V600 and B&W Negatives

[Kitch]

I am having zero luck at trying to scan some B&W 35mm negatives with the V600. I first tried the software than came with the scanner and they all look two stops too dark. Then I tried VueScan and little luck there. At first it started looking good as I watched them develop during the scan process but after it made the two passes and went into Calibrate and the final scan, they all looked nearly black.

What am I missing here? I thought for sure VueScan would yield the best results but you get a false sense of security watching the scan and then the entire strip of negatives go nearly black with little detail. There is no choice for selecting Tri-X, just the closest which was TMAX so, that's what I selected and set the B/W Type to .40 as anything greater produced a darker look.

 

[Alan Klein]

Post your scans so we can see what you're talking about.

 

[Kitch]

I got aggravated after spending nearly an hour with two different soft ware programs and deleted them all. The 35mm holders with the V600 is not conductive to giving sharp images either. It seems I need to order the ANR glass inserts to get a more flat negative in the holders.

Yet another problem is my post processing software, Nikon's CNX2 will not open B&W images, .tif or otherwise. They have to be scanned as a color negative before it will open them.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have been scanning b&w negatives mostly 2 1/4 & 4x5 but also some 35mm with an Epson 4870 and Silverfast software for about 12 years using the Epson holders that came with the scanner with no problems and excellent results. I post process with Photoshop 5 and /or On1 perfect Photo Suite. You can scan a b&w negative as color and change it to b&w later if desired although you can keep a b&w image as color since some feel they maintain more tones. I know On1 has a free trial version and I believe Viewscan does and probably Silverfast as well. Check them out and watch some of the tutorials. Obviously, all the images on my website have been scanned since the original capture was on film. I have digital printed to 16x20 and had a couple printed to 30x40. I'm sure you will be able to solve your situation.

HOME

 

[Kitch]

I have the Professional version of Vuescan. That's what I last used attempting to get good quality scanned negatives. I'm missing something somewhere, however. Perhaps it's a matter of the right settings but the software leaves a bit to be desired in the explanation/instruction category.

I know there's a learning curve to any hardware/software program you're not use to but I've had much better luck scanning photos and medium format negatives than with 35mm for whatever the reason.

 

[jeffreyg]

Check for Viewscan tutorials on YouTube I'm sure you can find some that will cover settings etc. On1 has many tutorials for their software. I'm not familiar with Nikon's software which might be geared more to their digital cameras. I have a D300s which I use occasionally but not with their software.

HOME

 

[Kitch]

I use Nikon's software because I too have a D200 and D7000 and shoot in RAW, which CNX2 supports. The one problem with CNX2 is it doesn't seem to recognize B&W and will only open a color image in jpg or .tif.

 

[jeffreyg]

As I understand it CNX2 is photo editing software as is On1 Perfect Photo Suite. I am not familiar with CNX2 but do use On1 PPS which is layer based so you can edit while preserving the original. You can open a 16bit PhotoShop file as well as jpg and tiff. Try uploading your images and to be on the safe side copy and open the copy in the editing software. They have a thirty day free trial so you have nothing to lose. You can edit B&W (gray) images as RGB as many prefer to do.

HOME

 

[lenny]

You buy a consumer-level scanner which is known to be blurry, you use 35mm film, which is not recommended for use on those scanners, and then you complain that its not sharp. In the last thread, you complained that the colors weren't right. Color shifts are easily handled in PhotoShop....

No consumer-level scanner produces a sharp image. All the people who get these to work, and there are many, have a good understanding of sharpening tools and sharpening techniques.

You appear to want what you want. Why would you use Tri-X as a film for scanning? It may be useful as a test, or to convert old film already shot to digital. However, the results you can achieve will be limited. You need more the densely packed grains, that a TMax or Delta can give you (among others).

If you want a good result, you need to use the tools that will get you there. I would start by shooting medium format, at least. You can buy a decent med format camera for very little... Get a used tripod... You will be amazed at what that change will get you....

Best of luck...

 

[Kitch]

First of all, this is my first shot at scanning negatives regardless the size so, give me some slack. I don't expect any scan to be perfect that's why I have software to sharpen, color and contrast correct, etc. I don't expect to have to spend 30 minutes trying to get one negative to look nearly as good as it would have had I dug out my Besler 23CII and go through the hassle of buying fresh chemicals to start my dark room back up again. That's why I bought a scanner. Even though I could afford it I'm not spending several thousand dollars for a discontinued Nikon scanner.

Why use Tri-X for scanning? Because that's what I wanted to scan. I have old Tri-X and Agfapan 400 negatives that have my long gone family on it. There was 35mm long before there was medium format and I did have a 6x7 but not every picture I ever took is on a Pentax medium format. Most were shot with a Leica or Nikon 35mm camera. I know the quality of medium format. I shot weddings and portraits with a 90 and 165 f/2.8 LS lens and VPS film for several years.

 

[StoneNYC]

I suggest you post a few examples, that may help us identify the issue.

Are you using the "auto" setting, or at you "choosing" the framing? Sometimes if you select outside the edge of the image frame (like printing the boarders) the exposure setting gets thrown off, so you need to select slightly inside the edges of the image. Perhaps that will help.

I use the Epsom software for years and have found it more than sufficient personally. Hope that helps.

 

[Kitch]

I use the framing and crop inside just a bit to stay away from the edges of the film to later crop in post processing. For B&W I seem to have better luck with the vendor software. Woith VueScan I have to output as a color negative because Nikon CNX2 will not process or open a B&W negative. When I do that and after the scan and preview it looks red and yellow and I can't tell what's what. I sure can't frame any of the frames as I can't see what they are.

It could be I'm not setting something right but I've tried going back to a B/W setting just to be able to frame each negative but then it all turns white and nothing there. There is obviously a learning curve to VueScan. Today I scanned some more old Agfapan 400 negatives of a Mennonite community about 30+ years back and got some decent results with the Epson software although it took a bit of tweaking with my PP software.

scan0006a by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[pschwart]

First of all, this is my first shot at scanning negatives regardless the size so, give me some slack. I don't expect any scan to be perfect that's why I have software to sharpen, color and contrast correct, etc. I don't expect to have to spend 30 minutes trying to get one negative to look nearly as good as it would have had I dug out my Besler 23CII and go through the hassle of buying fresh chemicals to start my dark room back up again. That's why I bought a scanner. Even though I could afford it I'm not spending several thousand dollars for a discontinued Nikon scanner.

Why use Tri-X for scanning? Because that's what I wanted to scan. I have old Tri-X and Agfapan 400 negatives that have my long gone family on it. There was 35mm long before there was medium format and I did have a 6x7 but not every picture I ever took is on a Pentax medium format. Most were shot with a Leica or Nikon 35mm camera. I know the quality of medium format. I shot weddings and portraits with a 90 and 165 f/2.8 LS lens and VPS film for several years.

Thirty minutes getting a good scan is actually pretty reasonable; with practice you will get more efficient. I think it's a mistake to think of digital processing as a shortcut to achieving quality prints. You can leverage your darkroom skills, but there are lots of new skill to learn. Scanning is an art, and so is postprocessing. Lenny's advice is sound, but quality issues aside, either EpsonScan or Vuescan can produce a scan that looks good on your monitor (which should be calibrated!). Make sure to turn off any auto features to insure the software isn't applying any default curves or clipping either end of the scale. Don't worry about presets for specific films -- generic settings with manual corrections will probably be more appropriate, anyway.

 

[Kitch]

All my prints looked better when I had the wet darkroom up and going. Moreover, it didn't take long to achieve a good looking print. After viewing my contact sheet and picking out the better shots it was a matter of moments from the timer on the enlarger to the final wash and dry. I had gotten pretty good at guessing exposure times but scanning a negative is an entirely different animal.

Scanning is an art, and so is postprocessing

Agreed. I suppose as for scanning I thought it would be easier than it has been.


Sharpness was easy to achieve with a grain magnifier and if the contrast wasn't to my liking I'd change PC filters or go to a different grade of fiber base paper...it was all simple. How do you dodge and burn a digital negative? It was quite easy in the standard darkroom. I suppose scanning is like everything else you know little about-it just takes time. Albeit, there's a lot of aggravation in between. Maybe what I need is a dedicated 35mm scanner as I didn't see to have that many problems with 120.

The monitor is calibrated. I use Syder3 Elite for that purpose and getting ready to upgrade to Spyder5.

 

[Kitch]

This is what I'm seeing when I use VueScan. I have to use color for B&W negatives so they'll open in my PP software. The scan looks good but orange but once the scan completes it looks like this.

 

[Kitch]

OK-I think I found the answer to that problem. After looking over the Input/Output and Color tabs I saw nothing wrong. I decided to open the Image file and then clicked on the "Graph B/W" moved the slider over a little and voila, a dark B&W image emerged and gave me the chance to crop and scan to my software where I made the appropriate changes.

Comparing two like images in both the Epson and VueScan software it was obvious I had better results with the VueScan. Things seems to be moving along a little better. It may behoove me to get that copy of "The VueScan Bible" if I intend on keeping it.

 

[pschwart]

check your setting on the INPUT tab:

INPUT
Mode=Transparency
Media=B/W negative
Bits per pixel=24 or 48 bit RGB

Dodging and burning: The method depends on the image editing software. There are lots of different ways to do this in Photoshop, but it often involves painting white or black on non-destructive layers, often in conjunction with masking. Once you learn to use them effectively, the available controls allow extremely precise control.

 

[Kitch]

That's the way I had Input set up except I had to use Color Neg because my PP software, Capture NX2, won't open a B&W negative and I have to input as color.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You buy a consumer-level scanner which is known to be blurry, you use 35mm film, which is not recommended for use on those scanners, and then you complain that its not sharp. In the last thread, you complained that the colors weren't right. Color shifts are easily handled in PhotoShop....

No consumer-level scanner produces a sharp image. All the people who get these to work, and there are many, have a good understanding of sharpening tools and sharpening techniques.

You appear to want what you want. Why would you use Tri-X as a film for scanning? It may be useful as a test, or to convert old film already shot to digital. However, the results you can achieve will be limited. You need more the densely packed grains, that a TMax or Delta can give you (among others).

If you want a good result, you need to use the tools that will get you there. I would start by shooting medium format, at least. You can buy a decent med format camera for very little... Get a used tripod... You will be amazed at what that change will get you....

Best of luck...

some call scanning film:dinosaur digital for a reason.get a decent digital camera for digital photography and a darkroom for film

 

[Kitch]

There's a lot to be said for digital, although I fought it tooth and nail for years. Instant gratification is the best thing it has going for it and the number one greatest attribute other than the hundreds of photos you can take on one card.

Converting digital color to B&W is not even in the same ballpark as developing the film and photos in your darkroom-no comparison. I find it all more laborious than the darkroom and not near as pleasurable. Like many here I grew up on B&W TV and photos and was probably 35 years old before I had a color TV. My first time to use color film was in 1977 when I got my first Nikon and started out with Kodachrome 64 mostly to teach me about exposure as what you shot was what you got.

One of the main reasons I wanted to get the scanning with B&W down to a science is I have a lot of historical negatives I wanted to archive. I use to work downtown where I live and on lunch break I'd take my camera and walk around town documenting the characters around town as well as the look of what down town use to look like. Moreover, when the 1982 World's Fair was here I shot a lot of B&W and color of the site of construction where it was to be. Where I worked was just two blocks from the site. I have hundreds of negatives and slides both in 35mm and 6x7 of the events of the fair while it was going on during the day and night and then after it was all over I went to the site and documented them tearing it all down.

I printed a lot of B&W and Cibachrome of those events but not near all of them and wanted to have printed much of what I never got around to having copies made. The scanner seemed like the best bet since I disbanded my dark room years ago. A battle is raging to set it back up again in light of the problems I've had learning the ins and outs of scanning.

 

[Kitch]

Here's my attempt at scanning one of the night shots from a Cibachrome print of the World's Fair two evening's before it was all gone. Taken with Pentax 6x7 on Ektachrome 50 Tungsten at a bout 4 sec at f/8.

WorldsFair045a by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[pschwart]

That's the way I had Input set up except I had to use Color Neg because my PP software, Capture NX2, won't open a B&W negative and I have to input as color.

No! That is the error in your setup. You need to correctly set the type to b&w neg, then save the scan as an RGB tif or jpg and all will be well.

The Nikon software may not support grayscale images, but it can't have any problems with a b&w RGB file. Your scanned file will be 3X larger since it retains 3 color channels instead of collapsing them to a single monochrome channel.

 

[Kitch]

You need to correctly set the type to b&w neg, then save the scan as an RGB tif or jpg and all will be well.

I don't see anywhere to be able to Save As an RGB file in the software. Once the scan is complete it is automatically named and saved in the location specified by your Default folder. Once I get to that folder CNX2 can't load the file.

 

[pschwart]

From my earlier post:

Vuescan

INPUT tab
Bits per pixel=24 or 48 bit RGB (NOT 8 or 16 bit Gray)

 

[pschwart]

Also take a look at the Prefs tab where you can set CNX2 as your external editor. This will enable Vuescan to automatically open a new scan in CNX2. The user guide (Help->Users Guide) is pretty basic, but it's still worth reading beginning to end.