scanning tips

S

shaaktiman

Guest
About 2 years ago I decided on a workflow that I know many others here also use. Since this is a hobby and not a profession for me I have the luxury of continuing to use film, both rolling my own from bulk and developing it myself. But then I find it far easier to eschew the traditional wet darkroom in favor of scanning, retouching and printing my photos digitally. For a long time the weakest link in this system was scanning. I spent months researching and learning by trial and error how to best turn my black and white negs into quality scans without the benefit of a drum scanner or other pro level equipment.

I thought I’d share a few tips and tricks I learned that would have saved me a lot of time and frustration had someone given them to me 2 years ago. Hopefully some of you will find them useful.

• Obtain a full copy of Photoshop CS. Buy, borrow or steal it if you have to. It has a few powerful tools that will make a visible difference in the quality of your scans. Neither the LE version nor the less expensive clones have these tools. If I had to choose, I would spend a little less on my scanner in order to get this program. If it is really just too expensive, buy an older version cheaply. Photoshop 7 or CS1 full version will be far better than a new version of elements.

• Once you have photoshop, spend your time learning how to use curves. It is hard at first but will enable you to do almost everything you need in one tool. Most of PS’s other image adjustment tools are just simplified (and less powerful) incarnations of curves. A good curves user will probably not need to use anything else for their contrast and color corrections. (Including recapturing “lost” shadow detail.)

• Vuescan is the best driver software out there. It is cheap and made a noticeable difference in my scan quality.

• Scan for the highlights. Use the brightness (exposure) slider to find the highest exposure point where none of the highlights are blown. Don’t worry about seemingly blocked up shadows. Even though it looks black the information is in there and you will be able to recapture most of it later. Not so of blown highlights. In scanning you are not trying to get a perfect image. You are just trying to get as much information from the neg into the computer. More exposure equals more information. Thus, lightening an image is easier than darkening it.

• I have found that if you are using the above technique, scanning in RGB is helpful. This is one of the neverending controversies in scanning threads. This is just my own experience. Please don’t freak out and send me an angry reply as to why I am wrong. People seem to get emotional over the grayscale/RGB at scan thing. I don’t know why.

• Always scan at the highest bit depth possible. Change your bit depth down to 8 bits (for B/W) or 32 bits (color) after you have adjusted the contrast and color.

• Always scan at the highest resolution your scanner is capable of. Then, in photoshop, use image size to reduce the size to whatever you need. Be sure to use Bicubic Sharper when downsizing. This is one of the easiest and most potent things to do to improve detail quality.

• Don’t use the driver software to downsample your file from a larger size for you! Even if you have vuescan. Photoshop (especially when using Bicubic Sharper) is a thousand times better at it.

• Sharpen as your last step before output. Sharpen more for inkjet printing and less for web. Use unsharp mask.

• Keep your radius below 1 pixel whenever possible when sharpening for web viewing.

• For inkjet output a good rule of thumb is to keep the radius as what your resolution is divided by 200. So if you print at a final resolution of 400, your sharpening radius should be 2. Generally, the image should look a little too sharp on screen to get a good inkjet print.

• If curves are confusing to you, try the shadow/highlight tool under the Image–adjustments menu. It is great for adjusting contrast and recapturing shadow detail.

• Always view your image at 100% to see what it really looks like. You can also use 50%, 25% or 12.5% but don’t use the inbetween percentages. You get a better quality image viewing it at the other %’s.

• Don’t use the driver software filters such as sharpen or grain dissolve. They suck. Fix this stuff later yourself.

• T-grain films scan the best out of the B/W options.

• Lower contrast negs scan more easily than high. Thin negs scan more easily than thick. I found Diafine to be a good developer for this reason.

• A good way to add an even layer of grain if extensive retouching has given you uneven patches of smooth and film graininess is to make a new layer in photoshop. Fill it with a 50% gray (50% of every color) and set the layer blending option to Overlay. Then add noise (monochrome) to taste. This works for both color and B/W images.

If I think of anything else I’ll add it. I hope at least some of these are helpful to a few scanning novices out there. Feel free to ask any questions.
 
Shaaktiman:

I think this is a great list of tips (with some added info, and some attention, it could even be a "sticky", IMHO) and I agree with almost everything you've stated. Thanks.

Like you've suggested, it might not be for everyone, but with the exception of home developing (I'll get there eventually), I've created a workflow that almost mirrors yours; I use it almost exclusively for B&W, for which it's optimized. For me, as well, it has given me some of the best results I've been able to produce yet.

For my money, the most important points you raise are:

- use Photoshop (although I know the Gimp can be an excellent substitute)
- scan in RGB (I know there are holy wars over this, it just works for me)
- view at 100%

To all this, I'd add the following, for those so inclined:

- do a "raw scan" in Vuescan, to create a real "digital negative"...your negs go back into archival storage, and if you play your cards right, you won't need to re-scan
- if you scan B&W as RGB, use Photoshop's Channel Mixer to find your optimal "desaturation" effects
- store these files at TIFs - they take up more room, but don't suffer compression effects like JPEGs


Cheers,
--joe.
 
shaaktiman said:
Vuescan is the best driver software out there. It is cheap and made a noticeable difference in my scan quality.

I'm really not trying to be a snot here, but I would like to (re)ask you some questions about what you think Vuescan will do that the stock K-M software will not.

First some history.

About a year ago as I was climbing the very steep part of the learning curve of negative scanning, I would occasionally ask questions here and on other boards. More often than not, no matter what issue I was reporting, the one-size-fits-all answer seemed to be:

Get Vuescan!

As I learned (and yes, I did download the trial Vuescan and try it) I realized that the issues I had were all just minor pilot error issues.

So, I asked the Vuescan fans (I think here, on a few systems I know) three burning questions. I'll add a fourth here ...

1. Will Vuescan extract more information from the negative (or slide) than the stock K-M software will?

2. Will Vuescan scan significantly faster than the K-M software? (A 3200 dpi at 4x sampling can take several minutes.)

3. Will Vuescan deliver any kind of dust/scratch reduction that REALLY works, particularly with B&W negatives? (The stock software has an "auto dust brush" which seems to be a placebo at best. I've also tried that Polaroid plug-in which sorta works in some cases.)

And now 4. Will Vuescan in any way result in scans that are more faithful to the original negative (or slide) than the K-M software when properly operated?

Comments?

Oh, I do agree that getting a "real" version of Photoshop is worth it. I don't have CS/2 but have 7 and it's light years ahead of any free version.
 
DMR, I had a similar xperience re Vuescan. I did a LOT of testing and don't care for it at all.

You can get Curves in Elements 2 for free. Of course, you still have only 8 bit ability if you use Elements. The difference between 8 and 16 in the finished product? Haven't compared yet.
 
Any interest in putting this on the scanning wiki? Or should I just copy it and plagarize? :)

allan
 
aad said:
DMR, I had a similar xperience re Vuescan. I did a LOT of testing and don't care for it at all.

I really don't have any reason to dislike it. It's just that it's something extra to learn that costs extra that I really don't see doing anything extra.

If it would really do something that I need that the K-M software didn't, I could fall in love with it. With the following it has, you would think it really did something extra, but I haven't seen it yet.

My guess is that it might have been written as a response to some other scanner software that was really really bad.

I've found that overall, the secret to good scans is attention to detail. Clean negatives, adjust the exposure (sometimes shadows, sometimes highlights, it depends), warm up the scanner 5-10 min, focus manually if the negative is not flat, stuff like that. Also I agree with maximum res, maximum depth, then scale down in Photoshop to where you want it.

Another trick I've been doing is to keep the original full-res scan. Move them off to a CD when the disk gets full. You can always go back then and not have to find the negative again, clean it again, and rescan if you need to.
 
Just a note that Elements 5.0 will support 16bit and curves. Tools like Shadow/Highlights are already in 4.0

Vuescan is the tool of choice for many, but is not always the best choice. The biggest factor seems to be how well the scanner you have is supported, so as usual, do your homework first. Of course, the opposite is also true. Vuescan also supports scanners that have been abandoned by their makers like KM.

For very contrasty negs, sometimes I scan as a positive and inverted it later in PS.
 
I've tried Vuescvan, and found the trial version to be less capable than the software that came with my scanner. But that doesn't mean it would be useless for someone else using a different scanner. I can see how it would be a Godsend for some.

The main advantage it can have is the ability to scan at 16 bits per channel for color. I had some Kodak Gold 100 shots of Alaska, and a few scans had much more muted colors than they should. I scanned in photoshop using 16-bit color instead of the 8-bit the scanner software uses, and the vivid color that was present on the neg showed up in the scan. Since I have photoshop for that, I didn't need Vuescan. But if I didn't have photoshop, the high bit color scanning ability of Vuescan would be moot, as there isn't much out there besides photoshop that can manipulate 16-bit color files. I can certianly see how Vuescan can be a valuable tool with some scanners, but it certainly isn't mandatory for all scanners, IMHO.
 
1. Will Vuescan extract more information from the negative (or slide) than the stock K-M software will?

Was I one of the ones that replied before? I am not sure. Anyway.

It's not that Vuescan will extract "more." At least not on a consistent basis. But what Vuescan will do is make fewer cuts and slices off your histogram and response curve than many other applications. Not all. If whatever you use works for you, then use it. Period. Vuescan works for me.

2. Will Vuescan scan significantly faster than the K-M software? (A 3200 dpi at 4x sampling can take several minutes.)

I haven't tried the KM software, but the answer is "it depends" on how fast Vuescan can drive your scanner in general. If it takesn 20 seconds to do a full frame scan at 16 bit, then it'll take 60 seconds for 3x sampling (give or take - the head has to move back/forth).

3. Will Vuescan deliver any kind of dust/scratch reduction that REALLY works, particularly with B&W negatives?

No. Dust/scratch removal in VS is using the IR channel - ICE. But ICE doesn't work with traditional b&w negatives. So...the solution is to take better care of your negatives (I don't mean that in a snotty way).

And now 4. Will Vuescan in any way result in scans that are more faithful to the original negative (or slide) than the K-M software when properly operated?

Again, I haven't used the KM software, but it is very user-dependent. A bad operator will get bad scans from any software.

What VS gives me is a negative with as much of the negative's tonal range as possible. I am confident that I am getting everything on the negative, from solid black to pure white. I also get control over the curve, to some extent, using the different profiles.

anyway.

allan
 
Thanks for all the input. DMR, you raise some good points. I have very limited experience with the KM software, so I can't really make a fair comparison but I can tell you exactly why I like vuescan over Epson and Nikon drivers.

First off, you make a valid point that one could obtain the same results as with vuescan by using any driver, all you need is enough experience. This is true. However I do not usually judge software by a single criteria. I may be able to get the same result whether I use vuescan or nikon software but if vuescan's interface is more intuitive or has a more user friendly workflow (as I feel it does) then I will probably prefer vuescan. Moreover, this kind of attention to design translates into saved time for me as I can usually breeze through vuescan menus more quickly. Many people prefer vuescan because it offers the most comprehensive array of features in an easily mastered format. I know of very few other programs that provide the value this one does for the amount of money it costs.

The more user friendly interface also results in a shorter learning curve when one is first cutting their scanning teeth. (Which is who this post was really intending to help. Obviously expert users can do without the friendlier GUI if they wish.) Nikon is a little better in a few areas than vuescan so I do actually use it occasionally. But a newbie probably wants to keep things as simple as possible while getting the best scan they can manage.

I also find that the film presets in vuescan gives me a convenient series of canned contrast and curve presets to look at while I am deciding exactly what adjustments to make. I usually use these presets as a starting point.

Many drivers are also unable to make a digital negative scan. Vuescan saves me time by enabling me to scan all my negs in one shot and then scan them from a file individually at a later time without having to deal with physical negatives.

Lastly, using vuescan means that despite my owning 2 scanners I only need to become proficient in one driver. Many people have a flatbed for medium and large format film and another for 35mm, as I do. Using one driver simplifies matters.

You mentioned one or two other things that I think are worth addressing in the original post. I have a different opinion than you on some workflow issues such as dust and scratch removal, etc. No harm done. Since I neglected to mention them though I'm just going to edit the original post include them.
 
Shaaktiman: As others, thank you very much for a great list of pointers, and for kicking of a good discussion. I do have one question, though, regarding one's choice of emulsion and developer.

I'm pretty much wedded (right now, at least) to Tri-X and APX 100 in Rodinal. Yes, I'll have to stock up on APX very soon or choose another slower-speed emulsion, I recognize that.

But I love the look of wet prints with those materials/processing. So, my question is: How do you modify/optimize your scanning and workflow for those originals vs. the same emulsion (or not) in Diafine? And how do you scan for a heavier, more contrasty exposure that is optimized for the wet print.

IOW, I want the best of both worlds!
 
Trius,
It's easy. Develop for a thinner negative, and use a condenser enlarger or a higher grade paper/filter :)

allan
 
Thank you for the compliment Trius. You've asked a tough question. I'm assuming you figured out a dev. workflow that you're comfortable with and probably have a backlog of negs that were developed in that way.

Unfortunately I don't have an answer for you. I was surprised to discover the difference brand and processing made in terms of scannability. I wouldn't really suggest anything too different than what I already prescribed, re: playing with the brightness (exposure, whatever) slider and also the scanning curves sliders that determine white and black points. Sometimes with higher contrast negs you can get this annoying grain amplification problem where the grain turns into baseballs. The best way to get rid of that is to scan as hi-res as possible and downsample later in PS, but it doesn't always work.

Otherwise, for new negs, the only thing I can think of suggesting is to overexpose a bit and underdevelop to lessen the contrast by a stop or two. How much trouble you'll have really depends on your scanner. For instance my epson 4990 can scan anything and keep the tonality accurate. My new Nikon 5000 is also pretty good at it. But I had a dimage scandual IV and neopan 400 would posterize awfully in it. Maybe there's something you can do, I am far from an expert.

If it's any consolation, my new film dev combo has been Acros stand developed in Rodinal. Even though the negs are contrasty Acros scans so easily that it isn't a problem. Good luck.
 
Kaiyen, I didn't know about that scanning wiki before now. Good stuff.
Thanks for the plug!
 
You know, it really does come down to personal technique, tastes, experience, and finding a workflow. For example, I'm finding it actally easier to scan slightly contrastier negatives than flat ones. Why? Because although I'm very capable with curves, it takes a lot more work to get the tones I'm looking for from a flat image. There's more masking and changing those things around, whereas with a slightly more contrasty image, I typically get better results. Another example is downsizing with bicubic sharper -- never liked the results. I simply USM first, then downsize with bicubic smoother, then sharpen again. *shrug*

Despite my own personal tastes, Shaaktiman, it always helps to have a starting place. I used all the tips I read here to get started (most all of which you summarized), and as I worked through a couple hundred negatives (hey, I'm just an amatuer having fun), the workflow became clear and I learned what I like :) It's a matter of experimenting at the right time, too.. typically you don't want to test things until you've done things one way for a while, kind of like using one developer and one film combo.

Jano

Jano
 
Jano,
keep in mind that "slightly more contrasty" is a relative term. I can make _very_ flat negatives that, yes, even with scanning and a scanner's preference for flat_er_ negs, would require a lot of work on the tones in PS.

"flatter" usually refers to "as compared to printing with the common diffusion enlarger." Most folks learning B&W wet printing start with diffusion enlargers, which require a slightly contrastier negative to get minimal dodge/burn with grade 2 paper/filters. However, a scanner is more like a condenser enlarger, so you need less contrasty negs to stay at grade 2 or so.

So what you're getting and calling "contrastier" might actually be the same thing that I'm calling thinner. It's all about relelativity. I, too, need only minimal adjustments (5 minutes?) to get the tones I want. I tweak maybe 20 minutes from there, but just for a quick look at tonality I can do that very fast.

allan
 
Okay. I have no wet printing experience, so it's certainly possible that photography relativity is at work!

What's contrasty for me may be flat for you. And what's flat for you may be contrasty for me. It's all relative to how you perceive the negitve, oooohhhhh...

We can turn this into RFF.. the musical! :D
 
Shaaktiman, your described workflow is very similar to the one I've developed over the past few years. One of the differences is that I probably go for a flatter scan than you do, but that's just personal preference. I use VueScan for B&W and the Minolta software for Col on my Minolta 5400. IMO, the Minolta software consistently clips B&W scans and VueScan pulls out more of the image, but whatever works for you is the chief thing.

I prefer shooting traditional silver emulsions, esp Tri-X and Neopan 400. The scanning process on these film types often adds its own 'grain' to these scans that isn't actually on the negs, esp if the negs are a little thick.

To work around this issue, I borrowed a trick from digicam photography and apply a very light touch of Neat Image or Noise Ninja 'noise reduction' to the scan to trim back the graininess just a touch, without affecting much detail. The result, to my eye, is an image that matches more closely with a wet print image in terms of grain structure.

Thanks for the workflow summary. Very useful!

Gene
 
Back
Top Bottom