at 250 and shot here in Holland is probably slightly underexposed which may have caused the graininess when developed as I did my Trix at 200.
So what I will do next is shoot a roll of Tri X here in Holland at 200 and develop in Rodinal 1+50 at 20C for 9 minutes.
My other Cuban rolls rated at 200 I think I will develop in Rodinal 1+50 at 20C and maybe cut down a bit on development time. Assuming that I overexposed by 1/3 or 1/2 stop how much should I decrease ?
Once again, thanks everybody for your time and advice.
Regards
Peter
PS: I am slowly turning into a firm TriX-Rodinal believer and just ordered 6 x 500ml (there is a supplier here in Holland who managed to get his hands on one of the last pallets from Leverkusen; he told me it was complete chaos overthere); should be enough for the next couple of years.
So what I will do next is shoot a roll of Tri X here in Holland at 200 and develop in Rodinal 1+50 at 20C for 9 minutes.
My other Cuban rolls rated at 200 I think I will develop in Rodinal 1+50 at 20C and maybe cut down a bit on development time. Assuming that I overexposed by 1/3 or 1/2 stop how much should I decrease ?
Once again, thanks everybody for your time and advice.
Regards
Peter
PS: I am slowly turning into a firm TriX-Rodinal believer and just ordered 6 x 500ml (there is a supplier here in Holland who managed to get his hands on one of the last pallets from Leverkusen; he told me it was complete chaos overthere); should be enough for the next couple of years.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Peter,
I am not at all trying to either nitpick you on the details nor overwhelm you with questions and info. Feel free to just skip past my questions or this entire post if I'm either annoying or too much or both.
So you're saying that you don't have the richness in the shadows that you'd like? Or that your highlights are too hot? The former is overexposure. The latter is overdevelopment. 2 different things.
Personally, I am surprised that you'd see a significant increase in grain from 200 to 250 in Rodinal 1+50. Grain is the result of overexposure, time or temp in the developer. I am surprised you'd get enough of a difference in any of those variables to cause noticeable grain. But that's what you see, so it is there.
This is the part that confuses me a bit. You said earlier that you wanted more snap to the pictures, that you have been needing really severe curves to get the contrast you wanted, and that you would like better "base" contrast. Yet now you want to increase exposure, which will decrease your blacks. Assuming you then pull development accordingly (as you indicate you want to do below), you will decrease overall contrast as well.
Since you're scanning, it doesn't hurt to be on the safe side and cut off 10-15%.
allan
I am not at all trying to either nitpick you on the details nor overwhelm you with questions and info. Feel free to just skip past my questions or this entire post if I'm either annoying or too much or both.
Peter S said:
So you're saying that you don't have the richness in the shadows that you'd like? Or that your highlights are too hot? The former is overexposure. The latter is overdevelopment. 2 different things.
Personally, I am surprised that you'd see a significant increase in grain from 200 to 250 in Rodinal 1+50. Grain is the result of overexposure, time or temp in the developer. I am surprised you'd get enough of a difference in any of those variables to cause noticeable grain. But that's what you see, so it is there.
This is the part that confuses me a bit. You said earlier that you wanted more snap to the pictures, that you have been needing really severe curves to get the contrast you wanted, and that you would like better "base" contrast. Yet now you want to increase exposure, which will decrease your blacks. Assuming you then pull development accordingly (as you indicate you want to do below), you will decrease overall contrast as well.
Since you're scanning, it doesn't hurt to be on the safe side and cut off 10-15%.
allan
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Welcome to the club...Peter S said:
Vincent
P
Peter S
Guest
Kaiyen,
I can understand you are a bit puzzled about my approach. These are my first real steps and I still need to learn a lot about everything
I now think that on the development side I am more or less almost fine. Some finetuning of the time and I should be ok for the time being. Two other variables: metering and scanning technique; those are the ones I will be focussing on the next couple of weeks.
Thanks to all for the advice and I hope to put up some pictures still this year.
Cheers
Peter
I can understand you are a bit puzzled about my approach. These are my first real steps and I still need to learn a lot about everything
I now think that on the development side I am more or less almost fine. Some finetuning of the time and I should be ok for the time being. Two other variables: metering and scanning technique; those are the ones I will be focussing on the next couple of weeks.
Thanks to all for the advice and I hope to put up some pictures still this year.
Cheers
Peter