In post the histogram of the raw scan before editing should have the blacks starting between 0 and 25 and the highlights ending between 200 and 255. The subject matter will dictate the extremes but properly developed film will fall into this range.
This is accurate for negatives, but may need to be revised to take into account that these are black and white slides.This says to me that the film is under developed. Exposure determines the shadow detail, development determines the highlight detail.
This is accurate for negatives, but may need to be revised to take into account that these are black and white slides.
Hello,
I've posted a few times in the analogue workflow forums but am new in this section. I shoot 35mm B&W which I process myself into slides using the reversal process. I like to be able to have digital copies and until now have been using a Panasonic Lumix bridge camera to do this, with, as you'd expect, OK but pretty mediocre results. I've recently acquired a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i and am trying to optimise my workflow with it. I really didn't like the interface of the Silverfast software that was bundled with it, so decided to get VueScan (pro edition). I'm quite happy with the results, but I know they can be improved and some aspects of the way it (and the scanner) render my slides are confusing me. Since B&W slides are pretty niche, as you'd expect there's not a great deal of information about doing this. (Despite this, VueScan does actually have a setting for 'REVERSAL B&W' although I'm not sure what the specifics of this are). Of course some of the principles of the process are the same as for colour slides, or at least more similar to this than to scanning negatives.
Although I'm pleased with the detail captured by the scanner, I'd been finding that almost all my slides were being rendered too dark, with not nearly as much shadow detail as there should be. I came across this page http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php which says that for a flat scan in VueScan one should adjust various of the 'Color' settings (not all of which are to do with colour!) from their default settings. One of the things it suggests doing is changing the default 'Curve low' and 'Curve high' settings from 0.25 and 0.75 respectively to 0.001 each, and also slightly raising the brightness from 1 to 1.06. Doing this resulted in scans that I was much happier with and seemed much closer to how the slides look projected or in a slide viewer.
However, because I like to know how and why I'm doing things, beyond just 'if it looks right then it is right' (valid though that is), I've been investigating further and have found that in fact the 0.25 and 0.75 settings for the curve is 'straight', and that adjusting them to their minimum values as that page suggests in fact expands the shadows and compresses the highlights. See here:
and here
However, as I say, with the curve points set to 0.25 and 0.75, I am seeing scans that are darker and are more contrasty than they should be. Is it at all possible that the supposedly straight curve in VueScan is actually applying a certain amount of contrast, as might well be necessary for a satisfactory scan of a negative, or that the scanner is doing this?
I am using the Lock Exposure and Multiple Exposure settings, by the way. I should also add that I have mainly been scanning Rollei Retro 80S and 400S, which are both contrasty films, especially the 400S – perhaps this is part of the issue?
Sorry for all this wordiness but I hope what I've written makes sense. Any tips from anyone who's managed to nail the process of scanning slides (especially B&W ones) with a Plustek scanner and/or VueScan software would be hugely appreciated. At the moment I'm keeping raw copies of the scans so that I don't have to go back and re-scan everything if I find some revolutionary change of settings that gives better results!
Thanks in advance.
Then increase exposure 1/2 to 1 stop.This is accurate for negatives, but may need to be revised to take into account that these are black and white slides.
Do you mean the space between exposures? For batch scanning?I have a Nikon scanner that I use Vuescan with but the settings should be similar.
To do a negative, first I lock the exposure on the margin
If you batch scan, do you often feel that you need to re-scan individual images at different settings? Why?. Then I set the curve levels at .3 and .7. I usually set both the black and white clipping levels to .02 for batch scanning. For individual scans I'll move them higher until I see clipping then back them off. I rarely adjust the brightness unless I have a problem neg, but I don't get too many of those really.
Why is that?You should really get the scan right. Lots of tutorials out there say you should scan flat, but that is generally not a great idea.
I assume that that DNGs refer only to Vuescan, not to Nikonscan or Silverfast? Correct?If you are one of those paranoid types then you can do a raw scan and output it as a dng if I am not mistaken. I've never done that though. Good ol' 16 bit TIF has always worked for me.
Then increase exposure 1/2 to 1 stop.
In general, what's the rationale behind slightly clipping the blacks and whites rather than just leaving the levels at 0% in VueScan at both ends? Incidentally, the default settings in VueScan are 0% for the black point but 1% for the white point (i.e. the brightest 1% of pixels in the image are all made pure white). Similarly, what's the rationale for this?To do a negative, first I lock the exposure on the margin. Then I set the curve levels at .3 and .7. I usually set both the black and white clipping levels to .02 for batch scanning. For individual scans I'll move them higher until I see clipping then back them off. I rarely adjust the brightness unless I have a problem neg, but I don't get too many of those really.
One thing that it is imperative to understand is that there is no scanner and scanning combination that will yield only files that need no adjustment.
Every attempt to make the results automatic will result in at least some results that are off. Unless, of course, all of your slides are exactly the same.
Scans are like negatives - you need to expect to have to adjust your approach to them to get what you want from them. What you want is scans that can be adjusted for the results you want.
Are there any film scanners equivalent in price and performance to the Plustek 8200 that use a fluorescent light source?
Yes - my Minolta Scan Dual III and my Plustek 7500i both use a fluorescent light source. Both yield - to me - really satisfactory results with 35mm bw negatives.
With your 8200i, did you get a license for SilverFast Ai software? If yes, please try it to control your scanner. I, too, had frustrations with Vuescan and use Silverfast exclusively now.
Oh brill, thank you. Do you think this makes enough of a difference for it to be worth my swapping my 8200i for a 7500i? I'll be using it for 95% B&W so if fluorescent light sources really are better for this then I will consider doing so.
Kodachrome guy,With your 8200i, did you get a license for SilverFast Ai software? If yes, please try it to control your scanner. I, too, had frustrations with Vuescan and use Silverfast exclusively now.
I tried Vuescan with my Minolta Scan Multi medium format scanner, but just could get it right. But I admit, I likely did not give it enough of a chance. When SilverFast offered a Christmas sale price, I bought a copy. I was already familiar with the Silverfast interface from previous scanners at work. And my Plustek 7600I 35mm scanner came with Silverfast as part of the purchase. It is a clumsy interface, but I know how it works.Kodachrome guy,
Can I assume that you have/are scanning mostly Kodachromes? (Me too).
I haven't started my "big scan project" yet but I'm really torn between Vuescan and Silverfast. Most people seem to prefer Vuescan, and the price is certainly better. What is your reason for preferring Silverfast?
Phil
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?