Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

["Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>]

"Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@inferentia.it> wrote:
> the scene I chose for my test was a *bit* contrasty, still the slide was
> well exposed, and details in the shadows were perfectly visible even by
> holding up the slide against a window.

I expect that *all* the Nikon scanners will fall down in shadow detail
because of the low intensity of light from the LEDs.  The intensity of
sunlight or a projector bulb is far greater than a scanner LED.

> What I meant to test wasn't the
> latitude of negatives vs. slides, which needs no test, but the capability
of
> the scanner to read from a slide, which has a higher density than a
negative
> (that is, there is a bigger difference between the lightest and the
darkest
> values *on the film*: this was another point agreed upon in the photo.net
> thread I mentioned).

OK, but separating what is a dynamic range problem and what is a lattude
problem is a challenge.

> I didn't use Vuescan, but I played with Nikonscan analog gain and each
> Photoshop trick in my bag, still the difference between the two scans was
so
> big to convince me that it was an unfair match, given that the negative
> already has the advantage of a wider latitude.

Try Vuescan.  You may find the extra 2 bits per channel helpful.
Having said that, sure, shadows in dense slides are a hassle, but
I'd prefer the fine grain of Provia 100F any day.

Rob