silverfast scans overexposed

[Fraser]

When I scan black and white with silverfast (8 se) on my coolscan V the scans always come out way overexposed virtually no detail in the lighter tones even if i drag the exposure down in the Negafix box to -3, I can easily fix it in photoshop but wonder why ?

cheers.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I can’t provide a cure, but can only say that, if it’s a good negative, this shouldn’t be happening. Even though I have moved up to Silverfast ai Archive Suite, which is quite different from the SE version, I never had this issue with Silverfast 8se. That doesn’t help you fix it, only encourages you to keep looking. It’s not inherent in the Silverfast.

As an additional 2cents worth, a poor scan can’t be fixed in Photoshop, only made more palatable.. It’s not any different than trying to get a great print from a poor negative. The only way to get great results from a scan in PS, is to start with the best possible scan, with the best exposure and the best DR. Data never captured, either in the negative or the scan, cannot be reconstituted farther down the line, because it wasn’t there to begin with. Photoshop can’t fix it.

Good luck going forward, there’s a more specific solution out there somewhere.

 

[Fraser]

Thats all true but I have no problem with colour, c41 or e6.

 

[lawrence]

Thats all true but I have no problem with colour, c41 or e6.

It might be because the the Coolscan V uses LEDs as a light source, similar to a condenser head on an enlarger. The resulting Callier effect causes an increase in contrast when scanning traditional silver halide negatives as well as an apparent increase in grain, so you need to factor this in during development. I sold my Coolscan IV because of this and am now very happy with a scanner that has a diffused light source.

 

[Fraser]

It might be because the the Coolscan V uses LEDs as a light source, similar to a condenser head on an enlarger. The resulting Callier effect causes an increase in contrast when scanning traditional silver halide negatives as well as an apparent increase in grain, so you need to factor this in during development. I sold my Coolscan IV because of this and am now very happy with a scanner that has a diffused light source.

That could be something to think about I'm still exposing and developing as if I'm still wet printing.

 

[olifaunt]

That could be something to think about I'm still exposing and developing as if I'm still wet printing.

I think it is a bad idea to underexpose/underdevelop for scanning. This discards information, which is as bad for scanning as it is for printing.

If the scanner can't scan the denser parts of properly exposed negatives, I'd rather fix or replace the scanner with one that works properly.

 

[Fraser]

I think it is a bad idea to underexpose/underdevelop for scanning. This discards information, which is as bad for scanning as it is for printing.

If the scanner can't scan the denser parts of properly exposed negatives, I'd rather fix or replace the scanner with one that works properly.

Unless I spend a lot of money I don't think I'm going to find a much better scanner. I'm pretty sure its more likely a software/user issue, old film stock or over dev making negatives to contrasty.
All I really need to do is get my light tones less dense, I think my shadows and mid tones are ok, but before I do that I really should buy some new film as the last stuff I shot was fp4 thats been frozen for a long time (notice I said fp4 not fp4+).
Cheers.

 

[Steve M.]

For what it's worth, I never had this problem, or any other problems, using the Nikon scanning software on my V ED. If you are determined to use third party scanning software, then go to Photoshop and create a one step thing (forget what it's called....a preset maybe?) so that it only takes one mouse click to fix the problem.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Three things:

1. Try hitting the autocorrect button and see what happens.
2. There is an autoexposure button (like a sun). Make sure it is pressed.
3. If you are batch feeding, auto on ADF.

 

[Fraser]

I will give it a try cheers.

 

[Fraser]

Decided to try nikonscan, so after dragging out an old pc and scanning a neg final image is just the same as silverfast. It did remind me how I used to think the user interface was bad but now after using silverfast for a couple of years it seems quite good!
So back to my original thought I think my lighter tones going into highlights are just too dense for the scanner I think I'm over deving.