As said above by Les Sarile, if you're happy with the results, fine. But I'd be cautious about using a random fluorescent source for color scanning, as the output contains a number of spectral lines. Worst case is one line halfway between the peaks of two dyes --> maximum cross-talk. Presumably when Epson (for example) uses a fluorescent source in a scanner, they are careful about phosphor selection to avoid that. Better is incandescent (true continuous spectrum); even better RVB LEDs (Nikon) centered on the dyes peak wavelengths. Possibly anecdotal, but I was once struck by the higher saturation of same C-41 frame scanned with LS-2000 versus V-700; not self-delusion because only after did I realize the difference in light sources.
IMHO, the Nikon/Vuescan scan still has a green cast, especially in the mid to high tones, even after your adjustment. The sky looks a bit too green, but is easily correctable. I've noticed Vuescan giving quite greenish results in many cases with my Minolta scanner and sometimes you think you've done a good job correcting casts only to realize that correcting a bit more gives even better results.I would need to make some more comparisons to assess the colour. The Nikon is giving a much 'cleaner' result. The negative here is 10 years old so I can't reliably recall the exact lighting conditions of the day.
I would need to make some more comparisons to assess the colour. The Nikon is giving a much 'cleaner' result. The negative here is 10 years old so I can't reliably recall the exact lighting conditions of the day.
Since you used Vuescan with your Coolscan, did you use the built-in profile for Kodak 160VC and a setting of White Balance?
No way. Once the spectral energy distribution of the source has been folded (convolved, in technical language) into that of the dyes, all electrons are alike.More likely that the DSP is set up to correct the spectral output of a fluorescent lamp/ LED array against what it understands to be an equal energy source.
No contest. I give the benefit of doubt to Epson (V700) and high end scanner designers to choose the best possible fluo lamp. My remark was about picking any consumer fluo source for the purpose of scanning. Example (quoted from this article)Plenty of high end CCD scanners use fluorescent sources & get far better results than the Nikons.
No way. Once the spectral energy distribution of the source has been folded (convolved, in technical language) into that of the dyes, all electrons are alike.
No contest. I give the benefit of doubt to Epson (V700) and high end scanner designers to choose the best possible fluo lamp. My remark was about picking any consumer fluo source for the purpose of scanning. Example (quoted from this article)
View attachment 244224
See that peak near 490nm, sitting halfway between Blue and Green? And the big hump around 600nm, just straddling the transition between Green and Red? So-called "white" LEDs are hardly better.
Point is that Tom appears to be using a decent quality lightbox - which generally had to be pretty accurate for judging the colour balance of transparencies on.
Yes. There is just very little information contextualising the various different potential light sources and how they fit into a camera-as-scanner system. For practical evaluation I suspect you'd want to have a series of light sources to cross reference. The more sophisticated approaches of multi-shot exposure of a piece of film without moving the camera may also change the results, in that case I would suspect the fluorescent flicker to pose more of a problem.
One thing to watch out for is that some flourescent lights have quite a bit of flicker at 120 Hz (twice the line frequency) in the US or 100 Hz in most of the rest of the world. This can cause artifacts in a scan-by-camera system. Using an extra slow shutter speed can reduce this effect by averaging over several cycles. I think there are some flourescent lights that are low-flicker. Obviously, I don't know if this applies to your light box.
Incandescent lights also have some flicker, in this case it would be at line frequency instead of twice line frequency. However, I believe the flicker from incandescent lamps is less than the flicker from most fluorescent lamps.
Two diffused strobes at 45 degrees to subject should work. A consistent distance would be helpful in establishing a consistent, quick, set up and workflow. Easy enough to mark off a setup like this on a studio or lab floor. I've been expirimenting with "scanning" over a kaiser as well, but I'm planning to move to a pair of speedo heads running on an 805 pack.Diffused strobe is potentially the most consistent - depending on how much power is needed, it should be fairly straightforward to design.
BTW, have you scanned the same film on the Coolscan using Nikonscan for comparison?
Not the colour negative film, I should probably do so. I have made comparison scans for Kodachrome.
I consider DSLR scans of slides and b&w to be relatively easy - except for excessive dust and scratch removal. Color negatives are definitely more challenging, time consuming.and requires a bit of post skill.
Out of curiosity, can this same approach be used to extract .icc files for slide films? Also are these .icc files designed to correct speifically for the light sources for Nikon Coolscan units, and may not apply exactly to say Epson scanners? Could any of these profiles be transferred to scanner software like Silverfast or Vuescan?I'm not using the workflow described here, but it is where I got the idea to extract the .icc file from NikonScan to use with system wide applications.
https://smashandgrabphoto.wordpress...lm-with-consistent-colour-using-icc-profiles/ - the file needs to be opened in a Hex editor in order to make the changes decribed in the article.
Out of curiosity, can this same approach be used to extract .icc files for slide films? Also are these .icc files designed to correct speifically for the light sources for Nikon Coolscan units, and may not apply exactly to say Epson scanners? Could any of these profiles be transferred to scanner software like Silverfast or Vuescan?
I will freely admit that I am a complete noob about the details of color management?
Here is a scan almost straight out of the NikonScan software, apart from a slight curve adjustment in PL.
Tom,I've only tried the negative profile but as far as I'm aware it should also be possible to extract the profile .icc for slide films. I think these profiles are designed specifically for the Nikon scanners and the one I've used does seem to clear up a few issues, although the dialogue box I have shown abve is from PhotoLine (or Photoshop) - in this case the scan is arriving in the software (PL/CP) as a raw tiff - with the film type set to 'colour negative' in VueScan's film type setting. There are many potential combinations, to the extent that I would be weary of making broad recommendations to anyone else.
The NikonScan software seems to be using a distinct approach and doesn't allow for working in ProPhoto RGB as far as I can tell, so the files from scans I did this morning shown above started off as 'Nikon Adobe RGB 1998' and I converted to sRGB just before saving as jpegs.
colors are better than they would have been had you imported those same scans but without using those .icc profiles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?