Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
First two and more to come. I love my scanner.
1. My grandmother working on the current puzzle. 1500 pieces.
2. Stopped at a stoplight, in the rain. Glowing lights.
1. My grandmother working on the current puzzle. 1500 pieces.
2. Stopped at a stoplight, in the rain. Glowing lights.
airds
Well-known
Couple of things Stephanie
It's a black and white image, so should really be saved as a jpg - but in Grayscale. The original was saved with non existent RGB 'colour information', so increasing the file size.
Also the image is a bit lacking in contrast - see the improvements that even the auto adjust, or auto levels, etc facility gives it in your graphics program ....
Go and have a good read of scantips.com for the scanning basics.
Hope you don't mind that I've posted a tweaked version
It's a black and white image, so should really be saved as a jpg - but in Grayscale. The original was saved with non existent RGB 'colour information', so increasing the file size.
Also the image is a bit lacking in contrast - see the improvements that even the auto adjust, or auto levels, etc facility gives it in your graphics program ....
Go and have a good read of scantips.com for the scanning basics.
Hope you don't mind that I've posted a tweaked version
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Glad you got the scanner going and that you're getting good use out of it.
I agree that a little more attention to white and black points would improve the way these scans look on a monitor. You're using VueScan? Personally I find its histogram and clip adjustments to be very fiddly, so normally I just scan everything at settings that produce a 14-bit file with detail in both the highlights and shadows, then use Photoshop for tonal editing.
Since you're shooting silver-based b&w rather than chromogenic, don't be surprised if you eventually start hitting negatives that have too extreme a density range to capture both highlight and shadow details in one scan. As I've described at exhausting length in another thread somewhere, I almost always have to scan silver-based negatives two or even three times: once to get all the shadow details, even if it means letting the highlights blow out; once to get all the highlight details, even if it means letting the shadows go black; and sometimes a third one for the midtones.
Then I bring in the scans as layers in a single Photoshop file and use the layer transfer-mode and opacity controls to get them to blend the way I want. I use adjustment layers for non-destructive fine-tuning and sometimes a channel mask for dodgiing or burning in.
It's better to get the basics of scanner operation down first, though, so I certainly don't recommend you plunge in at this level right at the beginning. Just keep in mind that sooner or later you're going to hit a "difficult" negative that won't render well in one scan pass, and that more extreme measures will be necessary. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your technique or your scanner -- it's just that scanners are designed to scan chromogenic films, which have less maximum density than silver-based films.
I'm attaching a little picture I took last summer (of the Designer Showhouse in Omaha, using a 21mm lens on a Canon P) that gave me a lot of practice in this technique. I wanted to retain the airiness of the light-colored room, but scanning to get the room interior to look good left the windows blown out to dead white and the dark furnishings lacking detail. I wound up having to scan three times: once to capture detail in the outdoor areas visible through the windows, and the part of the ceiling lighted by the lamp; once for the light-colored room interior; and once to retain detail in the dark areas such as the little table at lower right. I brought in the scans as layers and balanced them in Photoshop until I had detail in all of them. You can learn a lot by starting out with a "worst-case" negative like this one and struggling with it until you get a good final file!
I agree that a little more attention to white and black points would improve the way these scans look on a monitor. You're using VueScan? Personally I find its histogram and clip adjustments to be very fiddly, so normally I just scan everything at settings that produce a 14-bit file with detail in both the highlights and shadows, then use Photoshop for tonal editing.
Since you're shooting silver-based b&w rather than chromogenic, don't be surprised if you eventually start hitting negatives that have too extreme a density range to capture both highlight and shadow details in one scan. As I've described at exhausting length in another thread somewhere, I almost always have to scan silver-based negatives two or even three times: once to get all the shadow details, even if it means letting the highlights blow out; once to get all the highlight details, even if it means letting the shadows go black; and sometimes a third one for the midtones.
Then I bring in the scans as layers in a single Photoshop file and use the layer transfer-mode and opacity controls to get them to blend the way I want. I use adjustment layers for non-destructive fine-tuning and sometimes a channel mask for dodgiing or burning in.
It's better to get the basics of scanner operation down first, though, so I certainly don't recommend you plunge in at this level right at the beginning. Just keep in mind that sooner or later you're going to hit a "difficult" negative that won't render well in one scan pass, and that more extreme measures will be necessary. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your technique or your scanner -- it's just that scanners are designed to scan chromogenic films, which have less maximum density than silver-based films.
I'm attaching a little picture I took last summer (of the Designer Showhouse in Omaha, using a 21mm lens on a Canon P) that gave me a lot of practice in this technique. I wanted to retain the airiness of the light-colored room, but scanning to get the room interior to look good left the windows blown out to dead white and the dark furnishings lacking detail. I wound up having to scan three times: once to capture detail in the outdoor areas visible through the windows, and the part of the ceiling lighted by the lamp; once for the light-colored room interior; and once to retain detail in the dark areas such as the little table at lower right. I brought in the scans as layers and balanced them in Photoshop until I had detail in all of them. You can learn a lot by starting out with a "worst-case" negative like this one and struggling with it until you get a good final file!
Last edited:
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Well, I scanned these without using the multisample...may be better if I DO use it. Let me try one scan that way and see if it helps any.
Also, I've put an adjusted version here. That one was just a rough.
Edit: I can already see the difference from the multisample. Maybe I'm going to have to use it and use a smaller DPI.
Also, I've put an adjusted version here. That one was just a rough.
Edit: I can already see the difference from the multisample. Maybe I'm going to have to use it and use a smaller DPI.
Last edited:
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Scanning again, I can see that my white balance was a bit too high as well. This one should be nicer.
I'm going to try the other scan again, too.
I'm going to try the other scan again, too.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
One of my problems could also be my monitor..it's older than the hills. Planning a replacement, but I don't know when. If I felt like using a blurry monitor (tube is going out) I could hook up the Viewsonic that actually has color correction.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
This is better.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Stephanie Brim said:
You're right, the revised version IS better.
Using multisample only helps with reduction of electrically-induced scanner noise, but if you do have that problem, it's worth using.
If you're using VueScan, you DON'T want to just drop your DPI setting. For the highest-quality results, what you want to do is scan at the scanner's maximum resolution ("Archive" setting under the Quality menu of the Input tab) -- then go to VueScan's Output tab and change the "TIFF Size Reduction" setting to a higher number. (This assumes you're saving your files as TIFF, which you'll want to do for best quality.)
Using TIFF Size Reduction drops the file size by the fraction you specify: if you set it to 2, the resolution of your output file is the input resolution / 2, if you set it 3 it's input resolution / 3, and so on.
The reason this is better than just selecting a lower DPI setting on the Input tab is that if you lower the Input DPI, all VueScan does is ignore some of the scanner pixels. When you use TIFF size reduction, it scans at full resolution but then interpolates the pixels down to a smaller file size. This is slower, but gives a much smoother-looking result.
Last edited:
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Cool.
And I put the Dell back on this computer to use while I'm waiting to hear what can be done with my Viewsonic. I don't think it can really be fixed. Going to have to get a new monitor. Blah. Everything breaks at once.
And I put the Dell back on this computer to use while I'm waiting to hear what can be done with my Viewsonic. I don't think it can really be fixed. Going to have to get a new monitor. Blah. Everything breaks at once.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
If it's any consolation, our monitor went wonky of late. Snap crackle and much darker. Still works and is better than my fuzzed out POS that was on my scanning box, but at best I need to visit the UW surplus shop next payday Friday... Bletch... The only reason I knew that the shot I posted the other day was any good was due to actually getting prints for a change (for someone else...). If I'd needed to base it on this screen, I'd have thought it was really badly exposed and tossed it.
William
William
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Since I'm not planning on *building* a darkroom now per se, I'm thinking of trying to find a used/refurbished Viewsonic like the one I had. I don't know why this one got fuzzy so fast...it's only about 3 years old and the fuzzy thing started a year ago.
teemu.laine
Member
airds said:
Ehh.... If you put an image in grayscale mode to the web your picture looks really different compared to what you see in Photoshop. That´s assuming you´r system is calibrated and you know something about ICC profiles.
Main thing with ICC profiles is that you get the same looking picture with every media you use (Photoshop, your browser, paper print etc). Browsers don´t support ICC profiles, so you get the best results when you save a B&W pic in RGB mode with sRGB profile. If you don´t believe me, here´s a proof:
http://laite.org/images/leica014.jpg
http://laite.org/images/leica014grayscale.jpg
If you open both in your browser you´ll notice, that leica014grayscale.jpg is really dark compared to the "original". But if you open leica014grayscale in your Photoshop it will look just like the "original". Of course I assume, that you´re using correctly adjusted and calibrated system.
back alley
IMAGES
they look the same on my ie browser.
teemu.laine
Member
Well they shouldn´t. Try opening leica014grayscale.jpg in Photoshop and then compare that pic with the one which is open in your IE. There´s not a big difference in highlights, but gray and black are different.
http://laite.org/images/leica014compared.jpg
On left is an image saved in grayscale mode, on right normal RGB picture. That´s how it´s supposed to look if you calibrate your equipment properly.
http://laite.org/images/leica014compared.jpg
On left is an image saved in grayscale mode, on right normal RGB picture. That´s how it´s supposed to look if you calibrate your equipment properly.
back alley
IMAGES
ok, i retract my former statement.
when i open the 2 side by side instead of seperately (& use my memory) i can see the difference.
when i open the 2 side by side instead of seperately (& use my memory) i can see the difference.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
teemu.laine said:
When I view these, there's only a very tiny difference in gamma (the man's jacket appears very, very slightly darker in the grayscale version.)
However, that may be because I'm using a browser that does support ICC profiles.
Incidentally, an uncalibrated vs. calibrated image will look different regardless of whether it's saved as grayscale or RGB; it's just the TYPE of difference that changes.
Graham Line
Well-known
Buying a scanner about three years ago (also an SDIII) really revived my interest in photography, and the ability to look at histograms has given me some valuable insights into exposure. The same for the power to look at high magnifications of the scans, and the effect of basic adjustments in contrast in color. I'm glad you got your hands on one. Canon has some of its mid-level printers available very cheaply right now through Office Depot, and they do agood job on B&W.