From: saycheez on
This is an area where individual preferences and experience dictate
workflow.
I have never been thrilled with Vuescan but it is your choice about using
Vuescan or the Nikon software.
As to the rest of your workflow: you are a victim, as we all are, of the
insane way Adobe has cobbled together the raw converter with the Photoshop
desktop, duplicated or crippled some functions in or the other, never
documented all of the converter functions in terms of how they compare to
comparable tools in the regular desktop, etc.
To some degree you are approaching the old argument of whether to scan flat
and make adjustments in Photoshop or make adjustments in your scan tool and
be stuck with whatever you get (I think I expressed my preference).

From: Richard Karash on
In article <PB8kk.15845$xZ.7867(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, saycheez
<fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> As to the rest of your workflow: you are a victim, as we all are, of the
> insane way Adobe has cobbled together the raw converter with the Photoshop
> desktop, duplicated or crippled some functions in or the other, never
> documented all of the converter functions in terms of how they compare to
> comparable tools in the regular desktop, etc.

Yes... In doing these scans from Nikon Scan and from VueScan, some of
the tiff files can be opened in Adobe Camera Raw via Bridge and some
cannot. I cannot see the pattern. I thought it was the Apple RGB
profile embedded by the scan software, but I see counterexamples. A
little messy, but with an extra step it works.

> To some degree you are approaching the old argument of whether to scan flat
> and make adjustments in Photoshop or make adjustments in your scan tool and
> be stuck with whatever you get (I think I expressed my preference).

With 8bit scanners, it's imperative to adjust the settings at scan time
to get the best file. With 14bits, I feel I have a little more room,
but it still makes a difference. I try to make sure the scan has a
reasonable histogram and reasonable color balance, and do the rest in
Photoshop.

Thanks, saycheez, for your comments. I think my preferences match
yours.

-=- Rick

--
Richard Karash <Richard(a)Karash.com>
Richard "at" Karash "dot" com
From: David J. Littleboy on

"Richard Karash" <Richard(a)Karash.com> wrote:

> - Then, open same file in Camera Raw (Bridge... select photo... Open
> in Camera Raw).

Bridge may or may not be the right thing, but Camera Raw is definately the
wrong tool to use for film scans. Camera Raw is for converting digital
camera raw files, and only handles 3 colors per pixel RGB matrix images
(tiff/jpeg) as a convenience.

Use Photoshop iteself for scanned files; it has the tools you need. (I seem
to remember that Vuescan can store a "raw" file that includes the IR
information also. I'd think that only Vuescan would be able to deal with
such files.)

I find scanning negative materials a pain, and sympathize.

www.scantips.com tends to be really basic, but might have some helpfull
stuff on scanning negatives.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: user on
saycheez wrote:
> This is an area where individual preferences and experience dictate
> workflow.
> I have never been thrilled with Vuescan but it is your choice about
> using Vuescan or the Nikon software.
> As to the rest of your workflow: you are a victim, as we all are, of the
> insane way Adobe has cobbled together the raw converter with the
> Photoshop desktop, duplicated or crippled some functions in or the
> other, never documented all of the converter functions in terms of how
> they compare to comparable tools in the regular desktop, etc.
> To some degree you are approaching the old argument of whether to scan
> flat and make adjustments in Photoshop or make adjustments in your scan
> tool and be stuck with whatever you get (I think I expressed my
> preference).

As I said, I'm using Photoshop CS2 and using the import function in PS
to access the Nikon scan software.

For older negatives, there is no argument: you simply must use
the analog gain controls of the Nikon scanning software to get
at least close. This can require really huge adjustments.

Then is where the question you ask of making adjustments
in the Nikon scan system or making them later in PS occurs. I've
found that it is best to at least try to get close using the
curves adjustment in the Nikon scan system. It really makes
little difference if you get close ... but it is vitally important
to use the highest number of bits possible to transfer to PS,
and edit in PS in 16 bits, not 8, as long as you can.

Now none of this matters if you bought some Kodak negative
film at the drugstore last week, shot them in a good camera,
and had them developed there yesterday. Those will scan just
fine with the default settings.

But Ektacolor and Vericolor from the 60s and 70s needs
lots of tweeking. This is not due to post-development
aging ... negatives I remember as being easy to print
back then are all similar today, that is, get one right and
all of the same vintage are right at the same settings.
But the ones that were somehow off back then are still
way off today ... but the good news is, and its really good news if
you have a negative that is a great image but was unprintable
back then, that today with a scanner and PS it can be fixed to
look just fine. Sometimes this needs changing the gamma
in just one color layer, and changing it a lot.

Doug McDonald

From: Richard Karash on
In article <300720081310086097%Richard(a)Karash.com>, Richard Karash
<Richard(a)Karash.com> wrote:

> Scanning color negative film, mostly Vericolor VPS from 80's with Nikon
> Super Coolscan V. Software is Nikon Scan 4 and VueScan (current ver).
>
> Nikon Scan seems to do a fine job of scanning slides. The images are
> "right" the first time. But, I cannot figure out how to control the
> options in Nikon Scan, other than the basic positive vs. negative. The
> scans of color negative film are awful.
>
> VueScan does better, but still ... snipped....

Well, I take back what I said above. I had the sliders screwed up for
both pieces of software.

With both Nikon Scan and VueScan it made a big difference to find the
"Default Settings" option and start from there. Both software now give
me reasonable scans with default settings from both slides and
color-negative film. Whew!

The sliders and curves adjustments in Nikon Scan are intuitive and
similar to Photoshop. The sliders in VueScan are obscure to me.

Just in case it helps someone else trying scan Kodachromes with a Nikon
Coolscan, here's what I've now learned:

- Digital ICE at "Normal" does a magnificent job of removing dust
specs. In VueScan this is "Use Infrared for Cleaning and I used the
Medium setting with similar good results. (There are varying comments
about whether ICE works with Kodachrome. This is mid 80's film and it
works great.)

- If there are any deep shadows in your slide, using Digital DEE at
30-50 in Nikon Scan will open up some shadow detail. I don't know how
to activate this in VueScan.

Here is a comparison example, Coolscan V ED, Nikon Scan 4 software...

First, the scanning setup and the overall image... A summer street
scene in Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany in 1986:

http://2under.net/images/080731-Setup-Nikon-Scan-Kodachrome-Tests.png

Now the "straight scan" without the additional features. Notice the
dust and the dark interrior spaces.

http://2under.net/images/080731-StraightScan.jpg

Finally, ICE dust removal at "Fine" zaps the dust specs and DEE at 30
opens up the shadows significantly:

http://2under.net/images/080731-IceNormal+DEE30.jpg

Thanks to those who commented here.

-=- Rick

--
Richard Karash <Richard(a)Karash.com>
Richard "at" Karash "dot" com