Using a Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED versus a digital camera w/VALOI easy35 (or other similar alternatives).

[Guth]

Moderators, FYI: I first made an honest attempt to search for such information (somewhere in the range of 10-12 searches) before finally deciding to create a new thread. The thing is — each of my search attempts were flat out rejected. Either the words I used were too short (“vs”) or rejected for other reasons (search did not like “versus” either). I actually use the search function often here at RFF and can’t recall ever running into such a problem before.

I tend to enjoy many of the images shared by RFF members here on this site. I have been particularly fond of those projects covering trips taken by other members and seeing the world through their viewfinders so to speak. So I was hoping to share some of my own images that I shot in Europe back in the 1990s as I recently set aside some time to scan a number of my Kodachrome slides from that trip.

But looking over the results of my scans as compared to what I am seeing through a loupe using a light table or when projecting my slides upon a screen, I can’t help but be a bit disappointed. (Yes, I still have a slide projector and screen hanging about taking up space.) While many of these scans turn out okay, the scans of a few of my favorite images just aren’t working out. These images are typically the ones where much of the subject matter is set in shadows.

I have looked through the content that @Chriscrawfordphoto shared with me a few years back and that helped (thanks again Chris). While I am more than willing to accept that I myself might be the biggest part of the problem here, I also can’t help but wonder if part of what is going on is that I am just running up against the limitations of the particular film scanner that I am using (a Nikon CoolScan 4000 ED). I know this scanner is generally well regarded, and as I paid a very fair price for it a few years back I’m not terribly upset by this situation. Especially as the Nikon has served me well for my black & white scanning needs. So while I’m not really thinking about buying another scanner at this point (especially given the prices they are selling for today), I am curious to know is if I might have better luck using an inexpensive DSLR/macro lens setup combined with something like the VALOI easy35 system or some other similar alternative.

Are there any RFF members out there who have been in a similar situation that might care to offer their thoughts based on their own experiences?

 

[splitimageview]

this site has the basic search function of Xenforo which is based on SQL. Best results are to perform a site-specific search using a search engine; bing, google, etc.:

search term site:rangefinderforum.com

 

[Guth]

Thanks for that @splitimageview . I'm a pretty patient guy when it comes to forums (especially as I have one of my own). I'm also familiar with site specific searches as you've outlined. But the need to use an external search for even the most basic of searches is just a stretch too far for me.

I have successfully used the search tool here on RFF countless time in the past and this time around I stripped my initial search attempts waaay back in an attempt to appease the onsite search tool. I primarily raised the point out of fear that there might be an issue with search that staff was here was not familiar with (and to avoid any "have you tried searching" type responses).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Film scanners have a hard time with very dense slides and tend to dump the dark tones in higher contrast slides or slides with most of the tonality being darker colors. The Nikons are actually better than most in that regard. Something that can sometimes bring back detail in those dark areas is to use the shadow recovery slider in Lightroom. If you want to use Photoshop to edit instead of Lightroom, you can access this by running "Camera RAW" under the filters menu. Photoshop also has the Highlights/Shadows correction under the Image/Adjustments menu.

 

[splitimageview]

Thanks for that @splitimageview . I'm a pretty patient guy when it comes to forums (especially as I have one of my own). I'm also familiar with site specific searches as you've outlined. But the need to use an external search for even the most basic of searches is just a stretch too far for me.

I have successfully used the search tool here on RFF countless time in the past and this time around I stripped my initial search attempts waaay back in an attempt to appease the onsite search tool. I primarily raised the point out of fear that there might be an issue with search that staff was here was not familiar with (and to avoid any "have you tried searching" type responses).

what exact search terms did you use? What do you mean by 'rejected?' Did it report an error or just zero hits on all your searches?

Certainly a two character search will return an error, as MySQL doesn't support that.

 

[Guth]

Film scanners have a hard time with very dense slides and tend to dump the dark tones in higher contrast slides or slides with most of the tonality being darker colors. The Nikons are actually better than most in that regard. Something that can sometimes bring back detail in those dark areas is to use the shadow recovery slider in Lightroom. If you want to use Photoshop to edit instead of Lightroom, you can access this by running "Camera RAW" under the filters menu. Photoshop also has the Highlights/Shadows correction under the Image/Adjustments menu.

Thanks Chris! (again)

While I was an Adobe user (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) for a couple of decades, I gave up on them after they went to a subscription-only model. These days I am using use Affinity's range of products, which are incredibly reasonably priced compared to Adobe's products. Sadly I don't seem to have the same sort of fascination with such programs and the willingness to dig in and learn as much as I can about them like I once did. But you have given me enough information that I should be able to search for Affinity-based alternatives to the Adobe-based functionality you've mentioned. Much appreciated!

 

[Guth]

what exact search terms did you use? What do you mean by 'rejected?' Did it report an error or just zero hits on all your searches?

Certainly a two character search will return an error, as MySQL doesn't support that.

I can't remember offhand what the exact error messages were. I did get one error pointing out that a search term like 'vs' was unacceptable for the reasons that you have already noted. But when I tried substituting the world "versus", I received a different error message other than the standard "No Results Found" that called out "versus" specifically as being problematic. (But this error was definitely different than the one I received from my use of the phrase "vs".) It was all a bit perplexing. I will try to recreate the search variations that I came up previously to see if I can once again provoke the same sort of error message. (Though I might well need to change things up just a bit so that I am not provided with results now pointing to this very thread.)

 

[Godfrey]

Moderators, FYI: I first made an honest attempt to search for such information (somewhere in the range of 10-12 searches) before finally deciding to create a new thread. The thing is — each of my search attempts were flat out rejected. Either the words I used were too short (“vs”) or rejected for other reasons (search did not like “versus” either). I actually use the search function often here at RFF and can’t recall ever running into such a problem before.

I tend to enjoy many of the images shared by RFF members here on this site. I have been particularly fond of those projects covering trips taken by other members and seeing the world through their viewfinders so to speak. So I was hoping to share some of my own images that I shot in Europe back in the 1990s as I recently set aside some time to scan a number of my Kodachrome slides from that trip.

But looking over the results of my scans as compared to what I am seeing through a loupe using a light table or when projecting my slides upon a screen, I can’t help but be a bit disappointed. (Yes, I still have a slide projector and screen hanging about taking up space.) While many of these scans turn out okay, the scans of a few of my favorite images just aren’t working out. These images are typically the ones where much of the subject matter is set in shadows.

I have looked through the content that @Chriscrawfordphoto shared with me a few years back and that helped (thanks again Chris). While I am more than willing to accept that I myself might be the biggest part of the problem here, I also can’t help but wonder if part of what is going on is that I am just running up against the limitations of the particular film scanner that I am using (a Nikon CoolScan 4000 ED). I know this scanner is generally well regarded, and as I paid a very fair price for it a few years back I’m not terribly upset by this situation. Especially as the Nikon has served me well for my black & white scanning needs. So while I’m not really thinking about buying another scanner at this point (especially given the prices they are selling for today), I am curious to know is if I might have better luck using an inexpensive DSLR/macro lens setup combined with something like the VALOI easy35 system or some other similar alternative.

Are there any RFF members out there who have been in a similar situation that might care to offer their thoughts based on their own experiences?

I used a Nikon CoolScan 4000 ED for years to produce exhibition grade prints ... So unless your particular scanner is having issues, the problem is not the scanner. And I honestly doubt that you'll get substantively better results simply by switching to a camera copy digitization methodology. The rendering methodology between the two capture mechanisms is different, not better or worse (unless one or the other is seriously deficient in your instances).

The fundamental problem is that scanning film and getting professional quality results is not easy. I started scanning film in the middle 1980s when I was working for NASA/JPL and switched to a scan methodology for my personal photography about 1995. It took years of attempts and crappy results to figure out what was needed to do it well, and there wasn't anyone else that I knew, at the time, who was both good and experienced at it. Modern image processing tools and computers make it FAR easier, but it's still not "easy" ... It is tricky at the best of times.

What image rendering tools you use is mostly inconsequential if you are good at learning how to get the most out of application software. I use Adobe Lightroom Classic, Affinity Photo, SnapSeed, Photos, RAW Power, and probably a half a dozen other tools less frequently. They all do very much the same thing, albeit with different nomenclature and user interface conventions.

The key is to understand what you're trying to do, what the foibles of the capture process are, how to overcome the foibles, and how to then finish the rendering. I used to teach a two week course in this effort for photographers and artists at the local media center; I cannot summarize it all easily into something that fits in a forum post. Or ten. But the basics are:

1- Edit what you have in originals (be they transparencies, negatives, color, or B&W) into groups of similar exposure characteristics.

2- Experiment and see how your capture tools respond when scanning them. Push the settings around to see the range of different base captures you can achieve with any given "type" of original problem (be it contrast, lack of density, color balance, whatever).

3- Work the imaging problems for each group of originals and keep track of your typical solutions for them. It is invaluable to keep notes so that you can compare and clearly understand what adjustments or techniques fix which problems.

4- Synthesize this information into a working methodology that minimizes getting the average originals with few problems done quickly and leaves the thornier ones for when you can spend time on them.

5- Remember that not every original, no matter how wonderful it might look in the slide projector or on the light table, is going to become an exhibition quality finished print.

Just the question of sharpening is about a two day course ... what is input sharpening? how much should I apply? how do I recognize when I need more or less? what is finish sharpening? et cetera. The only way to get there is to find books on the subject and work at it.

You can spend a lot of money on new equipment that is, by specification, better than your Nikon CoolScan 4000 ED. But don't be too surprised if you do that and then, when you scan your next few dozen frames with it, find that the results aren't all that much better. It's a very very common disappointment.

This stuff is doable, is learnable. Invest in books on the subject and read them, and invest in experimenting with techniques offered in those books (and online, and anywhere else you can find them). Perseverance is what will get you to the finish line successfully.

G