Tips for using Nikon coolscan V

[Tim Gray]

Anybody ever try this?

 

[hlockwood]

It's supposed to be for film flatness. If you look carefully at the neg in the FH3 film holder (even when properly seated in the frame), you'll see the edges bow away (toward the emusion side). You can observe this best from the non-emulsion (shiny side). This can only cause blur in the corners. I haven't contacted Focal Point directly, but I suspect the glass is placed on the non-emusion side to flatten the negative. Note; my negs are pretty flat as a rule and there's still a lot of bowing.

Ron

i use the FH-3 holder exclusively for scanning, and every scan for years has been made with ANR glass. The FH-3 has to be modified slightly by bending the small tabs up to accommodate the glass. And yes, the glass is on the non-emulsion side; i used it originally to flatten the film. I think it was Focal Point that i worked with when they started out. I was their guinea pig for the FH-3/4000ED. Got a free glass in return.

Harry

 

[hlockwood]

I also endorse vuescan BUT, to be more agnostic, considering using something with more control than NikonScan gives you. That's rather important.

Also, develop for less contrast, don't overexpose, and learn the issues with grain aliasing and how to combat that.

allan

What kind of control do you mean? You do know that, except for exposure, all "controls" are applied after the scan (in NS) and would, therefore, be best reserved for post processing in PS? Or, are you suggesting that Vuescan applies, for instance, tonal controls before the scan. If so, i would still avoid that route and relegate it to PS.

Harry

 

[Tim Gray]

What kind of control do you mean? You do know that, except for exposure, all "controls" are applied after the scan (in NS) and would, therefore, be best reserved for post processing in PS? Or, are you suggesting that Vuescan applies, for instance, tonal controls before the scan. If so, i would still avoid that route and relegate it to PS.

I'm working through these issues right now. Except for overall exposure and individual RGB 'gains', I'm pretty sure everything else is done in software.

BUT not all software is created equal. No matter what program you are using, I think it may be wise to crop out empty parts of the histogram in Vuescan/NS. After all, Vuescan and NS work with the raw linear scan data whereas PS isn't if you are working on already inverted/gamma corrected scan files. On the other hand, if you are working with raw scan files directly in PS, then I think it should be roughly equivalent. The latter method is the one I'm adopting.