[filmscanners] Re: Oops?

["" <scott@adrenaline.com>]

Thanks to all for their advice. I've never tried a Vuescan raw scan or
a positive scan, so I'll be giving those a try.  Already, Vuescan is giving
me a nice flat scan that I can tweak.

Me'thinks I'll be delving deeper into the myriad options Vuescan's provides
from here on out.

Now I've also got to get some settings together to get a decent *batch*
scan
set of results (not all so flat) on FP4+ for initial quick digital
"contact sheet"
style results.

Scott


lists@lazygranch.com wrote:

>I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from B&W film, but I haven't got
>around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which is a
>very fine grain extended red film.
>
>Vuescan has a "raw" option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no
>correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and then see if
>the blown highlights show up.
>Vuescan has a control to set the white clipping point. I'm not sure how
>vuescan sets it, but so the theory goes you should allow a small
>percentage of the pixels to be clipped on the high end. This is because
>often some specular highlight ends up setting the high end of the
>display, making most of the image too dark. I like to photograph
>aircraft, and this option just plain doesn't work well since shiny
>subjects can have many specular highlights. I set this option to zero.
>
>Going back to the raw mode, if your highlight are not blown, you could
>try something like this.
>1) Do a raw scan, saving in grayscale 16 bit. I think the default for
>this is a  positive image. If so, then invert it immediately after you
>load it into photoshop
>2) In photoshop, go to the adjust levels menu
>3) Set the gamma to 6 (middle text box), making the image look very white
>4) slide the leftmost slider to the right until you start to see black
>specs in the display. This is setting the black clip point.
>5) Set the gamma to 0.1
>6) move the right slider to the left until the white specs are at an
>acceptable level. This is setting the white clipping point.
>7) move the middle slider until the image is acceptable. For a bell
>shaped curve, this is generally at the peak of the distribution.
>
>Acros and Astia (color slide film)  are low acutance films. The images
>don't look very sharp, but they are. I didn't like this low acutance at
>first, but now I think it is more realistic.
>
>You have discovered (rediscovered) what people call grain enlargement.
>When you take a high latitude film and adjust the contrast to look
>natural, the grain gets enhanced. This is why I prefer to do slide film.
>It may be harder to scan, but you need to adjust the endpoints much
>less, so the grain doesn't get magnified.
>
>
>
>
>scott@adrenaline.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yes,  I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and
>>haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and
>>the Coolscan V for most of my work.
>>
>>I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom).
>>I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost
>>exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a
>>low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have achieved
>>pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO.
>>
>>
>>But I have some problems.
>>
>>(1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown
>>routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in
>>HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes.  I did some film speed tests
>>per Les McLean's book.   Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots
>>of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and
>>then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into
>>three strips and develop different ways.
>>
>>The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time
>>except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was
>>unacceptible, as you can imagine.
>>
>>I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm
>>about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these
>>seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from
>>what I read.
>>
>>I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because big
>>tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of
>>using slower film in the first place.
>>
>>(2)  I often get what look like weird bright reflections off the grain. Not
>>in highlight areas. It's like bright specs, visible at 1:1 mag. This
>>stuff really
>>makes its appearance known during USM.  I wonder if this is due to the
>>Coolscan's LCD light source?  don't know.
>>
>>(3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's "auto-exposure"
>>is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my
>>film
>>speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but
>>I don't
>>know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve adjustment
>>that I could make myself, or is it adjusting the analog gain or maybe doing
>>something else?   Any input here would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Anyway, howdy to the list from a new member.  I do need to experiment with
>>scanning B&W film as a positive and see what I get going that route.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>lists@lazygranch.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Give Ed Hamrick's Vuescan a try. The demo mode (last time I checked
>>>which I will admit was 4 years ago) just puts a watermark on the
>>>image.There used to only be one version, but now there is a pro and
>>>regular (maybe called basic) version. If you like it, get the Pro
>>>version since it is updated frequently. Ed has many profiles for Kodak
>>>B&W film.
>>>
>>>I would think that Nikon's lack of a color mask would make for
>>>exceptional B&W scans. On more conventional scanners, people have tried
>>>to scan in color and then pick the best looking channel to convert to
>>>grayscale.
>>>
>>>It's really a shame they can't make an  B&W transparency film (other
>>>than Scala, which is really "fringe":). I find scanning positives to me
>>>much easier than negatives. Yes, the scanner has an easier time with
>>>negatives since the densities are not as extreme, but the inversion
>>>process is the gremlin.
>>>
>>>Any particular type of B&W film you find most difficult?
>>>
>>>Here is an idea. See if the Nikon software will let you scan the B&W
>>>film as color slide film. Then see if the histogram is reasonably centered.
>>>
>>>scott@adrenaline.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I only get messages very, very sporadically. Is there traffic on
>>>>this list that I'm missing?
>>>>
>>>>I'm desparate for tips on getting better scans of  B&W film on
>>>>a Nikon Coolscan V, understanding Nikon's "autoexposure" vs.
>>>>what I might do myself and so forth.
>>>>
>>>>Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>lists@lazygranch.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have a different problem. My last two posts never showed up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Berry Ives wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the
>>>>>>last 3 months was gone.  Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, 
>>>>>>my
>>>>>>mind, that is.  Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me 
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>something I haven't seen...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body