[filmscanners] Re: Oops?

["Roger Krueger" <focus@adnc.com>]

Not sure how it works on a Nikon, but on my Sprintscan 120 Vuescan
compensated for the orange mask on color neg by altering exposure
times, rather than just twiddling bits, so scanning B&W as raw color
neg gave me three differently exposed channels to combine as needed.
Almost enough to save pushed TMY. Finally got tired of the Sprintscan's
other defects and bought a nice used drum for not much more money.
Handles dense highlights effortlessly.

On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:40 PM, "" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote:

> 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
>

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