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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. >>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body