Settings for coolscan 5000?

[Fenwick]

Hi does any one have a general setup for scanning b&w and color negs and slides on the 5000
Just basic settings to get started untll i get used to using the software myself

Thanks

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I used to use Nikon Scan on my LS-8000ED, which is the same interface used for your scanner. You want to choose 16 bit, 40000 dpi. Set the output to Calibrated RGB for color photos, Greyscale for black and white. The multipass scanning is a waste of time (it takes foever for each scan!) when scanning negatives, either BW or color. It makes no quality difference. For slides it can help with underexposed slides or photos with a lit of very dark areas in them, and can be worth the excruciating wait.

I never mess with the curves or other adjustments, easier to do in Photoshop and there is no quality advantage to doing it in Nikon Scan.

 

[gilpen123]

For B&W 8 bit is more than sufficient for color I would suggest that. Also, scanning at 4000 dpi may be overkill if you are not printing large specially if most of your images will be for web display. For B&W prints up to or near 8X10, I use 3000 dpi scan with good results. I sometimes adjust exposure in NikonScan and crop the excess area outside of the frame but no other processing, PS is better in PP. Take note that 16 bit will give you a very big file, convert to Jpeg before printing RSGB color.

 

[hlockwood]

I used to use Nikon Scan on my LS-8000ED, which is the same interface used for your scanner. You want to choose 16 bit, 40000 dpi. Set the output to Calibrated RGB for color photos, Greyscale for black and white. The multipass scanning is a waste of time (it takes foever for each scan!) when scanning negatives, either BW or color. It makes no quality difference. For slides it can help with underexposed slides or photos with a lit of very dark areas in them, and can be worth the excruciating wait.

I never mess with the curves or other adjustments, easier to do in Photoshop and there is no quality advantage to doing it in Nikon Scan.

Easier is not better. I respectfully disagree.

Harry

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

At least on a Mac, Nikon Scan is an absolute disaster, ugly and buggy. Vuescan is well worth the money. I output 16 bit, 4000 DPI 'raw' files as TIFFS for archiving and high quality JPEGS for quick reference.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Easier is not better. I respectfully disagree.

Harry

In what way? Doing the corrections in Nikon Scan does not give higher quality than doing it in Photoshop. Sorry, that's the truth. Nikon scan does any curves/levels/color adjustments AFTER the raw data is converted to an RGB working colorspace like sRGB or Adobe RGB. So, unlike shooting RAW with a digital camera, there is no advantage to using the manufacturer's software rather than a regular image editor like photoshop.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

For B&W 8 bit is more than sufficient for color I would suggest that. Also, scanning at 4000 dpi may be overkill if you are not printing large specially if most of your images will be for web display. For B&W prints up to or near 8X10, I use 3000 dpi scan with good results. I sometimes adjust exposure in NikonScan and crop the excess area outside of the frame but no other processing, PS is better in PP. Take note that 16 bit will give you a very big file, convert to Jpeg before printing RSGB color.

8 bit is not sufficient for BW, I have seen that over and over. If you need to increase contrast much, and you WILL with BW negs if you don't want the typically flat, lifeless image that people post here from their scanners. Use 8 bit, and give the pic normal contrast, you'll see posterization. I promise.

4000 DPI is overkill and a waste of time until the day that you take a lower res file, spend a ton of time post processing, retouching, doging and burning and making it perfect....only to decide you want to make a large print. Oh hell....need to rescan and do ALL that work again. I rarely print my files the full size the 4000 DPI allows, especially from my medium format scans...but the times people have contacted me to buy a LARGE print, I was happy I had done the smart thing and scanned everything at max resolution.

 

[thirteen]

Read this article before you always scan everything at max. res.

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Read this article before you always scan everything at max. res.

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

The problem is that part of the article is about flatbeds, which suck. If you're using one, you're not going to get best quality, and as the article notes, the highest settings on them do not increase actual resolution because in actuality, they are not capable of the resolution advertised.

The part relevant to users of high end scanners like my Nikon LS-8000ED is true about masking grain with lower resolution. problem is, when you want to make a large print, these reduced res scans fall apart. You need the grain structure of the film to support the look of sharpness in a large print. Grain is part of shooting film. Don't like it, shoot digital. A number of digital SLRs are made today that far exceed the resolution of 35mm film, with no noise or grain. I shoot film because I like the look of film.

 

[dfoo]

The native resolution of the coolscan scanners is 4000 DPI. That means if you tell the scanner to scan at a lower resolution, then essentially the software is downsizing it. If you're going to do that in software, you might as well have the choice in exactly how to do it...

 

[maddoc]

I have the Coolscan 4000ED, pretty much similar to the 5000ED except for a lesser A/D conversion. My usual settings are 4000dpi, single-pass and either 16Bit gray or 48Bit color. I scan BW as color-neg films sometimes because it seems to give better tones in some frames. Every PP is done in Photoshop Elements (if necessary at all ...)

 

[gilpen123]

Well this sample was scanned at 8 bit 3000 dpi, the scan and printed image looks quite good to my eyes, maybe I agree if you're way off the exposure which is not my way of taking pics. I expose properly base on the result I wanted so I don't spend a lot of time in PS.

[/url][/IMG]

8 bit is not sufficient for BW, I have seen that over and over. If you need to increase contrast much, and you WILL with BW negs if you don't want the typically flat, lifeless image that people post here from their scanners. Use 8 bit, and give the pic normal contrast, you'll see posterization. I promise.

4000 DPI is overkill and a waste of time until the day that you take a lower res file, spend a ton of time post processing, retouching, doging and burning and making it perfect....only to decide you want to make a large print. Oh hell....need to rescan and do ALL that work again. I rarely print my files the full size the 4000 DPI allows, especially from my medium format scans...but the times people have contacted me to buy a LARGE print, I was happy I had done the smart thing and scanned everything at max resolution.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well this sample was scanned at 8 bit 3000 dpi, the scan and printed image looks quite good to my eyes, maybe I agree if you're way off the exposure which is not my way of taking pics. I expose properly base on the result I wanted so I don't spend a lot of time in PS.

[/url][/IMG]

My exposures are perfect. I'm sure your example looks fine, but I have seen a lot that won't at 8bit. It depends on what you're looking for. This is my profession, it has to be flawless....trying to save a few MB of disk space is penny wise and pound foolish so far as I am concerned. Look at all the guys here who have $4000 Leica MP bodies and $3000 lenses and whine that they don't wanna spend $1000 on a good film scanner. Its the same silliness. You use good film and a good camera and a good scanner (in your case) and then you negate all that to save a little disk space by scanning at a low bit depth that cannot capture as many tonal steps as you can at 16bit. We will soon see monitors and printers that can accurately display 16bit images....and my files will be ready.

 

[hlockwood]

In what way? Doing the corrections in Nikon Scan does not give higher quality than doing it in Photoshop. Sorry, that's the truth. Nikon scan does any curves/levels/color adjustments AFTER the raw data is converted to an RGB working colorspace like sRGB or Adobe RGB. So, unlike shooting RAW with a digital camera, there is no advantage to using the manufacturer's software rather than a regular image editor like photoshop.

Christopher,

You're a pro who makes his living from photography, so I have to respect what you say. I'm an amateur who occupies only a small part of the total space of photography. I shoot only B&W so I have no comment on your color remarks.

Two obvious exceptions to your comments are analog gain and multi-sampling; these are not done post scan. In another thread I outlined my current workflow which was based upon close examination of final prints. These were produced first by following your prescription, which was how I had always done my scans, then by adopting an alternative, which I described in that thread. The expanded tonal range was subtle but real. And keep in mind that my claim referred only to the small space of C41 B&W and only XP2, at that.

Can you provide a reference to your remarks about how NS handles levels/curves/color adjustments in going from Preview to Scan? In my quest for the best possible print, I need all the knowledge I can gather.

Harry

 

[hlockwood]

Christopher,

You're a pro who makes his living from photography, so I have to respect what you say. I'm an amateur who occupies only a small part of the total space of photography. I shoot only B&W so I have no comment on your color remarks.

Two obvious exceptions to your comments are analog gain and multi-sampling; these are not done post scan. In another thread I outlined my current workflow which was based upon close examination of final prints. These were produced first by following your prescription, which was how I had always done my scans, then by adopting an alternative, which I described in that thread. The expanded tonal range was subtle but real. And keep in mind that my claim referred only to the small space of C41 B&W and only XP2, at that.

Can you provide a reference to your remarks about how NS handles levels/curves/color adjustments in going from Preview to Scan? In my quest for the best possible print, I need all the knowledge I can gather.

Harry

I should have added that the post I was referring to is #16 in "Scanning and the histogram."

Harry

 

[Tim Gray]

I use Vuescan for B&W negatives. Much easier for me than Nikonscan, which I use for color.

I mostly still follow this procedure on my website. I've changed it up a bit to use a different film profile (the generic one) and might have a different white balance setting, but it gives more or less the same results. It makes *really* bright highlights a bit easier to deal with. I haven't updated the page yet to reflect these changes though.

 

[gilpen123]

My exposures are perfect. I'm sure your example looks fine, but I have seen a lot that won't at 8bit. It depends on what you're looking for. This is my profession, it has to be flawless....trying to save a few MB of disk space is penny wise and pound foolish so far as I am concerned. Look at all the guys here who have $4000 Leica MP bodies and $3000 lenses and whine that they don't wanna spend $1000 on a good film scanner. Its the same silliness. You use good film and a good camera and a good scanner (in your case) and then you negate all that to save a little disk space by scanning at a low bit depth that cannot capture as many tonal steps as you can at 16bit. We will soon see monitors and printers that can accurately display 16bit images....and my files will be ready.

Oh I didn't know you're a pro, then you really should scan at the highest possible resolution. Your PP will probably not be the same as everybody but the scan result will definitely be. 🙂.